At 29 I am uncharacteristically ancient for an Edger writer.
I have done a few things the average college student has not done yet, but is likely to do in the future. One of these things is marry and divorce.
That’s right, the average college student is likely to divorce. The likelihood of divorce, in the United States at least, seems to hover around 50%. This makes every marriage somewhat like a coin toss.
According to evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss there are universal gender differences between what seems to attract men to women, and women to men. Men tend to prefer women who are youthful looking, and place emphasis on appearance. Women, in contrast, will place the emphasis on a man’s resources or potential for resources. These controversial gender differences have been identified by Buss and his collaborators in countless cultures.
Furthermore, the data imply that men are far more sexually demanding than women. To clarify this means that men want sex more often and with more partners.
This seems to imply that women and men are driven towards each other for completely different reasons individually, and for no other reason universally other than to reproduce.
If these impulses are programmed into us by evolution, and with built-in conflicts of interests, why get married?
My own philosophical musings lead me to ponder that men and women are both humans only transiently on this mortal coil with no greater purpose to be had yet with tremendous drive to reproduce given to us by nature.
If this is true why get married?
An answer often given is “because we are in love.”
Falling in love is advertised throughout western culture, but what is it to fall in love?
I have heard “falling in love” described as though it where some transcendental force which possesses two people and pulls on them as if they had puppet strings to do heroic things.
What hogwash!
The whole concept of romantic love has also been largely shaped in the west by Christianity. Different sects have different approaches, but in my own Charismatic background we were all encouraged to “get a word from God” in a delusional vision quest to find our wives. The doctrine was that everybody’s amorous consort had been predestined by God and was a perfect fit.
This seems to have some parallel with the belief of the ancient Greeks who thought that humans had once existed as a pair per organism, and we were all searching for that ancient part of ourself in each other.
These ideas may be beautiful, but they seem to be little more than stories. The only destiny we have is the mindless determinism of nature, and that which we make for ourselves.
Neurochemically amorous love seems to consist of oxytocin for bonding, dopamine for the high feeling of having the other person around, and testosterone (for both males and females) gives us our sexual desire for one another.
At first glance the findings of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology may seem bleak compared to the romantic notions of the Hellenists and Charismatic Christians. Yet, if one accepts that our dilemma is that we are here without greater meaning and that our feelings are born from the chaos of nature for no other reason than reproduction, then one can take a more realistic approach to amorous love.
My own conclusions are that to exaggerate the power and importance of romantic love is nothing less than what Paul Kurtz called “the transcendental temptation.” Far better is it to make one’s own meaning based on what works, what doesn’t, and one’s own philosophical inquiry.
I enjoyed marriage, and can see how if it could be made to last it would be a worthy endeavour.
I also hold the rather traditional view that the best thing for marriage is amorous love.
Where I break with popular thought is my definition of amorous love. I believe that amorous love is two things in combination, each one able to exist without the other. The first is friendship, real friendship, Aristotelian friendship where you consider the other person’s interests more highly than your own. The second is sexual attraction.
And that’s it: friendship and fracking
There is no concept associated with amorous love that I can not find to be a worthy trait of a good and strong friendship, save sexual yearnings and indulgence.
Fracking stands on its own two feet just fine, as many who have no feelings of friendship for each other have found it in their hearts to assist their fellow humans in the eternal quest for orgasm.
However, I am not saying that one cannot frack one’s friends. In contrast, what I am saying is that a good marriage is when you frack the same friend for a lifetime.
So say we all.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Rodrigo Neely
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
A bold break with traditional thought if any. If I may offer my own knowledge, I would argue that yes, there exist almost exclusive life long partnerships between males and females. But not in humans. The closest related animal species I can think of among the higher primates to practice lifelong monogamy are the gibbons and siamangs, the “lesser apes.” In the higher echelons on the primate order, various forms of polygamy are the norm. This includes human beings, for whom marriage in the modern, western sense is almost certainly a cultural imposition at odds with our inherited biological inclinations toward promiscuity. Birds, too, exhibit high degrees of monogamy, but let’s keep this closer to home in the primate order. Among lower primates, the prosimii, monogamy can also be found in certain species, but monogamy in prosimii, birds and lesser apes is hardly set in stone. Particularly male birds, gibbons, and prosimians will cheat if given the chance. So really, what we have are instances of heavily pronounced or heavily reduced promiscuity, depending, as so many other factors of social life do, on environmental and dietary conditions. In terms of reduced sexual dimorphism, which tends to correlate with reduced promiscuity in primates, gibbons actually outrank humans. The human being is, by nature, promiscuous. Marriage is a social invention. It is a social technology. And like any technology, we as individuals are free to take it or leave it.
My wife & I (both atheists) have been married for 16 years now, and I think we would both generally agree with this assessment. We are best friends with life-long benefits. The one thing I might add as a benefit of marriage is children (assuming you are so inclined to have them). Obviously marriage isn’t required here, but some sort of stable relationship is mutually beneficial to both the kid and the parents. At the risk of sounding all soft and lovey here, the experience of raising kids by far transcends any other experience of pride, love, or joy that I think anyone can experience.
That’s why I despise eHarmony.com commercials. They are totally packaging and branding marriage as defined by Christianity. I am actually, in my heart of hearts, against marriage in general. I think it is important for gays to have equal rights (I am gay myself) so I support gays who are trying to get equal marriage rights, but I don’t think anyone should get married. I think one of the main reasons marriages fail is because of marriage itself. Marriage has a unrealistic expectations. I’ve seen marriage ruin love and lives.
On a side note: A good friend of mine said he was against gay marriage and all marriage in general and would prefer domestic partnerships (it’s a completely secular and wonderful alternative), and I agree. Three months later he ends up getting married. What happened to registering as domestic partners! It’s a perfect example of how people who want to be politically correct yet still disenfranchise gays. Pretty gross. How hypocritical, eh?
For some odd reason, I heard the opening theme for Battlestar Galactica right after I finished reading this.
Odd.
Onto my actual post.
I am a gay that is against marriage, as it is a constraint of religion. I think all marriage should be abolished as a state-sanctioned action, and that if you wish to “tie the knot”, you go to your courthouse and get a civil union. Then, if you and/or your partner are religious and the religion dictates a ceremony in order to be sanctified in the eyes of your religion, then have it. Churches, then, reserve the right to discriminate and deny anyone a ceremony for any purpose, yet this does not deny this couple from legal rights. Everyone is on the same playing field.
So, all this said, your post does work for gay and straight. Most gay men do not feel attracted to women, yet they do feel the need to extend their genetic legacy by one generation; I do, for example. So, my friend agreed to be my surrogate; while I will not have sex with her, I will ensure that my babymaking stuff (never had sex ed) and her babymaking stuff (ew… girls) work together, and in nine months a baby is done baking.
If that does not work, I will probably adopt. If my genes can not pass on, then my ideas can. I think both are very powerful, yeah ? Anyhow, those are my two cents.
Agreed! I’m thinking about the whole legacy thing lately….
Actually, if you are looking for the origin of the modern mess that is marriage, its not really the Christians who are to blame, at least no the church. The church’s view on marriage has generally focused on reproduction, and love is reserved for god. Modern ‘romantic love’ in marriage can be traced back the ‘courtly love’ tradition, which is not religious in origin but more secular.
The real problem with marriage today is the fusion of religious marriage with the courtly love tradition. The idea that people should actually marry the people they ‘fall in love with’ is very modern, last hundred years of so. The Ancients viewed falling in love as a sickness, and that view carried over for a very long time. Courtly love had nothing much to do with marriage, it existed almost by definition, outside of marriage. Men who could afford them had mistresses. Marriage was about the transfer of property from one man to another, and yes, that included women.
In modern times these two ideas have come together, mainly I think, because of our consumer society, where selling dreams is what some people make a living doing. And yeah, its completely artificial and doesn’t take into account our natural inclinations.
I tend to agree though that any kind of solution to the problem is to separate the two again. As stated above state recognition of marriage is a bad thing in general. If people want to have some sort of long term contractual union as a foundation for having children, or even just living together, it should be a simple contract. Forcing people to see it that way would give them a better understanding of what is involved. Let the churches have their ‘marriage’ and let the state have contracts. And yes, this puts me somewhat at odds with the whole gay marriage thing.
In Canada, where gay marriage is legal, this separating would also eliminated years of legal battles which centered not on the legal benefits of being married, that was already settled, but simply on the use of the word ‘marriage’.
And although I sympathize with gays who want to be treated equally under the law, arguing definitions is stupid, regardless of who you are fraking. And yes, Frak is a four letter word, Rodrigo, you are so old school. So say we all.
You’ve over-estimated the likelihood of a marriage ending in divorce. The 50% figure comes from looking at the number of marriages vs the number of divorces in a given year, but that is a useless calculation. Only about 41% of marriages actually end in divorce. And even that figure is somewhat misleading, as the divorce rate for second and third marriages is much higher than for a first marriage.
Same here. What do you think is a better concept: adoption or in vitro ?
In thinking about legacy, I think the most important thing is giving my child the most objective perspective on life, preparing them for adulthood and hoping that they’ve taken something away from my rearing.
Adoption or In vitro are just ways to a means in my opinion.
Ah, so you are not looking for a genetic legacy then, but more a memetic self-propagation of ideas. I am not going to lie, I like my cartoons, and I recently watched a movie called “Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex- Solid State Society”, where many elderly people conspire to capture younger children, give them cybernetic implants, erase their memory, and erase their prior existence and write them as their children so that they would be able to pass on a legacy; of thoughts, ideas, possessions, money, etc…
I just thought it was an interesting thought. Anyhow, I agree with what you are looking for. My genetic code is not as important as what I think; at least such is the case in my eyes.
ha nice! Thanks for that, I completely agree on our society being a consumer/advertiser influenced society. We are fed ideas and culture by the people who have the power and resources to do so (advertisers and media, and I’m not saying the media is bad, I just hope that people can turn it off in their heads). I try to dance to the beat of my own drum. I hate the idea of being a product of my culture, but it seems inevitable at some points.
So say we all. Your friends are with you on this and through everything, Rodrigo.
so say we all
So say we all.
Ungullible, you make an excellent point.
Raising children is better in pairs, it would seem to me. It may also be better for the children.
I can see that its important to change a name for a thing, for example compare african-american vs. negro
But it seems to me domestic partnerships may be what I’m thinking when I say marriage.
I think most married people would agree with my assessment.
I apologize for not accounting for the gay experience. You are right in this critique.
However, social psychology on gay-marriage does seem to show that the same kinds of problems exist among gay married couples as they do among heterosexual couples.
I should have made mention of this, and for that I apologize.
I think that “civil union” and “domestic partnership” are synonyms for “marriage.” I think this is probably a common equivalence made by people, except for those who are active in this issue. Who either fight for gay marriage, or act to abolish marriage (like Emma Goldman did).
The funny thing is that I agree with your assessment about marriage, but there is something about it that makes me want it.
I liked having someone on my side, living in my house, making love, waking up together, it was wonderful.
I want to do it again.
Of course, I have a very loose definition for marriage. A long term “boyfriend-boyfriend, boyfriend-girlfriend, etc.” couple who live together fit my definition of marriage.
I should probably write about that.
This blog shows me how out in left field I am.
Thanks for the spelling correction on “frak”
Thanks Eric.
I am very glad to hear that.
Thanks to you, Tyler, and Barry. It means a lot to me.
Emma Goldman considered marriage the last traditional obstacle to church-state separation for exactly the reasons that have been discussed here, by the way.
So say we all.
[...] few days ago, an article on secular marriage was posted, and from it came the following quote: I enjoyed marriage, and can see how if it could [...]
FWIW, I’m 52 and have been happily married for 30 years (or will have been at the end of this month).
My wife and I have been lucky, but it’s the kind of luck you make, not the kind that falls on you. When we got married, it was with the understanding that we were married for life. We work out our problems. We each try to understand the other’s point of view. Quitting is not an option. IMHO, it’s the “Well, you can always get a divorce” attitude that is the problem.
Blaming Xians or blaming atheists doesn’t make any sense. Blaming people getting married too young doesn’t make sense to me. (do the math– I was 22 when we got married) I doubt that the changing role of marriage in society makes much difference.
My wife and I fell in love out of a set of common values that transcend our differences. I am an atheist and she is not. I HATE country so-called music, she listens to little else. She watches wedding shows, cooking shows, and makeover shows and I watch Battlestar Galactica, history, and science programming.
If I lost her, I don’t think I would ever get married again. What’s the point? I’m not having any more kids, and I doubt I’d get that lucky twice.
I hope to be able to eventually find what you have found.