Haven for the Human Amoeba

So I'm curious about a few things in light of drk's statements about marriage. First, do you believe that marriage is flawed by its essential nature and can never work out? I recognize that bad situations can arrise within the institution of marriage but the examples I've been surrounded with, including my parents, have given me a fairly positive view of the whole thing...provided of course that one approaches it in the right way and knows exactly what is involved in making the decision. Ok, it doesn't always work out but it seems to me that sometimes it does. When it does it also seems to be more of a close friendship that occasionally involves sex rather than primarily being a sexual relationship. I think thats why you get talk of Boston Marriages and marriage-like partnerships among the asexual community and elsewhere. Any thoughts?

I'm also wondering how you define an "asexual partner." How does this differ from someone just being a really close friend? What are the distinctions involved that cause you to use a term that mirrors that used to describe sexual relationships between people of various orientations? Are you talking about asexual people who live together or something else entirely?

nobara has a point.... it may explode to the point where there's as much controversy over "partnerships" as there is over the ones for gays.... (if the Religeous Right ever gets tangled up in it, and I HOPE they DON'T)

Ok, I don't even understand why gay people want to get married, but I see nothing wrong with them marrying any more than straight people marrying.

I have made many, many anti-marriage statements in my life. I decided to give it another thought after reading BRC's post, though. It's really not marriage that I'm against. It's the sexual essence of a marriage, the wedding night, the wedding itself, physical attraction, "soul mates" (gag), the idea of living as a unit and no longer as a person, of being a responsible adult, of managing a "household", of the expectancy of children (lots of children) and a house and a picket fence, the idea of never seeing your old friends because you're not sleeping with/having children with/managing a "household" with them, the idea of giving up FREEDOM, your own bed, late nights out. Staying together "for the children's sake" and all that other nonsense. Marriage is a flaw and a drug.

At the same time, however, I've been doing a lot of thinking about my future. I'm a terrible housekeeper, a slob, organized only in my disorganization. Let's face it, I need help. I've always planned on having some sort of house-helper move in and live with me to take care of stuff. Basically I want a wife, time-warped from the early 20th century. I completely picture this person to be male. A man-wife. The problem is, though, what to I do when future houseboy wants to get up and marry someone? I can't very well have houseboy and family in my future estate.

In a way, I do plan to marry, but not in the normal sense of the word. I will have tons of houseboys (I'll keep them until they annoy me or get married, whichever comes first)and maybe asexual partners, but I will never have a serious wedding, if a wedding at all (once I was being a smart-ass and told someone I was going to get married in a Hello Kitty costume. I might actually do that, should the occasion arise). I just can't imagine me finding a nonsexual person who just wants to manage my household, heheheheh.

I saw a statistic today, though I question its veracity. It said that for every decade after age 25 that you remain single, you should deduct 1 year from your life. If you're married, you should add 5 years to your life. Any thoughts?

I've never really understood the appeal of marriage. I do however understand that a great many people think it is an important thing, and even beyond that, they really do want it. It makes them happy, even with the unhappiness it can bring. You see a lot of bad marriages these days, but I see good ones too.

The only thing I have a problem with is the social pressure to get married. It should be entirely up to the person. They should feel free to live single, or "with" someone they love out of wedlock, whatever their individual case may be. The important thing to remember with this strange Western world is that 90% of what creates it is Christian in its origins. When you look at it that way, some of the idiotic logical gaps make sense (no offense to any christians.)

On the statistics. Never trust the marriage of statistics! (Yay, a pun of sorts.) With most statistic marriages you have two or more factors being ringed together into one pool out of what was probably, potentially many variables, and then touted as being Cause and Effect. Sensationalistic news sources like to takes these and expound upon things that really, could have no link at all.

In this case it would be wise to ask questions and make observations. One very big problem with it is this: Say an average married person lives to the average age of 75, according to this, they should add another 25 years to their life. That is simply inflammatory. The average married person does not live to be 100 years old, yet they have gone five decades so they should add 25!

Additionally, assuming these statistics were gleaned from the United States, it would be very elementary to note that the typical married individual is going to be far less *active* (read Free) in their life. Their concept of being active means going to the gym with their spouse and running on federally approved safe treadmills. While there are always exceptions, in general, married people are bound to a less active life due to many thousands of reasons, the most of which are responsibilities to children, a house, the spouse, and on and on.

Single people on the other hand do not have all of these binds, and tend to live much more active and potentially dangerous lives. Not all of them do, *of course* but again, in general. You'll have much more luck finding a single person at 2:00am in downtown metropolis than you will a married couple.

I'd say the slight difference in lifestyles probably accounts for the age difference of six years per decade. There are probably other holes in this statistical leap of faith as well -- this is just the first one that popped into my head.

Well, it wasn't exactly any sort of controversy that I was concerned about. In fact, due to the way I tend to view asexual relationships I don't think there would be much of a controversy at all since they just look like friendships or any ordinary roommate you might have. I suppose the only problem you'd run into would be trying to get it recognized as some sort of economic partership or whatever (dual health benefits, pooled income, shared taxes etc). That seems to be when most of the problems occur. As for why the religious right would want to begin regulating friendships I have no idea. There seems to be a certain morality associated with sex and who one chooses to have sex with. I don't see why anyone would really care who people form friendships with since sex isn't involved here. But I don't really think that is an important issue to get into. I was just curious what made an "asexual partner" different from a close friend.

So I'm curious about a few things in light of drk's statements about marriage. First, do you believe that marriage is flawed by its essential nature and can never work out? I recognize that bad situations can arrise within the institution of marriage but the examples I've been surrounded with, including my parents, have given me a fairly positive view of the whole thing...provided of course that one approaches it in the right way and knows exactly what is involved in making the decision. Ok, it doesn't always work out but it seems to me that sometimes it does. When it does it also seems to be more of a close friendship that occasionally involves sex rather than primarily being a sexual relationship. I think thats why you get talk of Boston Marriages and marriage-like partnerships among the asexual community and elsewhere. Any thoughts?

I'm also wondering how you define an "asexual partner." How does this differ from someone just being a really close friend? What are the distinctions involved that cause you to use a term that mirrors that used to describe sexual relationships between people of various orientations? Are you talking about asexual people who live together or something else entirely?

I've never really understood the appeal of marriage. I do however understand that a great many people think it is an important thing, and even beyond that, they really do want it. It makes them happy, even with the unhappiness it can bring. You see a lot of bad marriages these days, but I see good ones too.

The only thing I have a problem with is the social pressure to get married. It should be entirely up to the person. They should feel free to live single, or "with" someone they love out of wedlock, whatever their individual case may be. The important thing to remember with this strange Western world is that 90% of what creates it is Christian in its origins. When you look at it that way, some of the idiotic logical gaps make sense (no offense to any christians.)

On the statistics. Never trust the marriage of statistics! (Yay, a pun of sorts.) With most statistic marriages you have two or more factors being ringed together into one pool out of what was probably, potentially many variables, and then touted as being Cause and Effect. Sensationalistic news sources like to takes these and expound upon things that really, could have no link at all.

In this case it would be wise to ask questions and make observations. One very big problem with it is this: Say an average married person lives to the average age of 75, according to this, they should add another 25 years to their life. That is simply inflammatory. The average married person does not live to be 100 years old, yet they have gone five decades so they should add 25!

Additionally, assuming these statistics were gleaned from the United States, it would be very elementary to note that the typical married individual is going to be far less *active* (read Free) in their life. Their concept of being active means going to the gym with their spouse and running on federally approved safe treadmills. While there are always exceptions, in general, married people are bound to a less active life due to many thousands of reasons, the most of which are responsibilities to children, a house, the spouse, and on and on.

Single people on the other hand do not have all of these binds, and tend to live much more active and potentially dangerous lives. Not all of them do, *of course* but again, in general. You'll have much more luck finding a single person at 2:00am in downtown metropolis than you will a married couple.

I'd say the slight difference in lifestyles probably accounts for the age difference of six years per decade. There are probably other holes in this statistical leap of faith as well -- this is just the first one that popped into my head.

I'm somewhat of a scientist and therefore naturally skeptical, which is why I posted that bit about the statistics.

There are theories (possibly proven, I haven't read up on this) that people who are often stressed/fatigued/depressed live a shorter amount of time. I guess that's what threw me with the marriage statistic. The married people I know are all stressed, fatigued, depressed. My ex-best friend was basically married and she eventually ended up shutting herself in a 6'x10'room with her gf only opening the door for the pizza delivery guy. She went completely crazy, couldn't work or go to school because this girl she was living with had destroyed her. Somehow, they destroyed each other. This was 3 years ago and they're still together and in not much better shape. They're both in such sorry states that it's hard to say who started what or how they ended up that way. This is one example out of 5 doomed "marriages" I have personally encountered that popped into my head before I finished typing that sentence. I could possibly come up with dozens even though, like I said, I really don't know many married people (ok, I admit my parents were one of my 5 examples. They're still married, too).

I realize, of course, that most relationships aren't THAT bad, but the way I see it they aren't much better. They may even be just as bad, but the ugliness may come through in different ways. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors (thank god).

Also...too much sharing. The idea of having a joint bank account is utterly terrifying to me. I'd sooner share my arm than my bank account. I don't understand why that's sort of expected with marriage. It sounds dreadful. I would never be able to come to terms with my own use of someone else's money, and I don't want anyone else to have access to mine. Selfish? Possibly. Oh well.

Ack !! 5 minutes and too much to say!!

I'm just a little confsued, because it seems like we're talking about a few different things here:

1) Marraige in general, and its fittingness as an institution. I definitely have beef with the way it's heterosexistally done in most cases, and the general structure of it (as with the general structure of most romantic relationships) can get pretty fucked up. HOWEVER, I think that there are situations under which it can work (like nobara said, looking alot like a close friendship), and that it's extremely worthwhile when it does. I think that intimacy and intimate relationships can be extremely fulfilling and in many cases necessary.

2) "Asexual Marraige", or extremely intimate nonsexual relationships. How do the idead of marraige work when applied to asexual people? Should it be? I for one think it should at least a little. When I tell people that I'm asexual one of the first assumptions that they make is that I don't form intimate relationships with people, and while there is nothing wrong with people who dont' need to do that I most certainly do. There are alot of things in marraige, in that sense of intimacy, that are very appealing to me, and it is something that I want to be a part of my life. I want to have kids, and while there is nothing wrong with single parenting I'd rather raise a child with someone else. In those ways the sort of relationship that I want looks different than alot of close friendships, icky issues of commitement HAVE to come in when there are kids involved, but it will also definitely look different than alot of marraiges. How will society treat it? I get the sense it will depend on whether my partner(?) is male or female. Ok, have to run.

-BRC

We may all be missing the point of a marriage here. I've been led tounderstand that marriage, for most of history, was a Economic arrangement so that the offspring of a union would be taken care of. For this reason it included sex, and Heterosexuality, because offspring were the direct cause and purpose. Later it grew as a social institution, by which families could gain influence and wealth. As such, it was now a political as well as a social arrangement. but still, the politics were based on the idea that the couple would produce offspring.

Only very lately in history has Marriage had the idea of Love attached to it. But the Idea of marriage for love is so strong that noone remembers that it's an Economic arrangement. it's all about pooling resources to care for each other and possible offspring. I'm all for allowing all sexualities to get married, because even if there are no children there are still benifits for the couple, and Anyone can adopt. I can buy polygamy as just an even further extension of the arrangement, though I can't say I like the idea personally.

I'm not trying to be a bastard here either. I firmly beleive Love has it's place in marriage. I would never get married to someone I don't Love. But I would also never marry someone Just because I love them. Marriages are Flawed today not because they inherently are flawed, but because people don't know their purpose and don't think the thing through before performing it.

We may all be missing the point of a marriage here. I've been led tounderstand that marriage, for most of history, was a Economic arrangement so that the offspring of a union would be taken care of. For this reason it included sex, and Heterosexuality, because offspring were the direct cause and purpose. Later it grew as a social institution, by which families could gain influence and wealth. As such, it was now a political as well as a social arrangement. but still, the politics were based on the idea that the couple would produce offspring.

Only very lately in history has Marriage had the idea of Love attached to it. But the Idea of marriage for love is so strong that noone remembers that it's an Economic arrangement. it's all about pooling resources to care for each other and possible offspring. I'm all for allowing all sexualities to get married, because even if there are no children there are still benifits for the couple, and Anyone can adopt. I can buy polygamy as just an even further extension of the arrangement, though I can't say I like the idea personally.

I'm not trying to be a bastard here either. I firmly beleive Love has it's place in marriage. I would never get married to someone I don't Love. But I would also never marry someone Just because I love them. Marriages are Flawed today not because they inherently are flawed, but because people don't know their purpose and don't think the thing through before performing it.

My real beef with marriage is that there is really no point to it these days. People make the vows that they don't intend to keep, so why even do it. You can screw around with some one or support a house hold together with out making a farce out of the promises. Of course here I am speaking of tradtitional marriage.

I don't intend to get married because there is no real point. I don't want sex, I am and will remain economically stable, and I don't plan on having children so all the reasons for marriage are gone.

Don't get me wrong, it would be cool find some one to live with and share experiences with, but why get married and add the extra stress. Just be friends and have fun and avoid all the expectations.

I would also like to add a quick note about the religious views on asexualism. I have come across several documents that confirm that most christians don't think we are people. "Sex is a gift from god" as they say. Well what ever. PPl tend to forget that even Christ himself didn't have sex (though there is a debate about this like with everything is relating to christianity).

--GT

I, for one, don't see how christiantiy, would be much of a problem in the near future. In my queer experience christianity has never been the root of homophobia, the same way that Islam is not the root of the recent terrorism. Christianity provides a particularely poignant vocabularity for stuff that's already there. (Why is homosexuality as a "sin" highlighted above just about everything else in leviticus?) Heterosexism exists in our society, I think, because in alot of ways it threatens the structure of male-dominant society. So much of gender roles (and the power dynamics that go with them) are based in the idea of a heterosexual relationship that an open acceptance of homo/bisexuality could send everything toppling (read: "preserve traditional family values.")

So where does asexuality fit in? While it a case can certainly be made for us being threatening (notions of "needing a man/woman" and of "romantic mystery" firmly in our sites with our finger on the trigger) we're alot easier to deal with than our GLBT counterparts. They have an actual behavior, something tangible which stands in the way of everything and is therefore abhorrent ("sick", "perverted") and which must be irradicated (through physical and verbal abuse if necessary.) Us? We're far too easy to write off to go to the trouble of oppressing. Someone BEHAVING asexually is no real mystery or problem the way that someone behaing homo or transexually is, they just haven't found someone/can't find someone/have "problems"/are repressed. If they happen to rant and rave about some notion of asexuality then they are obviously confused, or going through a phase, and we do hope that they get over it. Based on what I know of how oppression works (something I've studied a good deal), we won't get the sort of treatement that GLBT people get, we'll get people who simply refuse to beleive us.

We all draw our conclusions from personal experience, so I feel I should share mine in relation to your comments on how marriage is a doomed ideology. I have observed, in certain cells of demography, that marriage can be a quite healthy and positive experience in the lives of people.

There is perhaps something to be said for a Christian lifestyle, even if I do disagree with its fundamental *reasons* for attaining that lifestyle. Nor do I agree with everything they stand for within that style of living. One thing I have noticed that they excel at is their marriage. Most of the people in my family (and this touches on an earlier topic that I will address in another post about the state of my relatives sexuality) have been married, and remain happily married for their whole lives to the same person.

I believe it is their attitude towards marriage, and their partner that makes it work. Because of their religious beliefs, they believe that marriage is a gift from their god, and not to be dismissed at the first sign of trouble. Hence, they stick with their partner through thick and thin, taking those little 'vows' very personally and literally. Not only that, they believe that *ditching* a marriage is next to sinful. While the aversion to that could and may be the intention to stay together, I believe it is more subconscious than conscious. With most of these staunch Christians, the aversion to sin is a subconscious process that leads their lives in a certain direction. They stay together because that is the right thing to do, not because divorce is the wrong thing to do. Negative vs. Positive.

As a result, the two end up closer to each other the longer they go, from this attitude of "we will stick through this no matter what."

Now of course, this is just what I have observed and certainly not all Christians sustain healthy marriages. The only reason I bring this up is to point out that the ideology itself can survive very well -- so perhaps it is not the concept of marriage itself that is at fault, but the attitude of the participants!

Some arguments against marriage say that it is a lack of freedom, or a detriment to ones ability to be themselves. Most of the people I referred to above would very strongly disagree with this, stating that marriage not only increased their sense of self, but *enhanced* it to a considerable degree, by causing them to find within themselves their ideal. Without a reason to find their deeper and better self, it remains a misty goal. Note, all of these are 10+ year marriages I'm referring to. Many approaching 20.

I'm not saying marriage is a good thing for everybody, it certainly wouldn't be good for me in the normal sense of the word, I am saying that I believe there is something else at fault in what you have observed -- and marriage only served as a catalyst for that fault detection.

A sexual friend of mine once described any intimate relationship with this catalystic analogy. It quickens the depths of any relationship, and not only that, you own personal faults and strengths. Marriage would not be exempt from that analogy, and perhaps would only serve to make it a stronger catalyst. Normal, platonic, and deep friendships go about doing the same thing, but not nearly as quickly or as potently. Sure, there might be the surface toothpaste tube arguments, but any marriage counselor would be very quick to point out that these surface arguments are only manifestations of deeper problems. They don't fight over where to put the socks because the socks are important, they fight over socks because the deeper problem is likely something they cannot even conceptualize. The discovery and eradication of these deeper problems *can be* one of the most enriching aspects of a long-term marriage, as there are very few other ways to even discover them.

Just another viewpoint for you to consider.

My real beef with marriage is that there is really no point to it these days. People make the vows that they don't intend to keep, so why even do it. You can screw around with some one or support a house hold together with out making a farce out of the promises. Of course here I am speaking of tradtitional marriage.

I don't intend to get married because there is no real point. I don't want sex, I am and will remain economically stable, and I don't plan on having children so all the reasons for marriage are gone.

Don't get me wrong, it would be cool find some one to live with and share experiences with, but why get married and add the extra stress. Just be friends and have fun and avoid all the expectations.

I would also like to add a quick note about the religious views on asexualism. I have come across several documents that confirm that most christians don't think we are people. "Sex is a gift from god" as they say. Well what ever. PPl tend to forget that even Christ himself didn't have sex (though there is a debate about this like with everything is relating to christianity).

--GT

We all draw our conclusions from personal experience, so I feel I should share mine in relation to your comments on how marriage is a doomed ideology. I have observed, in certain cells of demography, that marriage can be a quite healthy and positive experience in the lives of people.

There is perhaps something to be said for a Christian lifestyle, even if I do disagree with its fundamental *reasons* for attaining that lifestyle. Nor do I agree with everything they stand for within that style of living. One thing I have noticed that they excel at is their marriage. Most of the people in my family (and this touches on an earlier topic that I will address in another post about the state of my relatives sexuality) have been married, and remain happily married for their whole lives to the same person.

I believe it is their attitude towards marriage, and their partner that makes it work. Because of their religious beliefs, they believe that marriage is a gift from their god, and not to be dismissed at the first sign of trouble. Hence, they stick with their partner through thick and thin, taking those little 'vows' very personally and literally. Not only that, they believe that *ditching* a marriage is next to sinful. While the aversion to that could and may be the intention to stay together, I believe it is more subconscious than conscious. With most of these staunch Christians, the aversion to sin is a subconscious process that leads their lives in a certain direction. They stay together because that is the right thing to do, not because divorce is the wrong thing to do. Negative vs. Positive.

As a result, the two end up closer to each other the longer they go, from this attitude of "we will stick through this no matter what."

Now of course, this is just what I have observed and certainly not all Christians sustain healthy marriages. The only reason I bring this up is to point out that the ideology itself can survive very well -- so perhaps it is not the concept of marriage itself that is at fault, but the attitude of the participants!

Some arguments against marriage say that it is a lack of freedom, or a detriment to ones ability to be themselves. Most of the people I referred to above would very strongly disagree with this, stating that marriage not only increased their sense of self, but *enhanced* it to a considerable degree, by causing them to find within themselves their ideal. Without a reason to find their deeper and better self, it remains a misty goal. Note, all of these are 10+ year marriages I'm referring to. Many approaching 20.

I'm not saying marriage is a good thing for everybody, it certainly wouldn't be good for me in the normal sense of the word, I am saying that I believe there is something else at fault in what you have observed -- and marriage only served as a catalyst for that fault detection.

A sexual friend of mine once described any intimate relationship with this catalystic analogy. It quickens the depths of any relationship, and not only that, you own personal faults and strengths. Marriage would not be exempt from that analogy, and perhaps would only serve to make it a stronger catalyst. Normal, platonic, and deep friendships go about doing the same thing, but not nearly as quickly or as potently. Sure, there might be the surface toothpaste tube arguments, but any marriage counselor would be very quick to point out that these surface arguments are only manifestations of deeper problems. They don't fight over where to put the socks because the socks are important, they fight over socks because the deeper problem is likely something they cannot even conceptualize. The discovery and eradication of these deeper problems *can be* one of the most enriching aspects of a long-term marriage, as there are very few other ways to even discover them.

Just another viewpoint for you to consider.

I've come to the conclusion that I'm incel... I was wondering what your take on this is.

Um one quick question: what exactly is an incel? I tried to look it up in the dictionary but to no avail. Explaination please.

--GT

incel (also called invcel) means "involuntary celibate". I was just wondering what your take on this is... I think I may be seen with the same disbelief that you face (though I think I may be more easily mistaken for gay)

I don't think it's really possible to be involuntarily celibate. Celibacy strikes me more as a free choice sort of thing. And, sorry, I don't care who you are or what you look like, getting laid is seriously not a problem unless you make it one. The question is, why do you choose not to have sex when your mind is urging you in the opposite direction?

Judy