Beyond the Fairy-tale Bedroom Chamber
...the personal becomes political
For vast majority of us the world over, the unfortunate fact is that for most of our lives we are distracted by problems we have not the capacity to solve in our individual isolated state. Similarly the isolated suburban family is in the same state. They cannot raise their heads above the waves while they have to carry the day to day worries and concerns of survival on their shoulders, alone. What mostly keeps us from popping our heads up above the troubles and strife to properly survey the situation is that we tend to blame ourselves, or blame ‘fate’ for our troubles, or for what we don’t have, or for what is so dam hard to acquire and keep.
Rarely does the average man or woman or child think to examine and thus come to squarely lay the blame where it actually lies; which is mostly with the design or structure of what frames or encases their existence. As the American futurist and self-described social engineer, Jacque Fresco says: ‘when two cars collide at an intersection, should we as students of society concentrate our attention on the individual blame of the drivers, on "fate", or on the way transportation is engineered so that it permits collisions?’
And so it is with marriage, or all singular romantic attachments, or live-in coupled partnerships. Why is it that more than 57% of all marriages in countries such as Australia, the UK and America, end in divorce, while the remainder who do stay together, live so miserably and unhappily ever after? Is it the people involved who are at fault, or is it the design and structure of marriage itself and the expected customary norm of one-on-one coupling that is at the heart of the defect that erodes the capacity for continued sustainable support which would otherwise secure roofs over children’s heads, food on their tables and clothes on backs, while they have no other choice but to depend on others for their very existence?
When a marriage or live-in partnership goes burst, inarguably everyone suffers, and yet this issue of design is something most of us rarely examine with any open or honest scrutiny. It is as if marriage and one-on-one romantic attachments are the Holy of Holy Grails, immune and eternally exempt from a thorough scientific, economic, social or political review.
But why is this so? What is it that prevents us from cross-examining this imposed institution that inarguably separates man and woman and child from the whole of society – and has each clinging and swearing allegiance to their own bloodline; determined to be walled off, needing their own private parcels of containment in the form of exclusive entitlement to housing including kitchens, laundries, entertainment areas, garages, backyards, furnishings, fittings and a myriad of electrical appliances?
Is it the shame of the animalistic primitive and commonly non-consensual sadistic sex act itself that we instinctively, morally recognize necessitates being hidden behind closed doors; concealed from the neighbors, kept secret from the public eye? Or is it more than that? It is the utter scandalous tyranny and abuse of power over those who are economically dependent on others, through no fault of their own that needs covering over and concealing behind six-foot high fences, closed curtains and obstructive shutters?
Hypocritically, most of us know what we need to hide about ourselves from others – lest we be ostracized and held to account. What we dare not reveal about ourselves to those who are not dominated and held fast by dependency to our particular brand and seal of exclusive economic rule, is what it always was, and remains; that is until the day we awake from the spell caste by the tyrants of old. It is a survival thing – or so we think, or so we have been lead to believe.
Conceivably, perhaps, the primitive unevolved sex act is a shameful thing that should be concealed from children and hidden from the neighbors. Conceivably laying atop a woman who is not in season, or at the very least, not made ready for penetration, is so barbaric that it should be carried out in absolute secret – a den keep exclusively for such extreme torture.
A little remembered, or if it is, a little regarded fact is that from the very beginning, exclusive coupling was instituted to underpin all kinds of fanciful glamour, domination and secure the hereditary successive bloodline property rights of tyrants - those who took the land by force from the communal collective that farmed land in common and shared the fruits of their labors and toil. Essentially in its earliest form, marriage was reserved for Kings and Queens, Emperors and Rulers. The common people were not naturally inclined to such limiting and restrictive arrangements. Exclusive coupling was of little benefit to them; if not actually detrimental to their long-term welfare.
The current definition of marriage most certainly entails moonstruck partners pledging eternal love for each other, forsaking all sexual, economic and emotional interaction with all others; however this dreamy idealist precept has relatively modern origins. Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it. Back only a century ago and still in most eastern cultures and tribal cultures, what marriage was purposed for, was not in the slightest about the relationship between the individual man and the woman entering into the commitment, but rather entirely bases on a way of making alliances and expanding the family labor force and defense systems through the acquisition of in-laws.
The truth is early records of marriage arrangements were nothing more than a form of strategic alliance between families, with the betrothed in question, more often than not, having little to no say in whom they had to submit their minds and bodies to, forever after. Marrying with the sole intention of maintaining and fortifying alliances within the family, was and still is, quite common. Biblical records provide numerous accounts of cousins and even siblings being married off to each other to fortify family fortunes and defences. Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister.
Little has changed. Throughout the world cousin marriages remain common, particularly in the Middle East and also amongst British and European royalty and aristocracy have followed suit. In fact, anthropologist Robin Fox estimates that the majority of all marriages throughout history have between first and second cousins, as well as, between uncles and nieces.
Monogamy may seem the principal element to marriage these days, however it is not the central or dominate theme of marriage when we look back throughout history. The notable fact is that polygamy has been more common than its counterpart - marriage to a single individual throughout history. From Jacob, to the famous Jewish kings such as David and Solomon, to the Emperors of Egypt, Rome, India and China, to the Sultans of Arabia, as well as, the Chieftains of Africa, these all have something major in common - they were entirely partial to from two to thousands of wives – never one.
Over time the common man who could afford it, got in on the act and took for themselves multiple wives; as they still do in the Middle East and is also common practice amongst certain Christian sects in America today. In a few cultures throughout Asia historically some women were sanctioned to be allowed and even encouraged to marry multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages and even line-marriages. But these are mostly the forgotten past.
Across Europe sometime around the sixth and ninth centuries, via the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, backed up by the reigning Kings, monogamy became the guiding principle, if not the enforced dictate imposed at the point of swords and daggers, upon the common people. However most Kings and those of nobility, maintained a protracted battle with the Catholic Church in order to be permitted to flout ‘Church Rule’ and take for themselves a second wife; and if not granted that exemption – to divorce and marry a succession of women who took their fancy, but then fell out of favor, only to be seditiously removed and replaced.
Still not that long ago and even amongst the many and various male-dominate cultures today, the concepts and forms of idealized modern monogamous marriage, do not run parallel to the mostly expected conception of mutual fidelity. The glaring hypocrisy that is hidden in most of our ancestral closets and even our own homes, is that although under the Westminster system of law, marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman – right up until the 19th century, while it was commonly accepted that men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, without major consequence or punishment. However any children resulting from those illicit affairs, certainly were punishment when it is considered that they were branded forever after as illegitimate, and thus not entitled to claim any part of their father’s inheritance.
Not that long ago and still in some countries, under the law, men who committed infidelity did not have any legal obligation to supply support for any children they beget, outside of their legal marital union. Nor did or does the state or the church have any legal obligation to sustain those branded ‘bastards’. Thus men's promiscuity was, and still is in parts of the globe, quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy and judicial tolerance of their sexual impropriety and indiscretions; which essentially enables and legally protects their promiscuity.
Under the law in America, the ‘baby daddy’ of children born outside of legal marriage, has little obligation to maintain the children he begets. In contrast, for centuries, women who commit adultery and step outside the bounds of fidelity to a legal spouse, most certainly will incur in one form or another, the strong arm of the law. The Adulteress, who had or has an affair with a married man, will invariably be left ‘holding the baby.’ Or if she is or was married and caught out having an affair with either a single or married man, she would and still does in many cases, inevitably lose all rights to claim her children or any part of the marital home.
Believe it or not, less than a century ago, mutual attraction in marriage wasn't considered at all important. In fact in Victorian England, it was commonly asserted that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all. Still, up until half a century ago, marriage wasn't about equality; that is if it is today. At that time, and still to this present day, women and men have unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. As an example, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states right up until the 1970s. For all the good a change of the law did, because while rape within marriage is now illegal, good luck to any woman who tries to gain a conviction against their spouse for sexually penetrating them without consent.
Now here we are more than a decade and a half into the 21st Century, so saturated and psychically impregnated with the idea of exclusive coupling that we can scarcely imagine society structured along any other lines. But nonetheless what cannot be ignored is the socio-economic grid-lock of the average couple – east and west, who are unable to move forward, only back up and reverse, regress economically, in comfort and security. For most of us we can only perceive a backwards move as the only way out of strangulating debt, followed on the coat-tails of crippling insufferable sexual abuse, emotional torment and shattered dreams of all kinds of hoped-for wonderful.
Here we are the majority of the population; near all 7 Billion of us, trapped by nothing more or less than our own ignorance. All of us except a small few, seem totally captivated beyond reason and sense, by the repeating theme of a fable that rightly or wrongly belongs to fairy-tale princes and princes such as Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, as well as legendary Kings such as Arthur and Queen Guinevere, and the mythical gods and goddesses that live in the sky, not here on Earth. This handed down trance, unwittingly limits our ability to steer our vehicles, off onto a side-road. Yes we have the choice to go around the traffic-jam. We have that choice, and yet so few of us ever find the courage within to take the detour – to take the road less traveled.
At this time of emerging interest and awareness of global government and corporate ‘conspiracy to control the entire globe’, a growing number of individuals are becoming conscious of the fact that the conspiracy to ‘script out’ their inalienable rights and freedoms, does not lie to far from home. People are waking up in ever increasing numbers. They are recognizing that the institution of marriage is designed to fortify debt. Exclusive coupling ensures isolation. It is very good at that. When man and woman are isolated - siphoned off from cooperation and contributions of support from the greater whole, all forms of dependencies and conscripted participation in the corporate agenda becomes obligatory, even inescapable in order to just survive.
When one marries or couples up, suddenly one is obliged to enter into a 25 to 30 year mortgage, which will mean that the property will end up being paid back to the bastard banks, more than three times over. Then there is the food to be put the table, clothes on backs, tuition fees and text books and computers to go into hock to buy in order to educate your children, immunize them, cover health care and transport costs and pay ever increasing fuel and energy bills.
If you are lucky enough to wake up in time, the isolated bedroom chamber will be seen for what it is – a debt trap – drain of one’s rights and freedoms. Behind closed doors you become a slave to the illusion that you are king of your castle or the queen of your king. Suddenly the personal becomes political.
If you believe that the bonds the human race should be educated to and expected to form, should be designed so that it is utterly impossible for an individual or collective men, women and children to lose the security of a home or the necessities life, should affections or circumstances change; then we begin together on the same page. If you believe that the mind is capable of gradually applying the method of patient, scientific investigation to find out how to rearrange the structure of our society to give each individual a greater opportunity for self-realization and happiness while he and she is on this earth, we welcome and need your help.
I, along with a growing band of intelligent social and ecological activists, assure you, a new world filled with peace and prosperity is obtainable. There is nothing stopping us, beyond intelligent thought, from waking and walking into the Promised Era of peace and shared prosperity. All that is necessary to begin the transformation from want to plenty for all is to firstly re-evaluate the design of our most personal and intimate relationships and the boxes we habitually and traditionally put these in. Why is it that we wall off an intimate relationship – separate it from all others?
When we wake from the spell; from the conditioning; from the brainwashing, we inevitably also break the addiction to the numbness induced by a variety of health destroying sedatives - be these poisons in the form of fat and chemical ladened foods, alcohol or prescription drugs. Surely we should expect the light of glaring reality to hurt our eyes and hearts when we awaken to the sensitivities capable of bringing us to a point of having to look at everything with new eyes – eyes that seek justice, liberty and freedom in greater degrees and dimensions even. Once the old blinders are resolved, our perceptions are sharper and more complex. Once awake, we became so much more aware of the traps and the spells as well as the conditioning - the brainwashing.
Everywhere I look I see man and master, enslaved by the same myth; the same imaginings of power rather than privilege – in this vein I mean that he and she are utterly curtailed by all kinds of distracts as they seek after power over rather than maintaining their efforts to attain more freedom, greater liberty, expanded autonomy, emancipation from toil, self-determination, choice and ease.
Man and woman have little ease while they remain incarcerated in the mindset that they must cleave only unto each other, exclusively; forsaking all others that might otherwise bind and render all that they are, and have, to the common cause and course of cooperative empowerment to secure the physical, emotional and creative developmental support of all participants and shared-intentioned contributors.
Imagine the power, might and productivity of six enlightened persons all coming together with the will and commitment to share all that they have and hold and are eager to develop. Imagine the unlimited complex marriage unions, consisting of the committed contribution of more than 300 hundred adults, or why not a thousand or two thousand.
But of course this idea of ‘evolved complex union’ will not appeal to everyone. Few but the very spiritually or humanitarianly conscious will be able to grasp the reforming magnitude of its advanced design and anciently presented, era after era, moral principles. Likewise few will be able to even allow the concept to reach their ears without immediately rejecting it, due to its foreignness and wide contrast to the status quo.
Nonetheless as a social and environmental revolutionist, I take the risk of condemnation and espouse the virtues and vision of ‘Evolved Complex Union’ as a gift of inspiration and a message of hope to those who have open ears to hear and eyes to see beyond the established cycling ecological destruction; and more importantly, the social chaos and depraved, but nonetheless accepted ‘confronts’ of the present and the conforming repetitious past. As disappointing as it is, I have no other choice but to accept that very few individuals are able to objectively examine the concepts of ‘Evolved Complex Union’, nor the founding idea of its establishment; which is to take the ‘Cock out of the Box’ and thus honor and only permit the female birth canal to be utilized as the vehicle for which it was intended – as vehicle to carry the seed of the male to womb of the mother to conceive a child, that is both well-considered and securely catered for.
To appreciate the long overdue precepts of an alternative to singular or coupled cohabitation, one must invariably meet what is presented with a blend of open-mindedness and critical skepticism. It is hard enough to face the problems of our own time. And it is many times more difficult to understand a projection of fantastic and shocking changes that may occur over the proceeding decades, let alone imagine the challenges or opportunities or limits on offer in the next hundred years or the next thousand years... read more - The More the Merrier... exploring the attributes of complex union
Many millions of women the world over are no less than sex slaves, even though they are legally married. Even in this day and age of so-called sexual liberation, it is a rare woman who is not routinely pressured by her husband or partner to have sex. The majority of women are routinely guilted into having sex with their husbands and partners when they simply aren’t up to submitting to hurried, inconsiderate or down-right painful penetration.
Behind closed doors countless selfish males get away with forcing their wives and partners to have sex when they have only weeks ago given birth, or have their periods, or are in no way shape or form stimulated enough to cause them to naturally lubricate sufficiently to prevent suffering searing pain when penetrated.
Many women secretly fear subtle and not so subtle, retaliation from their husbands and partners if they reject their partners demand that they give their bodies over to relieve the male’s urges. Most feel they can never say ‘no’ when they are economically dependent on their husbands to support themselves and their dependent children.
Abuse is often centered on power and control in all aspects of the relationship, so it’s not uncommon that an abusive partner will also think nothing of forcing intercourse or demands for oral or even anal penetration on his wife and partner also.
Recognized or not, sexual coercion lies on the continuum of sexually aggressive behavior. It can vary from being egged on and persuaded, to being forced to submit by rather rough physical handling. It can also take a verbal and emotional form that entail statements intended to make the wife or partner feel shamed, selfish, ungrateful or guilty for rejecting their advances.
A woman in a legal and dependent relationship can also be made to feel forced through more subtle actions too. For example, she can be made to feel as though she owes her husband because she’s in a relationship or because she has agreed to have sex before, because he has spent money on her, paid the bills or simply because he works hard to provide.
Some males even go as far as forcing drugs or alcohol on their wives to ‘loosen her up’ and cause her to lose what he deems is her defences and inhibitions. Many men play on the fact that they are in a committed relationship, and say things like: ‘Agreeing to have sex is a way to prove your love for me.’ Some even go as far as saying that they will ‘get it somewhere else if they are denied.’
It is also not uncommon for married men or men who are in what they deem a committed relationship to react negatively, not hiding that they feel sad, angry or resentment when they don’t get their own way.
A host of man habitually just carry on pressuring their partners until they give in. Some even go as far as threatening and making their partners very afraid of the consequences if they don’t give in.
More commonly the majority of males hell bent on making their wives and partners have sex, whether they want to or not, try their damnedest to normalize their sexual expectations, and might say things like ‘I need it, I’m a man.’
Even if your partner isn’t forcing you to do sexual acts against your will, being made to feel obligated is coercion in itself. Dating someone, being in a relationship, or being married never means that you owe your partner sexual intimacy of any kind.
A coercive partner may convince himself that consent is ongoing because he is married or in a committed relationship. However, consenting to something once doesn’t make it a ‘given’ each time. Consenting to one action doesn’t mean you have given your consent for other actions. In a relationship where sexual coercion is occurring, there is a lack of consent, and the coercive partner doesn’t respect the boundaries or wishes of the other.
As we head into the second decade of the 21st Century, it is a little acknowledged fact that few sexual encounters between married couples across the global are truly consensual.
Not withstanding its acceptance or denial, marital rape is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse, whether it is recognized as such or not.
In many countries, marital rape either remains outside the criminal law, or is deemed illegal, yet still widely tolerated as a man's right to have sex with his wife if she is willing or not.