Is Marriage Becoming A Thing Of The Past?
Biology Versus Equality
The modern climate of change ignores the iron law of biology, older and far less flexible than that of sexual equality. Biology involves the sex drive, part of nature's plan for procreation. In men, that urgency is stronger than it is in women. If it didn't exist, neither would we. A plus for women, did they but know it (and some do), is that biology gives them the role of hunters or choosers when they are young-ish. They can say no as often as they like, and to as many applicants for their 'favors' as they wish. There will always be other men around hoping to catch (what used to be) the elusive, desirable female. Sadly, such are the vagaries of love, the elusive, desirable female often does not want to be caught by these 'other' men. The minus side is that in spite of all the wonderful medical advances that can assist with conception, nature cruelly, or perhaps kindly, imposes a time limit on women's fertility. And, with rare exceptions, it shows.
Anybody who does not believe this simple truth has only to ask themselves how many older romantic heroines they see on TV, in films, plays and advertisements, compared with romantic young women or romantic old men? Only rare exceptions like the evergreen Calendar Girls attract as much sexual interest as younger women. Admiration and love yes, but how many calendar girls are there around anyway?
Anybody who does not believe this simple truth has only to ask themselves how many older romantic heroines they see on TV, in films, plays and advertisements, compared with romantic young women or romantic old men? Only rare exceptions like the evergreen Calendar Girls attract as much sexual interest as younger women. Admiration and love yes, but how many calendar girls are there around anyway?
Does There Have to Be Winners and Losers
Women are unlikely at the age of 60 or 70 (unless they have oodles of money and a few new body parts) to woo and win toy boys some 30 years their junior - although it can be done. To a few, the joy of such a union is worth the effort of getting it. The pain of parting usually comes far too soon. If you must and can, have your dream, but know the score so that when it ends, as it surely will, you can sing with Piaff, 'Je ne regrette rien'
At the other end of the time scale, men are the winners, the choosers. Until they are 80 or more they can still procreate, and any loss of good looks or sexual attraction is usually compensated for by a bit of power, status or cash. Most men have acquired one or other or even all of these attributes over a working life of a couple of decades. As for a title or decoration, that will do wonders, especially for second time around 'monsters' so many divorcees claim to have married.
Allowing for the fact that women tend to live longer than men, marriage also appears to be of greater benefit to men than women in their old age. In the UK, 52.5% of women aged 75 to 84 live alone, while only 25.7% of men of this age range do so (National Statistics 2003).
Men under 65 years head the list for the fastest increase in single households - we are becoming a nation of singles and the prediction is that by the year 2020, there will be 23% more households and one in three people living alone. Divorce and separation largely account for this trend, with people in their middle years being the most affected.
Though 300,000 hopefuls tie the knot in the UK each year, four in ten untie it, making our divorce rate the highest in Europe. The break-up rate for couples living together, not perhaps surprisingly, is even higher.
In spite of the stark fact that over 30% of all children will, before they reach the age of 16, experience the parting of their natural parents, most Londoners still choose the marriage route to happiness, even if in the back of their minds, one (or both) of the partners keeps a 'cop out' clause, not a happy-ever-after one.
Marriage no longer gives the assurance (barring death) to either spouse of lasting love, companionship and care. And if men vanish when a baby appears or is likely to appear on the scene, where will they be when their inamorata becomes older or disabled? Certainly not by their side or pushing a wheelchair for them. Perhaps this is why there has been such a big swing away from the commitment of marriage altogether.
In the US the trend towards the end of marriage as an institution is moving faster. Marriage is almost never seen as a sacred ceremony, except in old fashioned Catholic or Jewish communities, or in films, where it lingers on because of its scenic not religious value.
Nor is marriage viewed as a civil ceremony promising a lifelong commitment, though the trimmings of reception, guests, wedding dress, bridesmaids and all the rest may remain and are often more extravagant, even bizarre. If the promises 'for richer, for poorer' are ever spoken by the spouses, the intention appears to be only for richer. And 'till divorce do us part' should in truth take the place of 'till death do us part'. In fact the only part of the marriage service which seems to mean what it says today, is 'with this body I do thee worship' - which is probably believed by the well intentioned young, at least until a better sculpted body appears on the horizon. The rich old men who marry bimbos may also mean what they say when they make such a promise. Though they are unlikely to break it, they may never be able to keep it either.
Instead of marriage being an institution which helps towards mutual affection and the raising and rearing of children, it is seen as merely one path among many in the search for personal happiness. This disappearance of marriage in favour of other lifestyles means, according to a profound remark by Maggie Gallagher of the US Women's Quarterly, that we are undermining 'the only institution ever shown to be capable of raising children or civilising the erotic drives of men'.
At the other end of the time scale, men are the winners, the choosers. Until they are 80 or more they can still procreate, and any loss of good looks or sexual attraction is usually compensated for by a bit of power, status or cash. Most men have acquired one or other or even all of these attributes over a working life of a couple of decades. As for a title or decoration, that will do wonders, especially for second time around 'monsters' so many divorcees claim to have married.
Allowing for the fact that women tend to live longer than men, marriage also appears to be of greater benefit to men than women in their old age. In the UK, 52.5% of women aged 75 to 84 live alone, while only 25.7% of men of this age range do so (National Statistics 2003).
Men under 65 years head the list for the fastest increase in single households - we are becoming a nation of singles and the prediction is that by the year 2020, there will be 23% more households and one in three people living alone. Divorce and separation largely account for this trend, with people in their middle years being the most affected.
Though 300,000 hopefuls tie the knot in the UK each year, four in ten untie it, making our divorce rate the highest in Europe. The break-up rate for couples living together, not perhaps surprisingly, is even higher.
In spite of the stark fact that over 30% of all children will, before they reach the age of 16, experience the parting of their natural parents, most Londoners still choose the marriage route to happiness, even if in the back of their minds, one (or both) of the partners keeps a 'cop out' clause, not a happy-ever-after one.
Marriage no longer gives the assurance (barring death) to either spouse of lasting love, companionship and care. And if men vanish when a baby appears or is likely to appear on the scene, where will they be when their inamorata becomes older or disabled? Certainly not by their side or pushing a wheelchair for them. Perhaps this is why there has been such a big swing away from the commitment of marriage altogether.
In the US the trend towards the end of marriage as an institution is moving faster. Marriage is almost never seen as a sacred ceremony, except in old fashioned Catholic or Jewish communities, or in films, where it lingers on because of its scenic not religious value.
Nor is marriage viewed as a civil ceremony promising a lifelong commitment, though the trimmings of reception, guests, wedding dress, bridesmaids and all the rest may remain and are often more extravagant, even bizarre. If the promises 'for richer, for poorer' are ever spoken by the spouses, the intention appears to be only for richer. And 'till divorce do us part' should in truth take the place of 'till death do us part'. In fact the only part of the marriage service which seems to mean what it says today, is 'with this body I do thee worship' - which is probably believed by the well intentioned young, at least until a better sculpted body appears on the horizon. The rich old men who marry bimbos may also mean what they say when they make such a promise. Though they are unlikely to break it, they may never be able to keep it either.
Instead of marriage being an institution which helps towards mutual affection and the raising and rearing of children, it is seen as merely one path among many in the search for personal happiness. This disappearance of marriage in favour of other lifestyles means, according to a profound remark by Maggie Gallagher of the US Women's Quarterly, that we are undermining 'the only institution ever shown to be capable of raising children or civilising the erotic drives of men'.