::belgium shells::
There isn't a hypothesis more flawed than that of marriage. We have all been conditioned - to varying extents - about the idea and the ideal of marriage. The mass media, the religious paragons, the cultural make-up of our society: they have all preached the significance, if not the necessity, of marriage.
Weaned on fairy tales and binged on marriage fad diets courtesy of Hollywood, we believe that we will eventually be swept off our feet by the fabled Prince Charming or Princess Aurora. Injected with socialism and cultural pressures, we become willing lab rats in experiments that would cost us our ideals at best, and a lifetime of disillusionment at worst. Hauled onto the pulpit of sancity and holy matrimony, we strap ourselves to a cross of religious conditioning - procreation, the family unit vis-a-vis religion, ecetra, ecetra.
As the society - and the world at large - modernise, the old halycon of marriage has been dilluted by individualism, instant gratification and internalisation of general mass media attitudes. While Hollywood still dramatises love and marriage on the silver screen, it also goes out of its way to glamourise the breakdown thereof; while societal norms still dictate the exigency of marriage, modern governments have been increasingly forthcoming in policies which support singlehood and/or one-parent households. And religions, while mostly sticking to doctrinal preachings, have little choice but to accpet that dogged conditions cannot overpower the modernisation and, perhaps, mutation, of individual rights.
And so marriage, an aged-old practice strangled between old myths and new truths, has become little more than a flawed theory, a basic societal arrangement bound by legal means. In practice it thrives: few of us can escape the consideration of marriage, whether motivated by notions of romanticism, practicality or familial obligations. But one needs no microscopic view to see that affairs, divorces and subjective interpretation of committment et al are reducing marriage into nothing more than a package deal of convenience encapsulated by a piece of paper.
***
I am not a hard-core skeptic - not yet - and I have no outright malice against marriage. I see its importance and its benefits, and my innate Asianess would not allow the serious consideration of long-term cohabitation, children born out of wedlock, 'free and easy' arrangements -you get my drift. But outside the Hollywood-reality mad clash, I have little patience for stardust and glamour and fireworks till death do us part; beyond the old wisedom of forever-wth-one I see cheating partners and dying promises.
And so who am I to dare the rest of my life with one man? Who am I to think that I would be so lucky that ten, twenty years into my marriage I would not be relegated to a mere 'spouse', someone who was part of a deal gone sour and wrong, someone whom my husband can ignore while he screws some eager young thing from the office?
"Don't get me wrong. She is a good woman, and she has done all her spousal duties. But there are no more sparks. It's all routine."
"Marriage is a tool of convience. She's the wrong one at the right time."
"Don't marry for love; it's stupid. Marriage is a financial arrangement. It's a business plan and a strategy. You should only go in with a specific and practical object. Love? Rent a DVD."
"What about the wife, darling? What about her?"
What makes you think it wouldn't be you?
