Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Marriages for the modern world

By Valerie Yule - posted Wednesday, 16 July 2008


A fourth reason for marriage, to secure patriarchal properties, has no scriptural backing.

However, huge numbers of marriages do not work out as intended. Many people do not even start out with expectations of life-long loyalty and, unaware of its advantages, may marry for sexual attraction alone.

Pornography is now setting unreasonable norms for sexual behaviour, with imaginations of youthful bodily perfection and satyr-like prowess that are likely to handicap permanent sexual relationships. Even bridal magazines reiterate that greatest sexual pleasure comes from continual variety and intensities of stimulation, rather than from the consummation of love, for which fun and games are just the sauce.

Advertisement

An Australian Muslim advocate of polygamy gives “mutual amorousness” as the justification for having several wives. “Amorous” is different from the close intimacy and loyalty between two people maintained by love, whether hetero- or same-sex. Long-term committed loyalties are also different from partnerships that are multiple or transient.

The pressures against ideals of marriage are immense. Ignorance of “how” is one of them. The emotional and economic costs of breakdowns of marriages and de facto relationships are immense, with suffering and cruelty for the children. Even a dalliance has its emotional as well as physical hazards.

Can anything be done to prevent the legal and social messes we can get our relationships into?

Margaret Mead and others have suggested two legal levels for marriage. Marriage A, without children, can be dissolved at any time by mutual consent, aided by optional counselling. Marriage B, to follow if children are planned or have arrived, is more solemnly celebrated, has more legal bonds, and could require pre-nuptial counselling or relevant training or experience before parenthood, and assurance of a social network of support, of relations, friends or neighbourhood.

Apart from children brought up in institutions or on the streets, single parenting is usually the most difficult for both parent and child, and is mostly likely to have the worst outcomes for the child, although an amazing number of brave battling women or men manage brilliantly.

Statistically, single mothers are more likely to be at the bottom of the income scale, face more difficulties when they are sick, more problems with the work burden if they are employed, are more likely to be unemployed, and have more problems with their children as teenagers. Yet there are considerable pressures on young teenage girls to become pregnant. These pressures need to be recognised and countered, especially when they come from the media, including magazines for girls.

Advertisement

It is hard for the state to withhold financial support from teenage mothers in their need, but a valuable preventive message could be knowing that higher benefits would be paid to the first two children in a legally recognised permanent relationship.

As we become more aware of the global population problem and reproduction becomes limited to one each, two per family, the question of the role of the state becomes more critical. How much can or should families be “married to the state” financially?

Is society stronger when human beings can have long-term intimacy as a stable emotional base and as a haven against the storms outside?

Can different personalities be better matched to forms of relationship that are most adapted to their needs and to their positive functioning in society?

I think ideals can still be often achieved, but there is a good deal that needs to be changed in how we are brought up, and what are the ideals and satisfactions that we are taught and that we learn.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Valerie Yule is a writer and researcher on imagination, literacy and social issues.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Valerie Yule

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Valerie Yule
Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy