Hmmm.

I’m at the stage in life where I feel like I’m standing in the middle of a crowded room and everyone around me is either getting attached or getting married. And I’m left to wonder at the necessity of marriage in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t plan to be alone the rest of my life. I mean, god forbid, if it does happen, I’ll be happy to be an old women with tons of cats and dogs living happily together.

Anyone can say that perhaps I haven’t found the right person. But even if I did find the right person. Assuming in a hypothetical world, there is a hypothetical me with a hypothetical  boyfriend. We are happy together, we make each other happy, we enjoy spending time with one another, and we want to spend our lives with each other.

Throw in 3 dogs to the picture and its almost perfect.

Except for one thing. We both don’t see the need in getting married, except maybe to make the folks happy.

I mean, we’re both happy with the way things are, its not like we plan to separate anytime soon, but we just don’t want to place the entire idea into the standard mould of a socially accepted union. Is there anything wrong with that?

Yeah sure its something important in a person’s life, and hence the need for all the brouhaha complete with expensive wedding receptions. But is there really a need for all that? So what if you choose to solemnize the marriage in the most grand way ever, if at the end of the day, either one of you cheats or if the wedding ends up in a divorce?

Wouldn’t that then be much worse off than me and my hypothetical boyfriend living together for the rest of our lives? Sure if we do have kids then they’d be living with unmarried parents. But on their birth certificates I’d still be the mother and my boyfriend would still be the father, and if we both form the traditional family unit what’s the problem? Sure, you need to get married to apply for an HDB flat but what if I’m just too fucking rich to live in one and can afford my own private apartment?

Sure one can argue the sanctity of the idea of marriage itself. But in this day and age, isn’t marriage characterized by nothing more than just a legally binding document that, in our society, allows you the benefits of getting a brand new flat?

I’m sure one can think of more reasons why its important for two people to get married, but the bottomline for myself is, if I truly enjoy his company and want him to be by my side the rest of my life and the feeling is mutual, why does anyone need marriage to secure this? Does this mean that you’re both so unsure that you need marriage to tie each other down?

At the end of the day, why do people get married?

Advertisements

18 Comments

  1. It’s for the richer and poorer parts, the sickness and health parts. Seriously, the idea of marriage is a commitment. If there is no commitment then the desires to cheat or screw around are too tempting. It’s a vow that says I am with you no matter what! That I only want you no matter how far your boobs sag or how wrinkly your sack gets. It means when you no longer have your good looks and your teeth are gone you will have someone to share all of that with. It’s for the peace of mind knowing that your partner swore an oath, took a vow, agreed before a judge that you are the only ink-well he dips his pen into.

  2. is this a rhetorical question?

  3. hypothetically speaking, a girl would want an act of love solemnized on a paper because then the law would protect you. it would benefit you and not just in terms of your flat buying power. like for instance, a certain amount of his cpf savings goes to you, hypothetically.

    but if you want to defy the socially accepted contract of a union, why even bother to justify yourself to society? sounds tautological to me. no offence there my dear…

  4. mark: no its hypothetical? Anyway I’ve only got 4 modules this sem and I’m finally graduating wheee…

    lerxst: i don’t disagree with a religious union. I mean, if two people want to get together and have their union blessed by God then it’s a beautiful thing isn’t it. but what if its just a couple who have no religion, if there’s mutual trust then is there a need to have that additional insurance in a piece of paper, which i must also add, that people often end up going against anyway.

    Aristocrat: but you see, if women nowadays can afford to take care of themselves and be smart abaout things, then is there still a need to protect themselves? If i can earn money to buy my own apartment, have my own dogs, own a car and take care of my kids, do i still need whatever my husband is supposed to give me?

    I don’t know, its just a thought that pops into my head every now and then. a sort of dilemma, if you will. if getting married is nothing more than a business between two people, then why do they need to justify it for other people?

    yeah sure there are certain other forms of protection of sorts like polygamy, and i suppose having the law guard against that isn’t too bad. and i think the protection goes both ways doesn’t it, both for men and women. i’m not trying to be a feminist here, but i suppose with the growing education levels of both men and women, shouldn’t the men be allowed some form of protection as well?

  5. I shall not answer that rhetorical question. 😀

  6. buggerz.. i’m planning to do honours.. still. so. far. away.

  7. mark: you’ll be done before you know it

  8. Skye – never mentioned God at all in that comment, but it’s nice to know there is a seed planted there .. 🙂

    It’s like you said, insurance. And it does work both ways. I was not a believer when I married my wife. And you are right, there will be temptations. It was the marriage, the vows, the promise, the commitment … that kept me on the straight and narrow. It was me personal integrity that was on the line.

  9. ah but you see. you talk about personal integrity. and it would be there regardless of whether there are wedding vows and papers signed, no?

  10. true true. i do agree that the law does not really protect the male in terms of whatever little legal knowledge i have. the law tends to protect the majority (i guess) and extrapolating from (again whatever little) historical knowledge i have, men are the ones who tend to break the contract, no?

    at the end of the day, i think you have to realise one thing and one thing only: that the society is an over-arching institution which an individual cannot escape from. And to accept recognition, to let society construct you as a subject, you have to accept it on its terms. To succeed societally, you have to embrace its contracts, by which marriage is one of those institutionalized contracts.

  11. hmm i’d say that certain laws are in place to protect the women because it seems that women are on the losing end when it comes to separation. but that was because women often have less education and are often the ones who have to sacrifice their careers for marriage, no?

    but in the day and age, where women are generally as well-educated as men, engage in activities that make them both socially and physically more adept to surviving a separation, doesn’t that level the playing field? i’m not saying get rid of laws that protect women, but i’m saying, shouldn’t we give men a chance too?

    i mean, we all hear of husband-beaters, women who cheat and leave their husbands, etc. So where’s the fairness for men?

    Do I even make sense here?

  12. of course you do make sense here! this point has been quite contentious locally for as long as i remember! and in malaysia, there’s this sort of father support group or something that goes around fighting for the estranged father’s rights! thank you for speaking up for the guys here 🙂

    /tips my hat at you

  13. i’m surprised to hear that these things happen in Malaysia. Haha, how come we don’t have such things in Singapore?

    Well I guess I’m speaking up for rationality. In our modern society I think men also deserve a portion of the protection that women have. Not saying that we should do away with women’s charter and all, I’m sure despite the high levels education we all have, there are still women who grow up in traditional families who believe that women shouldn’t study too much, or work too hard, and should be subservient and dependant on the man.

    But I think it’s time we think about the men who suffer in silence everyday.

    A Men’s Charter specifically for protection against PMS-ing women (esp lady bosses) anyone? =P

  14. because in singapore, we are only allowed to protest indoors?

    you are right, and it would be interesting to do a survey on repressed men, men whom violence are done against by women. but i don’t think society is ready for allowing every tom, dick and harry to have rights yet.

    because in my schema, i see consumer rights as more important than a men’s charter or something. why are consumers being taken advantage of? or if you want a more pertinent issue: why does our society ostracize homosexuality? why are they denied jobs in certain areas? why are the politically critical silenced as well? our thoughts, i have to say, should turn to these areas before we even think about a men’s charter.

    p.s.: i think we have all learnt how to deal with pmsing women hahaa

  15. And pray tell, aren’t we going off-topic? haha

  16. well, i guess society in general is just not ready? i don’t know =)

    i don’t care if we’re going off-topic, it’s my blog.

  17. hahaha, i should have seen that last one coming! good one abj. totally threw me off-track.

    good pout, good pout! encore!

  18. hahaha. =P


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s