We’ve provided a zeitgeist that teaches us to call indecision freedom, to value entertainment and acquisition more than accomplishment, and to feel entitled to sexual pleasure. (Our ancestors warned that even food had to be earned; such a belief in sexual entitlements would have proved your madness.)
Does this contribute to an attitude to marriage that is hard to distinguish from cowardice?
True, our legal framework undercuts long-term commitments, and makes marriage a much riskier proposition, especially for men. And we’ve all read complaints about the "Peter Pans." But for slaves marriages were not officially recognized and could be broken at a master’s whim; but they still tried to marry. The right to bind themselves was a freedom
(*) Not sure who, and I can’t swear that the quote is exact...
2 comments:
The right to bind themselves was a freedom. Well said.
Economic necessity is often cited. We are prosperous enough to maintain separate households, so we do. Government support contributes to that. A very mixed blessing.
Let me offer another contributing factor: a bad marriage is easier to endure in a more sexually segregated society. Men hung out with men, and if the marriage was bad, well, that was too bad but not a complete isolator. Jobs were often bad, medical care poor, and life's unfairness did not surprise us much. Women had their own networks and complained about husbands, sometimes justly.
Consider then, the sexual happiness question in that world of 100 years ago. Were it mentioned at all, the couple who had been married a few decades and had children and had an exciting sex life would be seen as unusual, and unusually lucky. What we can tell from diaries and doctors is that most people hoped for a little comfort from each other as best as could be managed, and that was life. Passion was for driving youngsters and newlyweds, and otherwise was seen as a danger.
I knew of old guys in the neighborhood who had garages or sheds or camps that they had gradually fixed up and nearly moved into. A place to get away, with a cot, a little woodstove - a place to smoke and drink and play cards. It was noticed, and people thought it was too bad and had their own opinions whether that was his fault or hers, but it wasn't shameful, just unfortunate.
The mixing of the sexes has likely been a great overall good. Yet it has had its costs.
That's a good point. I may be too much of "the cat who walks by himself" to judge accurately, but it seems as though many of those old same-sex networks are weaker or absent, and the mixed-sex ones don't have the same dynamics.(*) And marriage winds up freighted with more expectations for companionship that might have been met in different relationships.
(*) It seems as though most men seem to go on display to some degree when a woman enters the circle. Posture, voice...
I remember a Flip Wilson sketch in which he pretended to alternately talk to another man and a woman; the first angry and fast and high-pitched, and the second slow and low and slightly condescending. I'd heard both styles and thought he nailed it.
Post a Comment