Back at the beginning of May, I posted some thoughts about graduation, commencement, or whatever you want to call that ceremony which most people seem to think marks the end of school (if not of learning in any form) and the beginning of “REAL LIFE.” Traditionally, the next step after “completing” one’s education was supposed to be acquiring a spouse, a process known as MARRIAGE. That’s not quite as standard a practice today as it once was, but June (which will be with us momentarily) IS still considered to be the appropriate time for one to make the public commitment which our society refers to as “Marriage,” so I figured it might be a good time to share a few thoughts related to that custom. Of course, the most obvious thing about marriage is that it has a curious connection to both religious practices and to legalistic rights. It’s nice when these coincide, but one should always remember that they probably aren’t identical. Our Founding Fathers DID attempt to establish a separation between Church and State, even though it may not be a perfect one. That may not have made things a lot simpler, as it turns out, but I think it should have.
Religiously, as I see it, marriage is usually a ceremony, involving a specific Deity, usually in the presence of a specific religious community, according to that group’s idea of the appropriate behavior to establish a “faith-based bond” between two (or more) people within that, specific religious community. From a legal point of view, however, that, religious activity is, generally (perhaps always), of little to no importance, unless it is also registered (usually with a “licensing fee” charged) with the State (the government), in order to provide LEGAL recognition of the relationship being established and, hence, an alteration of certain, specific legal rights and privileges afforded to both the individuals involved and to the combined entity (the couple).
Note: I am not a lawyer (although I AM an Minister of the Universal Life Church), but I believe that I am correct in suggesting that your RELIGION (Church) can say that you are married, but it is probably not a good idea to claim “married” status on your Federal or State tax records (for example) if you haven’t got the appropriate, legal forms filled out, the required fees paid, and all paperwork appropriately filed with the correct governmental office(s) BEFORE doing so. I believe that such a mis-step COULD cause you to be prosecuted, tried, etc. I don’t think I would suggest that as being desirable.
However, this being the season for marriage, I thought I’d take a look at my files and see what I could come up with relating to marriage, which might be worth thinking about. Let’s see ….
It’s an obvious truth that marriage is quite strongly bonded to the idea of sex in many societies. Of course, these societal traditions do vary somewhat widely. In some, I am told, two people aren’t allowed to marry until they have demonstrated that they can be fertile together, in order to make sure that the marriage will, in fact, increase the population of the larger society. In some others, marriage provides the “license” for “legitimate” sex, a topic about which both parties are “assumed and expected” to be completely naive regarding prior to religious approval of their relationship. After marriage, then, they may be obliged (according to some religious beliefs) to “multiply” as frequently as possible for the remainder of their lives, in order to increase membership in the specific religious community. Note: in such cases, I would suggest that the function of sex is RELIGIOUS in nature and does not appear to be anything other than the fulfilling a religious obligation.
Then, somewhere back in history, someone introduced the idea of “Romance.” While that term does have multiple, somewhat variant, meanings, many people, I think, tend to associate it primarily with the notion of “… love, especially when sentimental or idealized.” As I understand it, this idea really came to the forefront of Western thinking in the latter stages of the Medieval period. along with the notion of chivalry.
Now, as I understand it, the term, “chivalry,” refers to “… the qualities expected of an ideal knight, especially courage, honor, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak;” and to “ … courteous behavior, especially that of a man toward women.” (Note: there ARE other aspects to this definition, but I believe that these may well represent the most commonly accepted ones.) Given that the concept is Medieval, the reference to the “qualities expected of an ideal knight” makes a lot of sense, at least to me.
Now, as I learned it, somewhere back in the dim recesses of my lit. class background, during that period, since marriage was (at that time) most commonly arranged for by FATHERS, often for political purposes (uniting with one’s allies, establishing closer “ties” with foreign powers, etc.), what we call “Romantic Love” had nothing much to do with it. It WAS (or became, at least in theory) permissible (even desirable?) for a knight to feel emotionally tied to a woman, but it was (at least theoretically) essentially required that this emotional tie should involve nothing more than dedicating ones’ heroic deeds to the “beloved,” and/or carrying her “favor” (a scarf, handkerchief, etc.) into battle to indicate one’s dedication to her, etc. In theory, anything related to actual, physical contact (let alone sexual contact) was strictly forbidden, since knights, typically, were NOT married to their beloved, who WAS (most commonly) married to someone else, often of higher social rank.
Somewhere along the winding path of history, the notion of Romantic love got confused with sexual desire; and, over time, the notion that the proper expression of anything related to a relationship between a man and a woman should be, essentially, required to be based on sexual desire, and (obviously) its primary purpose was to lead to sexual relations. I would like to suggest that I think this is hogwash.
I will quite happily support the idea that sexual relations CAN be an expression of the relationship which we refer to as “love.” I would even go so far as to suggest that that SHOULD (certainly ideally) be the case. However, I would also suggest that love is far more complicated than that, even in common practice and parlance. As a parent, I believe that I love my children (and their families), but (even though I have daughters, sons-in-law, and grandchildren) I really don’t wish to have sex with them. As a child, I loved my parents (both of them) but I didn’t (at least consciously) wish to have sex with my mother, nor my father. I have (had) siblings, whom I thought (think) of as loving, but I’ve not really considered having sex with my sister, nor my now-deceased brother. And this idea can be extended throughout my family and much of my acquaintanceship.
I have had numerous friends over the years, school friends, work colleagues, students, etc. of both genders with whom I felt a considerable degree of affection (which may, or may not have been reciprocated), but with whom I didn’t have any particular sexual attraction. THEY WERE (some still are) MY FRIENDS though! I did (and do) enjoy being with them, talking with them, doing things together, sharing common interests, etc. But, I had (and have had) no particular interest in having sex with them.
While we are thinking about Love and Marriage, I think it’s important to note that, at least in the times we live in today, it may well be as (or more) important to be a “Friend” to your marriage partner, than to worry about how often you have sex with him/her. You see, I’ve never been a believer in the notion that sex is (or should be) the most significant aspect of any relationship between people. That notion simply doesn’t make sense to me. Since our society insists that sex has no bearing (or, at least, isn’t supposed to, according to some people) on relationships between members of the same family, or even just the same gender.
If there are non-sexual factors to relationships within families or genders (which ARE considered acceptable, normal, and proper), why shouldn’t the same notions apply ACROSS them? On the other hand, while not ignoring the attractions of differing sexes, the fact is that being a friend to someone is probably of greater importance as the basis of a lasting relationship, than if one feels a sexual attraction (Lust) to them.
That doesn’t mean that there can’t be some “mystery” in a relationship, even after a considerable time, as Earl suggests in this Pickles strip.
Religiously, as I see it, marriage is usually a ceremony, involving a specific Deity, usually in the presence of a specific religious community, according to that group’s idea of the appropriate behavior to establish a “faith-based bond” between two (or more) people within that, specific religious community. From a legal point of view, however, that, religious activity is, generally (perhaps always), of little to no importance, unless it is also registered (usually with a “licensing fee” charged) with the State (the government), in order to provide LEGAL recognition of the relationship being established and, hence, an alteration of certain, specific legal rights and privileges afforded to both the individuals involved and to the combined entity (the couple).
Note: I am not a lawyer (although I AM an Minister of the Universal Life Church), but I believe that I am correct in suggesting that your RELIGION (Church) can say that you are married, but it is probably not a good idea to claim “married” status on your Federal or State tax records (for example) if you haven’t got the appropriate, legal forms filled out, the required fees paid, and all paperwork appropriately filed with the correct governmental office(s) BEFORE doing so. I believe that such a mis-step COULD cause you to be prosecuted, tried, etc. I don’t think I would suggest that as being desirable.
However, this being the season for marriage, I thought I’d take a look at my files and see what I could come up with relating to marriage, which might be worth thinking about. Let’s see ….
It’s an obvious truth that marriage is quite strongly bonded to the idea of sex in many societies. Of course, these societal traditions do vary somewhat widely. In some, I am told, two people aren’t allowed to marry until they have demonstrated that they can be fertile together, in order to make sure that the marriage will, in fact, increase the population of the larger society. In some others, marriage provides the “license” for “legitimate” sex, a topic about which both parties are “assumed and expected” to be completely naive regarding prior to religious approval of their relationship. After marriage, then, they may be obliged (according to some religious beliefs) to “multiply” as frequently as possible for the remainder of their lives, in order to increase membership in the specific religious community. Note: in such cases, I would suggest that the function of sex is RELIGIOUS in nature and does not appear to be anything other than the fulfilling a religious obligation.
Then, somewhere back in history, someone introduced the idea of “Romance.” While that term does have multiple, somewhat variant, meanings, many people, I think, tend to associate it primarily with the notion of “… love, especially when sentimental or idealized.” As I understand it, this idea really came to the forefront of Western thinking in the latter stages of the Medieval period. along with the notion of chivalry.
Now, as I understand it, the term, “chivalry,” refers to “… the qualities expected of an ideal knight, especially courage, honor, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak;” and to “ … courteous behavior, especially that of a man toward women.” (Note: there ARE other aspects to this definition, but I believe that these may well represent the most commonly accepted ones.) Given that the concept is Medieval, the reference to the “qualities expected of an ideal knight” makes a lot of sense, at least to me.
Now, as I learned it, somewhere back in the dim recesses of my lit. class background, during that period, since marriage was (at that time) most commonly arranged for by FATHERS, often for political purposes (uniting with one’s allies, establishing closer “ties” with foreign powers, etc.), what we call “Romantic Love” had nothing much to do with it. It WAS (or became, at least in theory) permissible (even desirable?) for a knight to feel emotionally tied to a woman, but it was (at least theoretically) essentially required that this emotional tie should involve nothing more than dedicating ones’ heroic deeds to the “beloved,” and/or carrying her “favor” (a scarf, handkerchief, etc.) into battle to indicate one’s dedication to her, etc. In theory, anything related to actual, physical contact (let alone sexual contact) was strictly forbidden, since knights, typically, were NOT married to their beloved, who WAS (most commonly) married to someone else, often of higher social rank.
Somewhere along the winding path of history, the notion of Romantic love got confused with sexual desire; and, over time, the notion that the proper expression of anything related to a relationship between a man and a woman should be, essentially, required to be based on sexual desire, and (obviously) its primary purpose was to lead to sexual relations. I would like to suggest that I think this is hogwash.
I will quite happily support the idea that sexual relations CAN be an expression of the relationship which we refer to as “love.” I would even go so far as to suggest that that SHOULD (certainly ideally) be the case. However, I would also suggest that love is far more complicated than that, even in common practice and parlance. As a parent, I believe that I love my children (and their families), but (even though I have daughters, sons-in-law, and grandchildren) I really don’t wish to have sex with them. As a child, I loved my parents (both of them) but I didn’t (at least consciously) wish to have sex with my mother, nor my father. I have (had) siblings, whom I thought (think) of as loving, but I’ve not really considered having sex with my sister, nor my now-deceased brother. And this idea can be extended throughout my family and much of my acquaintanceship.
I have had numerous friends over the years, school friends, work colleagues, students, etc. of both genders with whom I felt a considerable degree of affection (which may, or may not have been reciprocated), but with whom I didn’t have any particular sexual attraction. THEY WERE (some still are) MY FRIENDS though! I did (and do) enjoy being with them, talking with them, doing things together, sharing common interests, etc. But, I had (and have had) no particular interest in having sex with them.
While we are thinking about Love and Marriage, I think it’s important to note that, at least in the times we live in today, it may well be as (or more) important to be a “Friend” to your marriage partner, than to worry about how often you have sex with him/her. You see, I’ve never been a believer in the notion that sex is (or should be) the most significant aspect of any relationship between people. That notion simply doesn’t make sense to me. Since our society insists that sex has no bearing (or, at least, isn’t supposed to, according to some people) on relationships between members of the same family, or even just the same gender.
If there are non-sexual factors to relationships within families or genders (which ARE considered acceptable, normal, and proper), why shouldn’t the same notions apply ACROSS them? On the other hand, while not ignoring the attractions of differing sexes, the fact is that being a friend to someone is probably of greater importance as the basis of a lasting relationship, than if one feels a sexual attraction (Lust) to them.
That doesn’t mean that there can’t be some “mystery” in a relationship, even after a considerable time, as Earl suggests in this Pickles strip.
Nor that any relationship can’t experience some “difficulties,” or “complications” every so often as Dustin points out here:
Of course, I should admit that there are times when one has to go just a bit out of the way to remember that one really does love their partner because of an “unfortunate” (translates to downright stupid) choice of words or expression, again citing Earl Pickles.
Of course, Opal COULD have been just a little less critical of Earl’s choice of attire. On the other hand, one does have to admire Earl for his quick response. It’s almost as clever as Dustin’s, in this strip.
But, perhaps the best advice I can give anyone contemplating marriage, (just in case someone is), comes from a old legend from the Cherokee people which I ran across in some book somewhere a fair number of years ago. I think it’s worth repeating here.
The Cherokee Legend of the First Strawberry
At the dawn of time, the first man and the first woman set up their home together by the side of a great broad river. They had everything they needed for a blissful life: Fruit, berries, meat and fish, plenty of wood and fresh water and, of course, each other. They lived as happily as any man and woman have ever lived together, until their first quarrel. It started with a small thing. First man said, “Why didn’t you cook this?” and then, first woman said, “Why didn’t you bring in the wood for the fire?” Pretty soon it got worse, with first man saying, “Why didn’t you tidy that?”, and first woman saying, “Why are you so messy?” Pretty soon, both the insults, and a few wooden plates and bowls, began to fly.
The first woman was so upset that she decided to leave the first man. At the break of day, while he was still asleep, she set off down the valley, heading towards the rising sun. She walked and walked, always looking straight ahead of her, and not once turning back. When the first man woke up and saw that she was gone, he waited for her to come back, but she did not come back. He found her tracks along the valley, but she had a long head start on him, as she did not stop or look around.
The sun was now high in the great blue sky. It looked down upon the first man, as he followed after the first woman, and it saw that there was sadness on the face of an otherwise pristine and perfect world and all his surroundings. The sun asked the man if he was still angry with his wife. He said that he was not angry with her. The sun asked if he would like to have her back. He said that he would like to have her back. And the sun took pity on the first man and decided to help him. His gentle rays touched the ground along the woman’s path, and a huckleberry bush sprang up. Its fruit was shiny and enticing, but as she passed, her eyes remained fixed on the distance, and she did not see the berries.
So the sun shone again on the ground up ahead of the woman. He caused a clump of blackberries to grow up beside her path. She refused to even glance at them.
Then the sun thought that he must create something entirely new; something so vivid, so fragrant, and so delicious, that even the first woman could not fail to take notice of them in her resolute and unhappy mood.
He blessed the ground again with his rays, and the first patch of strawberries spread over the ground. Their sweet scent filled the woman’s senses, and her mood became lighter. She began to look around her, and she saw the bright red fruit hiding beneath the leaves. It looked so enticing that she picked one and tried it. She tasted the strawberry on her tongue, and she began to remember the happiness she knew when she first set up home with her husband. She looked at the half-eaten strawberry in her hand and saw a bright red heart. She found she no longer felt the pressing desire to leave him. She sat down on the ground and wondered what she must do. By the time she had eaten a few more strawberries, first man had caught up to her and sat down quietly and smiled. She gave him a strawberry to eat.
They both then realized how much they cared for one another and walked back home together taking a few strawberry plants with them to plant at their home so they would not forget this lesson. Do nothing in haste, consider all things thoroughly and always forgive one another of your faults.
At the dawn of time, the first man and the first woman set up their home together by the side of a great broad river. They had everything they needed for a blissful life: Fruit, berries, meat and fish, plenty of wood and fresh water and, of course, each other. They lived as happily as any man and woman have ever lived together, until their first quarrel. It started with a small thing. First man said, “Why didn’t you cook this?” and then, first woman said, “Why didn’t you bring in the wood for the fire?” Pretty soon it got worse, with first man saying, “Why didn’t you tidy that?”, and first woman saying, “Why are you so messy?” Pretty soon, both the insults, and a few wooden plates and bowls, began to fly.
The first woman was so upset that she decided to leave the first man. At the break of day, while he was still asleep, she set off down the valley, heading towards the rising sun. She walked and walked, always looking straight ahead of her, and not once turning back. When the first man woke up and saw that she was gone, he waited for her to come back, but she did not come back. He found her tracks along the valley, but she had a long head start on him, as she did not stop or look around.
The sun was now high in the great blue sky. It looked down upon the first man, as he followed after the first woman, and it saw that there was sadness on the face of an otherwise pristine and perfect world and all his surroundings. The sun asked the man if he was still angry with his wife. He said that he was not angry with her. The sun asked if he would like to have her back. He said that he would like to have her back. And the sun took pity on the first man and decided to help him. His gentle rays touched the ground along the woman’s path, and a huckleberry bush sprang up. Its fruit was shiny and enticing, but as she passed, her eyes remained fixed on the distance, and she did not see the berries.
So the sun shone again on the ground up ahead of the woman. He caused a clump of blackberries to grow up beside her path. She refused to even glance at them.
Then the sun thought that he must create something entirely new; something so vivid, so fragrant, and so delicious, that even the first woman could not fail to take notice of them in her resolute and unhappy mood.
He blessed the ground again with his rays, and the first patch of strawberries spread over the ground. Their sweet scent filled the woman’s senses, and her mood became lighter. She began to look around her, and she saw the bright red fruit hiding beneath the leaves. It looked so enticing that she picked one and tried it. She tasted the strawberry on her tongue, and she began to remember the happiness she knew when she first set up home with her husband. She looked at the half-eaten strawberry in her hand and saw a bright red heart. She found she no longer felt the pressing desire to leave him. She sat down on the ground and wondered what she must do. By the time she had eaten a few more strawberries, first man had caught up to her and sat down quietly and smiled. She gave him a strawberry to eat.
They both then realized how much they cared for one another and walked back home together taking a few strawberry plants with them to plant at their home so they would not forget this lesson. Do nothing in haste, consider all things thoroughly and always forgive one another of your faults.
I like that story. I think that it’s worth remembering it when life seems a bit too much like it’s shown as in this Baby Blues strip from a while ago.
Oh, well, glamour isn’t everything, I suppose.
I’ll be back in a couple of week. In the meantime, remember to --
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
I’ll be back in a couple of week. In the meantime, remember to --
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed