For the Audience
A Defense of Sham Marriages
Sham Marriages get a bad rap. Often viewed as immoral, these relationships more closely resemble business arrangements and can benefit both parties much more than we might be willing to acknowledge. Relationships based on love, while supposedly more fulfilling, are fickle.
We have implied in our current mantra of self importance and self indulgence that other people are dispensable. Relationships mean nothing in a world where everything is disposable once it ceases to do exactly what we want it to do. We have validated consumption of human relationships, leaving everyone looking for real connection disillusioned and depressed.
Entering into an agreement of marriage with another person is an entirely acceptable and beneficial manner of seeking companionship, stability and happiness in life, especially in the face of such a grim state as just mentioned. Finding someone who you may not feel passionately about, but can be close to and content with will provide a happier lifestyle.
A sham marriage would be an agreement between two parties, much like the traditional contract of marriage with the exception of love and in some cases sex. If infidelity is a considerable issue in society, perhaps this is not a reasonable expectation to have when entering into an obligation of commitment. For example, I propose that two parties, J. and Jay, enter into a contract of marriage under my new policy. The two come to an understanding of mutual dependency where J. becomes a homekeeper and a supportive other for social appearance and Jay in turn provides a home to be kept and the financial means for J. to keep it. This sounds remarkably close to traditional guidelines of a marriage however there are any number of services and exchanges that can be agreed upon in this contract. We are also free of gender roles if we so choose, depending on what suits the arrangement.
Noteably absent from this agreement is fidelity. In the arrangement of a sham marriage, since there is a lack of "love" or passionate attraction, there is also a lack of jealousy or feeling of entitlement over the other person. It is understood between the two parties that sexual relations will carry on as either party chooses and are not confined to or even include sex within the marriage. Each party fulfills thier part of the agreement while feeling free to pursue or not pursue passionate endeavours. As they are likely to be short lived, there proves no threat to the original arrangement.
Just as in any other contractual agreement, failure on the side of either party would result in a viable and reasonable dissolution of said agreement.
I have often been accused of being overly rational and cold-hearted when proposing this theory, but I would like to state that this system is not intended to remove all emotion from human interaction. It is merely meant to revise our traditional views of what can be expected from any one other person. As we all know, as individuals we are complicated people. We feel, provide and require a great number of different things from other people at any given time. It is absurd to think that there is any one person able to provide all of those things to us let alone for an extended period of time. It is equally egotistical to think that we can provide everything to that person that they might need for an extended period of time. It seems reasonable to say that it takes a village to raise a child; where do we stop needing a village? The answer is that there is no line where we go from being co-dependant beings to being entirely self sufficient or even dependant on just one person. I propose that we open our minds to the village. It's time to stop concentrating all of our needs on one or two people in our lives, stop putting strain on those who simply can't give us all we need and start expanding our hearts to let others bear the burden of human existence. There is nothing saying that we must be as individuals the be all and end all in another persons life, so why do we expect it of ourselves?
Sham Marriages get a bad rap. Often viewed as immoral, these relationships more closely resemble business arrangements and can benefit both parties much more than we might be willing to acknowledge. Relationships based on love, while supposedly more fulfilling, are fickle.
We have implied in our current mantra of self importance and self indulgence that other people are dispensable. Relationships mean nothing in a world where everything is disposable once it ceases to do exactly what we want it to do. We have validated consumption of human relationships, leaving everyone looking for real connection disillusioned and depressed.
Entering into an agreement of marriage with another person is an entirely acceptable and beneficial manner of seeking companionship, stability and happiness in life, especially in the face of such a grim state as just mentioned. Finding someone who you may not feel passionately about, but can be close to and content with will provide a happier lifestyle.
A sham marriage would be an agreement between two parties, much like the traditional contract of marriage with the exception of love and in some cases sex. If infidelity is a considerable issue in society, perhaps this is not a reasonable expectation to have when entering into an obligation of commitment. For example, I propose that two parties, J. and Jay, enter into a contract of marriage under my new policy. The two come to an understanding of mutual dependency where J. becomes a homekeeper and a supportive other for social appearance and Jay in turn provides a home to be kept and the financial means for J. to keep it. This sounds remarkably close to traditional guidelines of a marriage however there are any number of services and exchanges that can be agreed upon in this contract. We are also free of gender roles if we so choose, depending on what suits the arrangement.
Noteably absent from this agreement is fidelity. In the arrangement of a sham marriage, since there is a lack of "love" or passionate attraction, there is also a lack of jealousy or feeling of entitlement over the other person. It is understood between the two parties that sexual relations will carry on as either party chooses and are not confined to or even include sex within the marriage. Each party fulfills thier part of the agreement while feeling free to pursue or not pursue passionate endeavours. As they are likely to be short lived, there proves no threat to the original arrangement.
Just as in any other contractual agreement, failure on the side of either party would result in a viable and reasonable dissolution of said agreement.
I have often been accused of being overly rational and cold-hearted when proposing this theory, but I would like to state that this system is not intended to remove all emotion from human interaction. It is merely meant to revise our traditional views of what can be expected from any one other person. As we all know, as individuals we are complicated people. We feel, provide and require a great number of different things from other people at any given time. It is absurd to think that there is any one person able to provide all of those things to us let alone for an extended period of time. It is equally egotistical to think that we can provide everything to that person that they might need for an extended period of time. It seems reasonable to say that it takes a village to raise a child; where do we stop needing a village? The answer is that there is no line where we go from being co-dependant beings to being entirely self sufficient or even dependant on just one person. I propose that we open our minds to the village. It's time to stop concentrating all of our needs on one or two people in our lives, stop putting strain on those who simply can't give us all we need and start expanding our hearts to let others bear the burden of human existence. There is nothing saying that we must be as individuals the be all and end all in another persons life, so why do we expect it of ourselves?
posted by Vita at 5:21 p.m.
2 Comments:
You can put forth the theory all you want.
But you're heart would break if you ever had to do it.
Tough talk, soft walk, as they say.
I have a friend who speaks very nonchalantly about marrying her friends to reap the benefits of their international status (obviously, the benefits go both ways). She would marry her girlfriend to live in Spain for a few years (possibly go to school), then get a divorce so both of them could marry other people and live or travel in other parts of the world. It's very practical, and an eye-opening way to "swing" across the planet. Unfortunately, the 'veracity' of a marriage is already a contentions immigration issue, but it's conceivable that interpersonal goodwill and juissance will overwhelm bureaucratic reason, one man and one woman at a time.
Post a Comment
<< Home