My god I’m disillusioned with marriage. Not that I was ever “illusioned” with marriage, or at least with marriage in the traditional sense (my primary problem with it being lifelong monogamy). I just don’t think lifelong monogamy is natural. Things that are natural are easy to do- eating, sleeping, shitting, socializing, etc… at least they are natural under normal circumstances. There are plenty of people who have eating and sleeping and social disorders, or who just can’t shit. But they are not the norm and that is not the point. The point is that monogamy doesn’t come easily and for that reason is probably not natural and for that reason traditional marriage is not something I ever plan on conforming to. Don’t get me wrong. There are people out there who have been together for decades and still love each other and have eyes only for each other, but they are not very common. If I ever end up in this situation I won’t complain, but chances are I‘ll probably end up in an open marriage, if I marry at all. A little paperback printed in 1965 has officially solidified my whole stance on the issue.
The book is called “Sex and the Significant Americans.” It is a study done by two sociologists (John F. Cuber and Peggy B. Harroff) on the sexual behavior of affluent Americans. Back in the early 1960s affluent meant an annual household income of $25,000 or more. There were over 400 participants and they were all interviewed extensively, both as couples and apart. They all ranged between 30-60 years of age. This is important to remember because this means that most of them were born in the early part of the century, most of them came from affluent families, and they all had successful careers (many in the public eye). They were raised in a time and environment that was much much more conservative and conducive to marriage than today. Here’s the kicker: the majority reported being unhappy with their spouses long term and the majority of couples had dealt with infidelity. And it was not at all uncommon to have open marriages.
The sociologists found five common types of relationships– The Conflict Habituated: meaning there is always tension and conflict, quarreling, nagging and so forth, with resolutions never happening because one fight is blended into the next. The Devitalized: these people were deeply in love when they got married and now they are bored out of their skulls with each other, they rarely have sex, and so they are either getting it outside of the marriage or not getting it at all. The Passive-Congenial: these relationships are like the devitalized, dull and sexless, the difference is that these couples didn’t even start out in love. The Vital: Still in love, still like being around each other, conflicts are actually resolved. The Total: these people cannot live without each other and can’t keep their hands off of each other. Every aspect of their lives is intertwined. So this is mostly depressing to me because three out of five of them sound like a miserable existence, but more because the two that do sound wonderful were found to be incredibly rare. Plus, most of the couples who reported vital or total relationships didn’t find them until second or third marriages, and even then, there was infidelity. This is why Disney movies always fade to black after the wedding kiss.
Here are some memorable quotes I will leave you with. Remember this was a study, not an opinion.
p. 172 “But whether now devitalized or never having been vital, the overriding fact seems to be that for the majority, by the middle years, sex has become almost non-existent, something to be stifled, or a matter about which they are downright afraid and negative.”
p. 194 “First of all, but not necessarily most important, are the roots in human protoplasm; a man or a woman is, before anything else, a biopsychic organism linked through heredity to an endless set of antecedent influences. The blind habits which are called culture, or education, or refinement do not always produce the results the mentors intend and individuals emerge willy-nilly from the efforts to standardize them by indoctrination… and it doesn’t yield to monolithic training as easily as desired, despite the impressive superstructure of church, school, and informal pressure.”
Anyhoo I do believe this is an excellent reason to watch more porn. Buy it don’t steal it (:
One Response
My god I’m disillusioned with private property – especially intellectual property since it’s such a complicated subject. Not that I was ever “illusioned” with private property, or at least under the impression that it existed. I agree with Proudhoun here: “Property is theft.” Things that are worth having are easy to come by – food, shelter, fresh water, knowledge. At least they are under normal, non-laizzes-faire capitalist circumstances. Of course there are plenty of people who have some of these things in our society, but few who have all. Our culture is replete with material wealth, and unless you drink cheap wine under a bridge every day, you probably have 3/4 of these things. But those who have money and wisdom; well, that’s rare. They are not the norm. The point is that the whole package doesn’t come easily and for that reason is probably not natural and for that reason respecting property rights is not something I ever plan on fully caring about. Don’t get me wrong. I will surely espouse the virtues of capitalism at parties, and I will definitely bitch about the government and taxes, but when it comes to driving the root of the “money making personality” all the way down into my soul: well, that’s just not practical – I mean: natural. Of course, if by some accident, I ever find myself awakened inside some capitalist utopia, I won’t complain, but chances are I’ll probably stay mired in this mixed economy, if it even stays mixed and doesn’t collapse into complete dictatorship. A million books, talk show hosts, magazines, entertainers, and random, cynical acquaintences has officially solidified my whole stance on the issue.
I like to call this conglomeration my “personality” (which, incidentally, is also my career). Here’s the evidence I searched for after I had already affirmed, with full conviction and by tired default, the “truthfullness” of my illusion; thereby enshrining it within the deepest catacombs of my subliminal rhetoric. The important thing to remember is that by looking at the effects, and ignoring the causes, I am able to provide a convincing non-argument dressed up as an argument. By treating previous, less easily identified effects as causes themselves, I accomplish this. In doing so, I actually pull the rug out from underneath myself since any conclusions I come to could, using my own methodology, be dismissed as mere social conditioning. But don’t think about that.
My argument runs as follows: I have found 4 common attitudes towards ownership and personal success. These attitudes have pervaded all cultures, regardless of time and place, but we must remember that this needs to be ignored. My goal here is to convince myself, and you, dear reader, that these attitudes, and the countless emperical examples of them throughout history and across the globe, are merely one segment of a pretentious, naive part of the human psyche. These people I’ve studied and classified were simply humans. They didn’t realize that whatever their successes or failures in gaining or keeping knowledge and property, they had not been acting naturally. That is, they had merely been exercising their volition and choosing to incorporate the good and/or the bad into their lives. It is my firm conviction that the animal known as environment and the animal within us all must take precendence over whatever concious power we might possess. (Nevermind that in every attempt to convince you of this, I must speak to your conciousness).
The first personality is the “Destroyer.” The destroyer has no inkling of values, of wealth, of knowledge, of personal desire. He is motivated by one urge and one urge only: To wipe out. To silence, or pervert beyond recognition, anything and everything which reminds him of his self-aborted self. It is his only source of “pleasure” and it is his only motivation, no matter how cunning. This type of personality is very rare. Second, more common and slightly less bad, we have the “Resenter.” This is the type of person who enjoys the effects of private property and personally grasped wisdom, but who hates the means by which to get or maintain them. Out of all proportion and usually through artificial means, he revels in the joys, the intoxications, and the titilations of what production and discovery can provide him, but he has yet to develop any appropriate thoughts – let alone any appropriate feelings – towards the processes and institutions which keep him alive. Next, still more common and still less repulsive, is the “Obeyer.” This is the man who has thought about things; but not quite enough to be out of the grasp of his “Resenter” neighbor down the street. He feels a kinship with the “Resenter”, not because he respects him individually, but because he is there, just as he’s always been there. His attitude towards work, towards private property, towards politics, towards just about everything in the scope of human concerns is: “Alright.” The “Obeyer” is pushed and pulled by the forces around him. He regards his work, not as good or as noble or as exciting, but simply as his work. He regards his family in much the same way. His interests, while generally positive, are vanilla and his life and relatives are interchangable. He is the bulk of humanity and he is at the mercy, in our time and place, primarily by my last category. That final group is made up of what I, of course arbitrarly, call the “Valuer.” The “Valuer” is someone who seeks, and finds, a grasp of everything in his life from the bottom up. From the smallest detail to the deepest passion. From the most subtle argumentation to the most juvenile paradigms. He knows, or at least wants to know (and considers knowing possible), exactly what he is doing and exactly why he is doing it. He, outlandishly of course, has a passionate devotion to his property, his liberty, and his integrity. Often times, the “Valuer” is the source of great hatred by the other three attitudes; and yet for some inexplicable reason, he does not give in. He unnaturally refuses to acknowledge what they all seem to as vehimently know: That part of his life and part of his wealth belongs to them. That just as they are nothing without him, he is nothing without them. Their commonality gives his greatness – his unbearable sensibility – validity. Sociology tells them so! But he won’t use their methods by which to come to conclusions. He does not take polls, he introspects. He does not count trees, he digs them up, builds a house with them, and calls it his own. And he won’t apologize for it!
Here are some memorable quotes I will leave you with. Remember, these are the well-established cultural dogmas – backed up by thousands of professors, artists, entertainers, and intellectuals – and spewed out by our currently most prominent public figures. Not some outlandish statments from some “Valuer.”
– “Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential.” – Barack Obama
– “Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you in rerun.” – John McCain
Anyhoo, I do believe this is an excellent reason to ignore what I’ve just said. Just don’t admit yourself that you’re a “Resenter” or an “Obeyer.” It’s easier that way. (: