(no subject)
Jul. 10th, 2007 03:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thanateSo there was a conversation last week wherein ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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?
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?