wootyhead's comments

'Walking' Marriages

19 Apr 2007 10:40 PM

I'm always happy to learn about alternatives to our tradition of marriage as a lifelong union, for comparison's sake...

Their concept of the relationships between man and woman seems so much more realistic than ours, in many ways; but of course, that may simply be because I'm still relatively uninformed and thus imposing our own cultural norms on the Mosuo, that may not even be factors in terms of what actually matters to them. Ignorance aside, however, my own belief is that it's not even within the capacity of human nature to be solely bound to the same individual for the entirety of one's life in the way we like to imagine in America. Our expecations seem to have been too deeply influenced by fantastic tales of true love and romance in books, films, and other works of fiction. (All the grown-ups around me tell me that this belief is fine for now because I'm young and a few more years of life will convince me otherwise. We'll see.)

The blurb also raises a number of questions, though. For instance, how did this form of marriage arise among these particular people? What about their culture and their lifestyle made this the most conducive marital form in the midst of the prevalent others, nothing at all like it? What forms had preceded it and why did this one emerge and evolve?

I'm also curious about how commonly women do find themselevs attached enough to commit to the same man forever... Often? Typically? Never? Do they wish they could live with the men of their choosings whether than with their own blood relatives? How do they men feel? Do they occasionally lash out in attempt to pursue a woman for themselves rather than be stuck with only the women who come to him? Do the Mosuo only mate this way for reproductive purposes, or also for pleasure? How prominent is homosexuality?

I also wonder whether the Mosuo feel there's anything "missing" from their relationships, in the absence of our own standards of courtship... The answers to that particular question could speak to how much of a necessity our standards actually are in terms of human nature versus to what extent our own culture just wedged them in for some other reason. I'm willing to believe we force ourselves into grand attempts at monogamy for a good reason--I just need to see that reason at its root for myself, to even begin to fully understand it.

Thanks for introducing such an interesting alternative--I definitely want to learn more about the Mosuo and their "walking marriages." I find it interesting, too, that they still refer to them as marriages, considering that my understanding of "marriage" by definition is that it necessarily indicates some form of lasting committment... So I also wonder what about these unions warrant that designation as "marriage"...

Religious Marriage versus Civil Marriage

15 Apr 2007 06:35 PM

You point out an important idea that ties in to my own demand that the government be consistent if it insists upon having a say in marriage.... You're right, the many defenses for the illegalization of certain unions is inherently hypocritical. As you said:

Moral does not necessarily mean legal and immoral does not necessarily mean illegal.

And the government's own actions back that claim. If it is going to ban some practices under the guise that they're immoral, then it can't allow legalization of other matters considered immoral by the same (religious) system. Clearly, they have a ulterior agenda (i.e. a prejudice), or something to hide when alcohol is fine... premarital sex isnt unlawful... gambling is condoned in scattered areas of the U.S.--but same sex marriages are unlawful--because it's immoral...? There has to be more to it than that.

Another underlying issue with the government's line of reasoning: usage of the Bible's morality in application for the country is unacceptable in the context of an alleged promise often referred to as "separation of Church and State." If homosexuality is immoral, then the government leaders will need to reference a basis stronger than personal prejudice and aside from religion upon which they've drawn that conclusion. Often, in this instance, an individual may revert to claims of tradition. But rather than subject you to my own tangent against such claims, I'll direct you to Stephanie Coontz, who explains it best. Besides, as you state immoralism is not the pre-requisite for something considered unlawful either, such as speeding, which, to me, is another indication that the claim, that homosexual relationships are immoral, is a mask for ulterior motive the government has for exluding same sex unions from legal recognition.

Even when you point out the difference between divine law and civil law, divine law commits the same inconsistencies--acknowledging marriage of fornicators, no questions asked and acknowledging divorce, etc. Neither of them should actually involved themselves in validating a marriage in the first place because at its root, marriage is a union determined by the two people involved. But if the Church and the Government insist on being involved, again, I ache for consistency in their alleged motivations and the reality of their actions.

Should the Government Have a Say in Marriage?

15 Apr 2007 05:30 PM

Let's not forget that the tenth amendment also states as an option that powers not delegated to the federal government could be delegated "to the people." The respective states are not the only other option for that responsibility, and the government should either have no place in marriages, or--if it insists upon carving out a place for itself--it should at least establish a consistent one.

Sure, "The government recognized marriage as an important part of civilized society," but let's consider why: I've heard and read claims that the institution gained such recognition due to the alleged association it has with longer, healthier lives for all those involved. But most importantly, it seems to have gained that status due to the stable environment it allegedly provides for families, especially those with children, who apparently grow up healthier and happier and more psychologically stable than those of unmarried parents. But if the pubic policy's concern is to create environments more conducive to healthy childrearing, then benefits should apply to alternative sects as well, because other types of families do raise children, and at a rate that is rapidly emerging as the norm. Favoring an ideal circumstance through public policy is not going to eliminate the growing reality of those alternatives. The government should instead enforce policies to actually cater to any family with children present.

The use of these privileges to benefit only unions between man and woman perpetuates a prejudice that seems inherent in our government's agenda. If childrearing is their genuine concern, they would adapt the allowances to include all thsoe who contribute to that cause of raising healthy children.

Until the government is ready to consider all family-inducing unions equal, they should stay out of the business altogether. It confuses the meaning of marriage to attach governmental benefits to it--marriage was never meant to be a government sactioned institution, but one to serve the varying needs and preferences of the couples and families involved. If the government is not going to "protect" everyone to whom that all-inclusive description applies, it should bow out, protect no one, and leave such institutions as marriage "to the people" engaged in them.

The History and Superstition of Marriage

19 Feb 2007 02:52 AM

There's really something to be said for the "hand fast" tradition:

"This marriage lasted a year and a day, after which time the couple could 're-up' together forever, or leave the relationship, taking everything that each one had brought into it."

Whenever did we lose that part of the process? It seems incredibly valuable, and certainly seems to make the whole prospect of eternal union a bit less daunting, with the inclusion of an understood trial period. I wonder who decided to eliminate that aspect of the tradition, and when... and why. That kind of trial aspect seems so necessary and reasonable and realistic and... smart. Such a granted period would probably be greatly beneficial to the dwindling state of the institution today. Perhaps cohabitation has replaced that trial period as the more modern version of the hand fast's first year?

Also interesting is that origin of the wedding cake you note:

"...Bring Your Own Biscuits. The biscuits were then piled high and the higher the stack, the more wealthy and happy the couple would be. After the couple kissed over the top of the hill of cakes, the pieces were handed out among the poor."

There's a certan tragedy to the evolution and updating of these traditions that I'm noticing, because they lose their meaning the more removed they become from their origins. It's like reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance": we do it at moments deemed and understood as appropriate, facing the flag with our right hands over our hearts as we "should." But typically, there's little to no meaning in the words when we say them anymore--it's recitation simply because it's what we've been told we should do, and not necessarily because we understand, care, believe, or even register the words we speak.

It's the same with these traditions--the wedding cake emerged with such a specific and profound, heartfelt purpose but that purpose goes unnoted today in the quest for the prettiest, most grandiose x-tiered wedding cake that no reception is complete without. The actions are repeated without so much as acknowledgement of their original meaning--recitation with no regard, just as with The Pledge.

It all ties in very well to the lost idea and understanding of the institution of marriage itself in our society. The disregard and lack of understanding seems to carry over--again, the motions are repeated without sincere understanding of what they're all about, how it all began, and what it really means and requires. We've seen it and want it--that everlasting union that marriage supposedly represents--but now with no sincere understanding of it, and thus inadequate knowledge to understand how to handle or maintain it anymore, as we've lost touch with the roots of the institution.