The Problem With Marriage....

is feminism. There. It's been said. And what a relief!

Wait, let me back-track a moment here: we, as a society, are all aware that marriage has been a crumbling institution for the past fifty or sixty years. We search for the clues as to why and how to fix the problem (or whether there's a problem at all) but all we see are the statistics: 50% divorce rates, fewer marriages and a lot more cohabitation. The statistics also show a likelihood that cohabiting couples are more likely to call it quits. This, normally, wouldn't be so big a deal-- if you didn't add children to the stew.

And the problem is pretty simple: feminism. Feminism destroyed marriage.

And that's a good thing.



If we go back to the very first concepts of marriage, before those heady days with the idea of "romantic love" was first conceived, marriage was little more than a living, breathing, eternally binding contract. You trade a daughter for a bunch of gold and a financial stake in an up and coming corporation-- In-Laws inc.

Later, you cemented alliances with feudal lords, passed a princess and a few peasants, be sure she gets knocked up and BOOM-- you needn't fight that messy war.

Times changed but it wasn't until postWW2 that the nature of marriage shifted-- until women went to work, marriage was a way to financially secure your daughters, hopefully to someone they could tolerate. It wasn't like women could own a property in all places, or were respected if they did. Thus, the safety of marital bless-- with it's attendant abuses and servitudes (of course, it wasn't all bad-- after all, marriage tends to take the fight out of a man).

Then a funny thing happened. Women started wanting, like, rights and stuff. And jobs. And equality.

And when they happened, they realized they didn't need to be married. So when they got married, while having jobs of their own, divorce wasn't as horrifying a thing.

Fast forward to today and you find women becoming increasingly successful-- and who needs a marriage when you've got a career?

We had a boom in divorce, followed by a bust in marriage-- fewer people doing so, but those who do understand the risk: a coin-flip on whether they'll last. Maybe they're a little more committed-- then again, maybe not--, maybe they're just a bit smarter, having watched a generation of parents divorced... they, like the survivors of some species-wiping cataclysm, have adapted their way into the next step of marriage evolution. And maybe that's a good thing.

You take the money out of marriage and all you're left with is love, hardship and commitment. Love, in the romantic sense, runs dry after a few years. Hardship is something modern Americans aren't used to dealing with (perhaps these new married couples have benefited from a decade of unwatchable romantic comedies). And commitment?

One of the few married couples I know have neatly side-stepped this problem in what I increasingly believe will be the next step in marital evolution: the open marriage.

They are a couple. They live with (and date) another couple. And date a few others, besides.

While I do not understand the mechanics of their particular little sex-nest, I've seen the overall concept executed a few times thusly: there's a primary partner, with a few other secondaries. There are "veto" rules, allowing some measure of control for the other partner (i.e., "no you're NOT sleeping with that particular crazy bitch-- go fuck that nice girl in the corner"). If one partner is feeling unappreciated, there must be some devotion to repairing the primary relationship. Communication is a must. And there has to be at least one MFF threesome.

I just threw that last one in cuz, you know, naturally, that would be my clause.... I just assume that's an unspoken given.

It seems to work out for them but more importantly, it may work out for those who aren't married. After all, some people don't want or need the pressures, stresses and time consumptions of a relationship-- why not, then, just attach yourself to a happily open marriage as a free-agent secondary and let the franchise players worry about the Big Questions.

Personally, I have a hard time with the idea of open marriage-- for myself.

That is probably because I have a hard time with the idea of marriage, period-- that is, once again, for myself.

But if and when I did, I would have all the knowledge that my marriage is fragile, fraught and likely to fail-- and still should be forever. Perhaps the rise in cohabitation shows that, in order to succeed, you should fail a few times-- and if and when you find the person to enter a binding contract with, you'll fight through the hardships, you'll let the love mature and you'll hold to whatever version of commitment you happened to hold with.

Either way, we can't go back to Donna Reed. And we shouldn't. This is a brave new world and we have brave new marriages to go with it.

And hey... let the gays marry, already. They couldn't do any worse at it than straight people, could they? Don't fight it: they're just another step in the evolution. Change is inevitable.

Weird Science.

According to the New York Times, it won't be long before we see Love Potion Number 9

When a female prairie vole’s brain is artificially infused with oxytocin, a hormone that produces some of the same neural rewards as nicotine and cocaine, she’ll quickly become attached to the nearest male. A related hormone, vasopressin, creates urges for bonding and nesting when it is injected in male voles (or naturally activated by sex). After Dr. Young found that male voles with a genetically limited vasopressin response were less likely to find mates, Swedish researchers reported that men with a similar genetic tendency were less likely to get married. In his Nature essay, Dr. Young speculates that human love is set off by a “biochemical chain of events” that originally evolved in ancient brain circuits involving mother-child bonding, which is stimulated in mammals by the release of oxytocin during labor, delivery and nursing.

“Some of our sexuality has evolved to stimulate that same oxytocin system to create female-male bonds,” Dr. Young said, noting that sexual foreplay and intercourse stimulate the same parts of a woman’s body that are involved in giving birth and nursing.

Interesting but, in some ways, a bit of a finding in search of a hypothesis-- perhaps we stimulate the same parts of a woman's body that are involved in giving birth and nursing because they also have an unusually large number of nerve cells? And in the case of male fascination with breasts, that isn't even even cross-cultural. Black men prefer booty and a whole shit load of white guys seem to like women who kind of look like boys (I'm just sayin').

What is more interesting, though, is the idea of a love vaccine which, on its surface, seems to be a cure... for monogamy.

For years, the argument (probably made up and advocated by guys) went that men are the biological imperative to spread the seed as far and wide as possible-- and that women are more suited to monogamy, as they have the deal with the result for 9 months. Hence, why Alpha male's fuck more-- they have better genes and need to spread them-- and why nerds win last-- because, as the losers, they will then nest and provide secure monogamy for the woman. Until she's fertile again and the kid's older and those big men with their broad shoulders come swaggering by.

I know a few women in open relationships and I know at least one who initiated things herself-- so it's not to say that women are obviously wired one way or another.

But imagine a word where we did go ahead and take the "Love Vaccine"-- imagine the psychological and sexual equality resultant. Women who can go out and have fun (as safely as possible, of course-- no one wants the baby question) and never fear for kind of emotional fallout I get to overhear at the bar at work or on the weekends. No more self-doubt, no more longing for a past lover.

Just sex. Imagine: chemical polyamory.

Or imagine the idea that, one day, you can take this alpha guy, shoot him with the love juice and erase the entire idea of the 7 year itch (which, in this generation, seems to have fallen back to 3).

We know that infatuation phases of a relationship tends to go no more than 2 and half years, tops. Imagine if you could extend it as long as you like-- a physical, chemical and emotional love to last all time.

Isn't it kind of amazing we're even asking these questions?

When was it, exactly, that people stopped thinking they could love the way those who came before us did-- for 20 or 30 years at a time? Was it just the financial ties that kept these older couples glued? Was it fear of God-- fear of divorce?

Was it coming up in a media environment of unrealistic expectations- thanks to Romantic Comedies- and a-must-have-it-all-NOW mentality?

Questions for another day. But it's interesting to know that, one day, we won't be worrying about people slipping ladies the roofie-colada but slipping (and being slipped) love potions for sex, profit and quickie marriages. Men, then, will wish for the good old days of beer goggles....