Friday, January 04, 2008

Marriage - What Does It Mean Now?


Marriage is a universal institution right across the world as this Hindu ceremony shows. But, in some Western societies, its meaning seems to have changed rather dramatically and is, it seems, still in a state of flux.

While blog grazing recently, I came across an interesting Canadian site where a person, who was a psychologist, proudly boasted of being married AND having both a male and female lover and a pet budgie! The person concerned obviously did not believe in 'love till death do us part' bit but, quite proudly, appeared to be more into relationship experimentation on a grand scale AND, more seriously, advocated it for others as well. When and if children were to be produced from these unions, just what they would make of the menage a trois I can't fathom!

I guess the wedding scene, even for me, has gone through several unwanted cycles. Twice I said the words of commitment and meant them very seriously. And twice things fell apart at great cost to myself. But never did I enter into a relationship with the idea of have multiple partners of different genders at the same time!

Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned, out of touch with the modern world. Or has the modern world completely lost touch with reality?

What do you think?

Photo Link.

11 comments:

betmo said...

being someone who is married- i will say that humans like the idea of pairing off. indeed, there isn't a thing wrong with it. but- like everything else, we have to complicate things with arcane rules and regulate everything. well, it doesn't seem to have worked here in the land of conservatism with a divorce rate that hovers around 50%. marriage is a commitment of two consensual non-related adults to have sex with only one person. intimacy and honesty and trust follows a similar pattern but is not as mutually exclusive. but... i babble :)

Daniel said...

Betmo, your babbling is like a brook: beautiful to hear, and pure.

Take it easy, girl!

Lang Mack said...

Daniel, most important, will the Budgie get free therapy?.

Daniel said...

Lang Mack, all the best to you for 2008!

The poor budgie will need deep therapy if he or she is to survive in that environment!

Talk about someone trying to have their cake and eat it too. It's sickening really!

Nancy said...

I don't think human nature can be changed with the cut of this year's sexual fashions.
Most people can handle a relationship with one other. I know of one highly successful relationship between three people. But this person seems to be going a bit far, particularly with that budgie (exhibitionist, probably)

Lil Sparrow said...

Being someone who has never had a great need or drive to be paired off with anyone ..... and who over the last three years has found themselves attached at the hip ..... I have had to look at marriage again in new light.....

I echoe Betmo's definition .... it is about committment and should be about love.....with one other person.

Peace and Blessings

Lil Sparrow

Daniel said...

Nancy, I feel most sorry for the budgie but, more seriously, how do the kids make any sense of it?

Lil, I agree with your sentiments. Besides coping with the ups and downs of one relationship is already enough.

Cheers.

Worried American said...

I cannot speak for myself because I've been married and divorced 3 times. I suppose I was a lousy judge of character. Not that I was without fault in any of the relationships but I believed in fidelity and commitment and the lack of it killed my marriages.

I have commented before that the relationship between my maternal grandparents was, to me, the perfect example and role model for marriage. They were absolutely devoted to each other for over 60 years. The day before my grandfather died he called my grandmother to him, embraced her in his withered old arms and said, "I sure do love you, Girl. I sure do love you." When he died, my grandmother at last broke down and keened so piteously I still weep to think of it, and cried in agony, "Oh Charlie, my Darling, my Lover!"

In today's parlance "lover" would have sexual connotations but she used it in the old fashioned way.

What would I have given to have a love like that. I rather doubt that any relationship that included a wife, a male and a female sex partner could expect that sort of devotion.

Daniel said...

Humans, in their greed to have it all, Worried, often end up with nothing!

It's a hard lesson to learn.

Lil Sparrow said...

Growing up in a house where we saved everything ..... it makes sense to have a spare wife or husband in the attic for emergencies, just in case you lose one..... along with matches, candles, canned food and blankets, just in case the power goes out ....

common sense.

A relationship where you rely on, and love one person is not built on common sense.... it is built on a solid human emotion of love and a true sense of loyalty and devotion.

I do not believe that polyamory is the answer, I think that it is a preventive measure .... like candles, blankets and canned food.

Love requires risks, because it is so worth the loss at the end of the day .... :)

Peace and Blessings

Lil Sparrow,

Flights Of The Mind said...

Greetings!

Well, interesting topic...am a Hindu and single now ...having gone through divorce once ...I do believe that one relationship with a close partner is more than enough to handle....can't even think how one can mess up life with multiple partners etc....may be it's all in the exposure/ upbringigng which conditions a person to some extent.

But, first of all what is love???

Cheers
Autre

ShareThis