JOE writes:

Susan conceptualizes marriage as a type of business partnership, an idea supported by contemporary terminology, in which the point of “marriage” is rather like the business goal of “maximizing shareholder value (profit).”

Since marriage is not a commercial enterprise, and there is not an actual dividend to be paid, the “value” must necessarily realize in the form of other contemporary personal concerns: “[political] equality,” “self-esteem,” “pleasure,” “autonomy,” “self-expression,” etc. In practical terms, this means a constant, never-ending contention over transactional gain: inherently selfish scorekeeping. How is this good? To what end? What is the purpose of such a “marriage,” especially one deliberately without children? 

From a man’s perspective, there are a few potential benefits to such an arrangement: 

• Social goodwill that accrues to married men, from other men, who understand the awesome responsibility and burden of creating, sustaining, and leading a family
• Easy sex
• Alleviation of loneliness
• Economic sharing of household maintenance expense/labor 

However, these are illusory. The goodwill shown married men requires an actual family at some point. Sex is easy without the legal complications and restrictions imposed thereby. Loneliness can be cured by joining a club or society, or throwing oneself into one’s work. 

Moreover, why would a man subject himself to constant second-guessing, never-ending disputation, and the ever-present doubt of his “wife’s” loyalty and obedience? Will she be there when he comes home today? Will he find himself in hand-cuffs when he won’t capitulate so easily? Will an agreement be honored in the first place? After all, evaluations are subject to revision at the whim of the evaluator. 

Absent children, there is no point to marriage. A man may obtain all the benefits of such “marriage,” at much lower cost, on the open market. Moreover, he retains personal freedom and his options remain “open.” 

Susan, I submit that you are in conflict, a state of doublethink. While you espouse petty and mean feminist concepts such as “equality” your behavior was to enter a traditional institution with well-known rules and expectations. 

It would be better if you clarify which of your conceptualizations – the explicit “feminism” or the implicit “tradition” – are truly yours. In my experience, most people parrot popular idiocy without understanding how lip service to them harms everyone involved. Either way, jettisoning one or the other will clarify your life and allow you to pursue the appropriate end without self-doubt and constant aggravation. This is as important for your husband as yourself. 

What you describe is actually the venerable LLP — not Holy Matrimony.

                                                    — Comments —

Fred Owens writes:

Susan conceptualizes marriage as a type of business partnership, an idea supported by contemporary terminology, in which the point of “marriage” is rather like the business goal of “maximizing shareholder value (profit).”

There is a contractual nature to marriage in the Jewish tradition –the contract, the ketubah, is signed by the bride and groom, it is the essence of the ceremony. The ketubah is often framed and displayed in the home of the married couple.

To me, although I’m not Jewish, it symbolizes an essential harmony between romance and the practical arrangements of life. You might say a good marriage is a combination of love and property.

Please follow and like us: