(no subject)

[thanate]

So there was a conversation last week wherein grauwulf said that he thought the idea the Celts had some time back of contractual marriage for a fixed term (nine years, or pick your favorite symbolic length of time) and at the end of that term they could opt to renew, or to disovle the marriage without penalty and go elsewhere. Which made me start thinking about contracts, and then about unstated assumptions in modern relationships. And there are so many. If I were to draw up a contract for dating, it might run something like this:

---------

I [the undersigned] do hereby agree to hold [this other] dearest to my heart under the title of [boyfriend/girlfriend/etc] and to love, support, and generally put up with [him/her] for the fixed term of [one year] with option for renewal, or until such time as one or both parties wish to renegotiate for dissolution or alteration of this relationship. I understand and accept that the hazards of this relationship may include loss of time, depletion of finances [particularly due to travel], and frustration or reduced peace of mind, and I am prepared to regard the value of the relationship as significantly greater than its drawbacks.

I am aware that between any two people there will be differences of opinion and lifestyle, and I am prepared to compromise in the event of these differences becoming problematic up to but no further than the point at which the compromise begins to devalue the relationship as described above. In the event of the latter instance, I agree to raise the points of difficulty with my co-signatory in [as] calm and rational discussion [as possible] with intent to renegotiate or dissolve the relationship if they cannot be adequately resolved. Allowing of points of difficulty to remain unadressed for inordinate lengths of time, as regarded by one or both parties, is against the terms of this contract, and also just cause for renegotiation.

Any physical, material, social, or emotional benefits arising from this relationship are agreed to be at the discretion of the giver, so long as they conform to the above mentioned standards of value as described in the previous two paragraphs. However, I agree to honor the requests and wishes of my co-signatory to the greatest extent reasonable, with precedence only to maintaining my own continued physical and emotional health. For differences of opinion on the accepted definition of "reasonable" please refer to the preceeding paragraph.

[et cetera...]

signed this [8th] day of [july] in the year [2007] of the common reckoning.

[both parties] / [witnessed by...?]

----

...and I could write multiple pages on appropriate meanings of the word "support" alone. Which just goes to show that a) it's amazing anyone ever wants to do these things in the first place, given how intangible the benefits tend to be, and b) it's amazing how people manage to find enough cultural context in common these days to make these things work. As Barrett puts it, it used to be that everyone (well, within the same culture) knew what the man's job was and what the woman's job was, and when all family models were the same all you needed to know about someone was if this was someone relatively competent whom you found pleasant to talk to in the evenings. And once you picked, then you stuck with your decision and dealt with the consequences whether good or bad.

In these enlightened days, you not only have to figure out who's going to cook and do the laundry, but there are a great many subtler ways in which you have to get along that nobody even used to consider. And a great many more ways not to get along, too, what with individuals seeing the larger world with its diverse influences and opinons. And because they don't need it, without the societal pressure to stick with a spouse, people aren't puting so much effort into getting along. Sometimes that's a good thing; people change, or make serious mistakes in the first place and it's good that they don't have to ruin their lives to get out of intolerable situations. But... there's also a little too much once that pressure is removed of people not bothering to work out differences they should be able to come to terms about. Especially when there are kids involved.

But then, the contract for agreeing to raise a kid would be about three times as long, for a mandatory 18 year minimum term, and doesn't even begin to look like a good idea. Funny we still do these things, huh?

Comments

[belfebe.livejournal.com]

I also found the concept of a contract for marriage for a pre-determined amount of time very interesting. Which goes to prove that marriage customs and how it is done varies from time to time. That includes polygamy, which used to be the norm in olden days, is now considered illegal, and yet it has become fashionable with some people.

Marriage is basically that, a contract. It can be among a man and a woman, a man and several women, a woman and several men, or just several people, depending on which culture of time period we are talking about.

As for whether people are not trying enough, it may be a matter of perception. Like saying that everything in the past was better and that there is nothing like the "old times." If we got to revisit the "old times" we will probably discover that they were not as good as we remember them. :-)

I think that in this day and age you have to work harder at a relationship precisely because there is more freedom to leave it if it makes us miserable.

What often happened in older times was that people stuck together no matter what, even when they could not bear sight of each other, because of social conventions. In my country we call it "bearing our cross." You got married. Marriage is sacred, and if your spouse beats you up, treats you like dirt, expects you to take responsibiliy for everything while they go to have a beer at the bar, well, it is your cross to bear and you may go to heaven for your trouble. But you stick with your spouse even if it kills you. Literally.

I remember the words of one of my mom's maids. She was an older lady and had bore many children. She told me that she was very sad whenever girls were born, because girls came to this world only to suffer.

To be honest, she was right. When you are born to serve the opposite gender hand in feet -- and believe me, you are-- then it is a sad thing to have been born a woman.

But going back to current relationships. I believe that these days -- like in olden days -- the people who really try, and where *both* of them love each other enough to try together, will stay together. Those who are not well suited for each other, or where only one is trying, can walk away and get on with their lives. And this is a good perk of the 21st Century.

But I definitely like your drafting of the contract. :-)

[thanate.livejournal.com]

I don't mean to say the old days were uniformly golden or anything like that. There were just as many idiots in the world then as there are now, and in the sort of situations that involve abuse of whatever sort it's definitely a good thing that there are better options than living with it or getting abused by society instead. But in a world where most people were obliged to work in the sense of manual labor, it made sense to have the presumably stronger partner doing the heavier (farming etc) things and the woman who may be smaller and better at endurance over time than brute strength doing what amounts to a longer shift but a less strenuous one. It's just that this sort of system breaks down when people abuse it, and when the conditions of life change.

But my point was really meant to be that marriage (or dating, when viewed as either a substitute or a trial run) requires huge amounts of co-ordination between the sorts of ideas we usually leave unspoken. That it's the problem of unspoken assumptions, because you don't necessarily realize that all these things are things you have to discuss or compromise on because they're often the things you just assume are the way the world works, and you have to find someone else whose world works the same way, or learn to be ok with it changing. And at least for me, it's the unspoken assumptions that are hardest to re-align because you don't even notice they're there. My contract probably wouldn't look like anybody else's, because someone else would have thought other things were more important to specify.

[belfebe.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah. The problem with assumptions is an eternal one, regardless of time period or anything else. It will plague any relationship, no matter how well meaning the participants are.

The best way to go is to speak frankly and not take anything for granted. Even if it leads to a very difficult or embarrassing conversation. In the end, people will know where they stand and what the expectations are. Moreover, if those expectations are realistic or not.

Communication is the key. Yet, it is one of the problems that one stumbles upon most often.

(And you know the definition of assumption: Assume = Makes an *ass* of *u* and *me*. :-)