NP Rank:
What is this thing called marriage?
What is this thing called marriage?
“Beliefs are chains used to
enslave free minds. No chains of steel ever bound a mind tighter than chains
made of beliefs. While a man may willfully struggle against chains of steel
which he can see and feel, few can see or realize the need to struggle against
chains made of their beliefs, and many a slave was kept a slave by the belief
they were somehow free.”
It was Victoria Revay’s highlighted post that set off these
reflections. I should say provoked because in marriage, the male partner has
become severely diminished. He is diminished by the Church, the State and that
very community to which he proclaims himself king. Women and those laws that
secure them in marriage have been known to bring down kings and presidents. The
very basis for a man/woman relationship disables him; a thing called ‘love’
that is ever elusive and so completely partial to womanhood. Even the
expression ‘she’s the weaker sex’ is designed to empty her male partner of
self-worth and composure. It’s quite like saying you can play Hercules but
leave the serious thinking to me. Why do men have to be anything less than who
they are in the presence of a lady? Sweetheart, will you marry me? Well, get on
your knees and beg like every other man does! A proposition, an offer and a
response that belittles my affection for her even in jest.
This man/woman thing has become such a fetish and
marriage clearly some factory. Most times we find ourselves thinking like
business men minding some corporate account. I hope I can make enough money to
keep her happy and make her stay. I hope she won’t give me a bunch of kids to
crawl all over the peace and quiet of my home and empty my pockets.. You get
home and there’s a big grin and a warm hug, you start to worry, you know
something is not right here. You don’t really know how but you do, then she
tells you (still wearing that seductive grin) “Laura got a new car today. David
is such a prince!” David would be your next door neighbor. Uh! There’s that
headache again. Look at how she’s throwing away my money already, I’ll be
damned if I get her that new car! She’s pregnant again!? I’m never going to let
her know I have some money. Sh#t! She’s taken over my damned home; where are my
f#@king stockings?!! This migraine is killing me. God! I need a drink! My
friend would always say “Women are not emancipating they are taking over.” But
why that curve, what’s the competition? Taking over what? Then he says stuff
like they’ve got our cash in the bank, they’ve got our homes, the cars,
jewelries … you know, like they stole the stuff in the first place. And I tell him;
no, they don’t, you gave it to them! Clearly, the ownership issue is most overwhelming
here and marriage a most expensive venture almost always from the man’s
perspective.
Just sit next to any two guys at a pub or buy the
lost looking man a drink and then listen to his woes; it’s spelt w-o-m-a-n. And
it cuts both ways, ditto the woman; her problems are spelt m-a-n! But when and
how did it get like this? It has become like electricity on the boil; so much
hurt and dead chemistry, stress. Why are ladies such a trophy? Why do they get
all the attention (the flowers, diamond rings, cars and even homes)? Why is it the more ‘love’ you show some woman
the sooner she goes off whining to her friends that you’re never home? Why do
they consider every show of affection in marriage a bribe intended to shield
some soon to be discovered ‘misconduct’? Why is marriage such a business
transaction? Why do people feel this incredible urge to compel and regulate
that union? And what are all the ceremonies that surround marriage about? It’s all
so extensive and tedious! Why does the modern man still thrive on the
formalities and superstitions of an unenlightened age and subject my present
being to the laws of an uncultured era which ran amok centuries ago; a time
when men bought women off the shelf, kept them like any other household
possession and beheaded them for adultery. Why must marriage make some woman my
possession or Ego her prisoner? Why can’t we both just walk away from a bad
union the same way we came into that relationship? Why has it all of a sudden
become everybody’s business what we get up to as two consenting adults?
What is this thing called marriage? What defines it?
Is it the consummation of an affair in church or the act of wrapping some
blink-blink and expensive metal around the finger? Does it endure by legal fiat
or for fear of the punishment that follows? What is the State’s or Church’s
business in a relationship between two consenting adults whereas a crime has
not been committed or indulged in? Why should the Church’s role exceed the
customary role of offering its blessings to the consummation of a union? Today,
I’m being told how many kids I can have, how many wives I can marry or can
marry me and how many affairs two consenting adults can possibly have, and who
with, in and outside marriage.
Sex between two consenting adults is purely a natural
function, like eating or sleeping! It is a vital input in the determination and
desire for a permanent union, in addition of course, to other intrinsic and
external factors. There is an animal instinct, natural and inherent in all humans,
to explore and sex is that plant which buds fondness and ‘love’ to bond into
some form of relationship. The folly in regulating the ensuing union is that,
by its very intensity, it is more a thing of the heart than the head. In such a
situation, regulatory laws can only be an entrapment. You simply can’t get
punished for playing a little harder than others! When it does become a thing
of the head, the glow is diminished with the passion and ‘love’ in it, the very
intensity that drives and sustains it, gets buried as calculated and measured
responses take over. Those creative instincts which flavor a natural
relationship get encumbered. The fire dies for the cat and mouse game to begin.
How is it that the State doesn’t tell me who to marry but determines when a
partner can leave or who he/she can be with during marriage? Promiscuity ought
to be the proof-finale of a failed marriage and not grounds for getting out of
it with the richer partner’s take. It should be the act to trigger a no-fault
separation and the very conduct that shows I’ve walked!
What laws do is to conceal those natural reflexes that
show and tell to help in that decision to commit and continue or not, in the
said relationship. It takes away one’s observation post as partners are subdued
and compelled under the threat of punishment to fake good behavior. It leads to
diabolical contrivances, murder and suicide, for both parties. In truth, it’s
the incentive that brings about the desire to profit from an ill-considered
indulgence, that is what marriage is, in its entire nakedness, the indulgence
of both parties in another.
Yes, we may bring issues of child support and custody
before the courts but only as far as it leads to the equitable dispensation of
that matter for the child. Not as grounds that try to evidence and fault my
role in that relationship. It should extend only to the conveniences that best
serve the child and considerations which provide a better home for that child.
Why should promiscuity be held against me whereas it’s the pull of my natural
instincts that drives me away from a foolish union? The consideration ought to
be who is best suited to provide a better home for the child given their resources,
safety and well-being of that said child. Marriage is the illusion of a perfect
union and partners; a fairy tale. To persist in it, without comfort, is
illusionary but true joy comes, married or not, from that fusion of comfort and
affection; the warmth in being together, true love. The man and woman that
find it have found an uncommon thing and shall know no greater joy but the
presence of God.
Crowd Power
-
egoigwe
Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria





Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (14)
at 15:46 on May 18th, 2007
It's a dieing custom, as with anything Government involves it's self in. It's tough enough between a man and woman but ad Government as a ->
at 15:05 on May 19th, 2007
Menage a trois ... definitely one for my books. It would have been dead a long time ago but for those institutions (government, businesses and the Church) that have a serious vested interest in its continuity and these range from profit to control of the individual and family.
Ego
at 05:46 on May 20th, 2007
Business promotes - making money(fleesing the Mark), not marriage, 50% of marriages end in divorce, religion promotes it's own continuation through the values of marriage. Government promotes laws to control every aspect of people's lives which makes it diffacult to serve the many masters.... Serving God, Government and the all mighty dollar is tough enough but ad a bitching wife to that and you got trouble. Or serving the Dollar,the wife,God, in that order - is tough but shovel some more Government onto the pile of bull, and guess what.
The more Government is on our backs the fewer people that will be willing to have more than one ring through their nose, but that's just the way I see it. And I see a lot of it in my large family.
at 06:52 on May 20th, 2007
But of course businesses promote marriage and vice-versa! What was the value of the last ring Richard Burton bought for Elizabeth Taylor? And Michael Jackson for Lisa-Marie and on and on. What was the value of the tira Lady Di wore on her wedding day? How much did Ari Onasis spend wooing Jackie into marriage? What would you think is the cumulative value of all gold, platinum, silver and diamond studded rings, past and present, wrapped around fingers globally today? Throw in the wedding gowns and accessories and tell me the figure you reach. What was the value of that Lady Di's famous wedding gown again? Let's not even discuss the champagne and hotel bills, the limos etc. Now tell me, how much do you reckon these ventures spend on adverts that extol the virtues of marriage? It's one hell of an industrial complex, this thing called marriage!
Ego
at 07:33 on May 19th, 2007
egoigwe, this is good writing. So many of my friends are going through this now: newlyweds redefining their relationships. I think my brother and his new bride did it best: "Well, our relationship is the same as it was before the wedding, but we had a great party and now there's a framed piece of paper hanging on the wall."
Marriage, as an institution, turns pairs of people into tiny corporations (unlimited liability companies?), and not everyone thrives like that. Marriage, as a concept, is very different: everlasting love and commitment, not always taking into account how life changes us.
Thanks for posting this-- I'm anxious to see what other readers think.
at 09:12 on May 19th, 2007
Thank you J. I think the greatest challenge in marriage is the ability to grow togehter instead of apart. Giving up a part of your real self to ensure compartibility ... but one thing is sure, you are rarely the same person after marriage ... for better or for worse.
Ego
at 08:35 on May 19th, 2007
First "marriage" was traditional - Tux, dress, cake, church. Ended in a traditional divorce.
Second kick at the can - just the mutal agreement that we want to be together. Has lasted longer than the first and we're still happy.
On the other hand,
My current in-laws were married 60+ years until her death last year. They were devoted to each other.
Different strokes I suppose.
at 12:53 on May 19th, 2007
You can say that again ... and that's exactly what religion and marriage have in common; different folks-different strokes.
Ego
at 12:00 on May 19th, 2007
Hmmm... Marriage - sweet sour grape yet inevitable. I am yet to enroll my name in its register ... lol
Thanks Ego, my broda for this piece
at 13:58 on May 19th, 2007
I think the secret is to find someone you can hang wall paper with. If you can get through that, you can get through anything. ;)
at 13:34 on May 19th, 2007
Yes Sir! Wallpapers and honey glue ... I'll have a drink on that any day!
Ego
at 14:10 on May 19th, 2007
A necessary evil, I believe, is the somewhat sexist label. Don't stay on the queue too long now, Eddy ... make some lady happy!
Ego
at 21:18 on May 19th, 2007
Ego, I wonder if you are talking out of experience. Personally I don't suscribe to the general idea that marriage is the prime....."well if I decide not to get married then it's my descision and that's that" (Not without serious battle anyway, especially here in Africa).
I hear they call it (marriage) and institution where those IN are eager to get OUT and those OUT want to see what's IN......little wonder then a friend of mine prefers to watch his wedding video in REVERSE. Says he prefers the part where he REMOVES....ops!..."GIVES" her the ring.
Nice post, really.
at 04:30 on May 20th, 2007
Don't I know that feeling! In Africa, you'll probably be called queer or unstable for daring to voice such an opinion ... but things change, don't they? Actually, I'd rather it was called manage instead of marriage.
Ego