MARRIAGE: AN ESSAY
Edward E. Rochon
Edward E. Rochon on Shakespir
Marriage: An Essay
Copyright © 2016 by Edward E. Rochon
Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.
Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.
Some Other Works by the Author
[Atheism & Fraud: An Essay
Death is a Cabaret: A Parody
Parables: An Essay
Sex, Pain and Ethics: An Essay
Sir John Hovey: A Short Story
Windermere Monster: A Short Story
Woman: A Play Essay
Table of Contents
The Age of Aquarius or the Golden Age of Isaiah, The Peaceable Kingdom, where are we and what do they portend? We might consider this from the future of that most important of human institutions: marriage. Monogamy or wives shared in common, or no marriage at all for all practical purposes which could very well be equivalent to husbands and wives shared in common?
From the pagan tradition and the biblical outlook, I imagine two formulations of future marriage. The pagan tradition attempts to use scripture to justify its position, as the occult world has always infiltrated Judaism and Christianity to cloak, to justify, to usurp the position held by Christianity in the aftermath of the pagan ascendancy. Do not assume that I support every argument I place into the various arguments. They merely offer an alternative case support. Let us look at two types of fruition of marriage and how they might resolve or complicate man’s quest for paradise on earth, and almost needless to say, marital nirvana, the bliss of harmonious family life.
Chapter 1: Age of Aquarius
There is a strong polygamous tendency in paganism. If monogamy is the norm for various reasons of social harmony, egalitarianism due to economic situation, this is often offset by a strong tendency to infidelity expressed as either heterosexual or bisexual promiscuity. We see polygamous behavior in the biblical tradition as well, but only from the male side, never as polyandry, even though polyandry is not specifically forbidden in the Pentateuch. The Apostle Paul alluded to polyandry as forbidden, but without scriptural warrant. The great apostle was prone to put his foot in his mouth, conflating his pharisaic tradition with the law. But it is the word of God, not Paul’s opinions, whether specifically expressed as opinion or not that holds sway on such matters. It is a pity Paul did not return to the third heaven or the desert from time to time for refresher courses. It might have restrained him from conflating scripture with his own unattributed opinions. Now Christians know that Jesus countermanded Moses’ permission to allow divorce for any reason. And this alone should put aside the notion of Christian fundamentalist assertions that every word in the Bible is the infallible word of God. It is infallible that the statements were made, not that they were necessarily true. Epistles are just letters. Does anyone not understand the difference between ‘and the Lord said to me (prophet/apostle)’ and comments made off the cuff. These comments may be the true word of God or not. We can take them as such, but not where clearly contraindicated by scripture, and sometimes, by the words of apostles such as Paul contraindicating their own assertions. Paul has no warrant to override God.
So it is possible that pagan marriage could use biblical references or lack of references to support their views on marriage.
Let us consider a scenario of the Hippie marriage brought up to date. The English poet, William Blake, was quite popular with hippies and the Aquarian Age crowd. He resented his wife’s insistence on Blake remaining monogamous. She recoiled at his attempts to bring other women into their marriage. Blake was quoted by Henry Crabb Robinson in his reminiscences on William Blake, that monogamy was not always forbidden in the biblical tradition, the patriarchs for example, and that Blake favored it. We note Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and others in polygamous relationships for one reason or another.
Then there is the age at which sexual relationships are allowed. A proponent of atheism, Steve Shives, in one of his Internet offerings proposes several reasons why Muhammad the Prophet should not be believed or admired. He called Muhammad a sex pervert because he married a nine year old girl. Note that he married her before taking her to bed. From the view of the age he lived in, this was not the case. Be it noted that the author disapproves of Islam and has little regard for its prophet. The kindest thing I could say about them is that they and the prophet are misguided, conceding the benefit of the doubt.
I remember when I was a boy seeing a girl, very buxom, who was pointed out to me. My friend told me she was only ten years old. I expressed amazement and even disbelief. This girl was certainly sexually mature (capable of pregnancy) by or before the age of nine. The girl confirmed that she was only ten when I asked her but with some irritation on her part.
Muhammad had a number of wives, mostly for political reasons. He was not lecherous or a womanizer according to tradition. The marriage was arranged when the girl was quite small. By custom, when the intended bride became sexually mature, the wedding took place.
Humans are mammals. Mammals are deemed adults when they are sexually mature. What little growth remains is more human projection onto the species. We have intellectual maturity that does not correspond to sexual maturity. But traditional human society always married girls off based on sexual maturity. The husband, his mother and other wives, according to the case, would handle complicated matters. Emotional and intellectual maturity was not deemed sufficient to delay marriage. And the fire of sexual desire needed quenching in the marriage bed. Some years ago, some Iraqi men were prosecuted for child molestation because they married twelve year old girls brought from Iraq. These were arranged marriages from Iraq and the men were completely befuddled. They saw nothing wrong with this.
Steve Shives hates religious people and looks for occasions to attack them. It would be better he attacked the pederast background (covert and overt) among secular humanists going back to atheists of the ancient world of Greece and Rome. Clean out your own house in propounding your superstition that you claim is based upon reason. As it turns out, according to Islamic tradition, this girl grew to be a great proponent and student of Islam, admired her husband greatly, and would be incredulous and furious to hear Steve Shives’ criticism. Shives could say this was all propaganda, but young girls have married for millennia, generally by parental arrangement, and with no great protest on the girl’s part, unless they disliked the man. Now arranged marriages are another matter that certainly does not entail sexual perversion. And many couples who arranged and agreed upon their own marriages end in acrimonious divorce in modern times. This is the fact. Certainly, there are good reasons to oppose arranged marriages and marriage before full maturity as determined by biology and some arbitrary standards of emotional and intellectual maturity. We see people of any age who seem to lack one or both of these admirable attributes. At any rate, Steve Shives is just a scumbag looking for excuses to attack deism, those who affirm God’s existence. But if I had a nine year old daughter, I would not give her permission to marry even if it were legal. As I said, there are good reasons to object to such behavior. On the other hand, I have seen three year old children with intellectual perspicacity and attendant emotional maturity (literate, large vocabulary, sophisticated thought patterns) that it amazed me. To be sure, such children are the exception. Perhaps such a child by age nine would make some relent in allowing the marriage though their gut reaction would be against it. By the way, the Babylonian Talmud expresses some rabbinical opinions that sex with three year old girls is perfectly acceptable. Most Americans would not agree at the present time.
So the last paragraph brings in the matter of age into the picture. Let us imagine this hippie communal marriage with justifications.
The Bible allows polygamy by tolerance or by lack of condemnation in Leviticus. We have the ‘holy human orgy’ of the Age of Aquarius. If one partner is not in the mood, go to another. That is convenient. If one partner really has the hots for another, but the another likes only ten percent of the other partner, a marriage might work out with a spouse that is married to nine other partners. She or he need only spend ten percent of the time with that spouse. That one in ten charming attribute might make it work, and the partner whole hog for the union would achieve some satisfaction. With his nine other wives, he could always manage sex on a fairly regular basis, and companionship as well.
Might not such a union lead to bisexuality? You would have husbands getting it on with husbands and wives with wives. Did you know that Leviticus does not specifically condemn lesbian relationships? Why not? Does it have something to do with men allowed more than one wife by default? The ménage à trois leading to lesbian contact between the two female lovers? Why not two wives in bed at the same time? But does not the Apostle Paul condemn both homosexual and lesbian relationships? It would appear so. But actually he condemns homosexuality and states in a like manner women turn from what is natural. You can assume a condemnation of lesbianism to be sure, but he might be referring to anything from bestiality to kinky or otherwise perverted sexuality, prostitution, fornication, adultery and so forth. It does not matter. Paul had no authority to add to Leviticus. Lesbianism is not condemned in the Pentateuch. To be sure it was often frowned upon in Jewish and Islamic culture.
Now if polygamy is the reason why God did not specifically condemn lesbianism, because the wives are one flesh with their husband, and thereby one flesh with each other, making lesbian contact little more than masturbation, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. And, no, Leviticus does not condemn masturbation. The sin of onanism has nothing to do with masturbation. Back to the point, if a woman has more than one husband, these husbands are one flesh with each other, thereby nullifying the condemnation of homosexuality by this new paradigm, that was certainly not allowed by tradition in Ancient Israel. To be sure this is all speculative on my part, but it is the hippie justification that is being used here. It is clear from scripture. You are not allowed to add or take away from scripture, but you must be allowed to interpret scripture. In the Christian tradition, a new order of events, new circumstances, now allow previously forbidden behavior, so the hippie says. No doubt, William Blake would agree.
Then we come to the age of sexual activity and marriage. Multiple partners means many half siblings, first cousins and so forth. First cousin marriage is not deemed incest in Leviticus, nor marriage between uncle and niece. Nor is there any specific age for marriage mentioned in Leviticus. Nor is there any specific prohibition against petting, heavy or not, fellatio, anal contact between consenting partners. Rape is certainly always illegal and homosexual behavior. Only coitus as defined as penetration of the vagina is strictly deemed rape in our law by tradition. Other behavior is sexual assault, lewd behavior, sodomy, in cases where legal questions of force or immaturity are in play. And if the parents consent to their child engaging in heavy petting with an adult as a learning experience, and the child willing (Children have sexual desire before sexual maturity and capable of orgasm.), and agree to early marriage because the whole community supports the marriage, obviating emotional and intellectual maturity as an impediment to the union, we see the holy human orgy taking shape with off handed support from scriptural interpretation.
OK, what might be wrong with this complicated skein of sexual relationships? First, it is extremely complicated in its interrelationship. This does not bode well for social harmony. Second, there is the continuing input of new spouses and partners that will further complicate the matter. Third, it increases the spread of disease. There is no such thing as safe sex between multiple partners, or even within monogamous relationships, since people are invariably exposed to any number of contagions by non-sexual intercourse. There are many maladies that have a long term debilitating effect on people that neither they nor their doctors are aware of. There is an enormous quantity of microbe species and subspecies whose classification and pathogenic symptoms upon humans has barely been scratched. Like it or not, modern medicine has not cured this problem and is incapable of even getting a hold on the scope of the problem. Limited intimacy is the best route to mitigating the problem. Obviously, excluding all sexual contact is not advisable or expedient to human health and reproduction. I might also add that neuroses are contagious and other types of bad behavior. This is a serious matter above physical pathology. Fourth, it is likely to produce inbreeding, somewhat counter-intuitively, because of the available partners within the immediate communal group. What would be called child molestation today would contribute to this inbreeding. Fifth, this group sex will not prevent favoritism and jealousy, and the close associations between lovers will make violence and social conflict more likely and more severe. Sixth, the relationships tend to squeeze out masculine input into child rearing. This is a great goal for the feminist, witchcraft crowd, but not healthy for the human race. The assertion that fatherless children will eliminate possessiveness and violence is ludicrous on the face of it. Male and female made he them, but the witch and feminist are on the other side of the issue, that destructive satanic side of the issue.
I might add that polygamy in the Bible was often shown in a bad light. Abraham had problems with Sarah and Hagar, Jacob with his four women, and some other examples. Muhammad admonished his disciples about the problematic nature of polygamy, even though allowed. So while not condemned by Leviticus, Christian monogamist have pointed out these problems among the patriarchs to support the exclusivity of marriage to monogamy. All things are permitted, opines Paul, but all things are not expedient. Folly destroys as well as vice.
Chapter 2: Edenic Marriage
Now we come to the Bible based Edenic marriage. As for the war of the sexes, the wisest spouse on the matter at hand should take the lead in decision making. The man should not decide without superior wisdom. And the wife does not always know best, though the typical feminist ball busting bitch, witch would have you think so. This will certainly not end arguments about who knows best. Ignorance remains but the bases of the war of the sexes is gone. Man and wife center their existence around each other and not the girls and the boys at the bar, golf club, etc. Mutual agreement is excellent, but democracy with disagreement is a prescription for divorce. You have the Brave New World no marriage crowd, and with that, the disintegration of society. Mr. Huxley’s imagination world is the intoxication before the apocalypse.
The marriage should be so intimate and intense that telepathy takes place between the spouses. They should be empathetic. But empathy means both sharing pleasure and pain. Because pain makes it difficult for the uninflicted partner to help the other, this empathy should be largely in one direction. The ultimate test of love is doing your duty. It is when the baby is cranky and sick in the middle of the night that parental care and love is proven, not when baby is happy and loads of fun for family and friends. A spouse with a sense of duty will tend to his partner though not personally spurred by empathetic pain. If the parents are sick along with the baby, their ability to help the child is impaired. So they should avoid catching the disease, keep their heads about them, not let themselves be overcome with worry and grief and go about their business. If the child dies, commend its soul to God and get on with life. As with the child, so with the suffering spouse. Naturally, we cannot be indifferent or blissfully content while those we esteem are in agony. But let that pain spur us to action, not overcome us with grief.
Logically, there is nothing to exclude telepathy (mind reading) in life, and even on the common level we read other people’s moods by observation. We should experience the sexual gratification and other joys of the spouse to the greatest extent possible, doubling our pleasure in life, while moving back from pain to better help the partner and keep up our own spirits. This will have an oscillatory aspect to it, just as sexual intercourse is oscillatory. We push toward and then away to copulate. Here we push in to pleasure and pull away from pain. The whole universe is full of oscillatory behavior. Gravity counteracts heat and centrifugal expansion and vice versa, etc. Is this fusion of the senses possible? My intuition tells me it is. We certainly have a handle on empathy, a type of this fusion at low key.
We might even use games to aid in this mind reading to promote trust. We must, by all means, avoid the MI5/MI6 counterintelligence/intelligence gambit where we tell our spouse nothing or as little as possible about ourselves, while trying to acquire information on our opposite number. Knowledge of intentions breeds trust when the intentions are positive. Ignorance opens the door to fear and mistrust. If there are conflicts, they should be dealt with out in the open, not with cloak and dagger.
We might try a game where one side picks a color or letter hidden within a folder. The other partner tries to guess the color without looking for cues in the face opposite to him. If he/she cannot do this, they go on to trying to read faces for cues, and where neither side deliberately tries to make it easy to do so. This aids telepathy or mind reading.
By all means, lovers should dance together and exercise together to create movement harmony for health and love. This is the true dance of life.
People who knead people are the luckiest people in the world. The word massage is derived from the French for bread dough. To knead people is more therapeutic than needing people. Massage has been reputed to aid in maintaining good health for millennia. It is the yoga and tai chi of couples. Great care should be taken in helping the other partner through touch and massage. There can be no substitute for years of experience in learning the problems of each other to mitigate aches and pains. Pain relief promotes gratitude in marriage and is as great a bonding agent as gluten is in bread. Happy couples are also likely to be more productive and make more bread (money) when relaxed and in good health.
Stepparents must not be allowed to disrupt marriages. A man and a woman leave parents to bond to each other. God alone is an eternal father, and divine wisdom an eternal mother. This is one mother-in-law who we must never leave, or disaster looms in the distance.
Carnal knowledge is just not about the physical act. We must strive for wisdom of our spouse and on how we interact as a unit. We must divide time and resources to best serve the union. This means producing the maximum harmony to produce the maximum joy.
Happiness is a steady state affair in the end, not orgasmic. Unhappy people crave quick relief from pain and ennui. This leads to addiction. The steady state of good health from a healthy marriage is the best remedy for marital problems. Orgasms fit in as a matter of circumstance and in stimulating the body to stay in shape. Sexy bodies are healthy bodies, lean and toned. Stimulating the hormonal system likely prolongs life by delaying decay of muscle mass and other factors.
If there are no marriages in heaven as Jesus stated, might this not be because in paradise everyone is joined to that spiritual soulmate that is waiting for the redeemed? Adam never married Eve. They were always one flesh from the beginning. That was flesh and bone, but true union is of the soul. The living man is God breathed from divine spirit. Man is mind. This being so, and God making man in his own image, male and female, the divine spark of the opposite sex is there eternally. This is a mystery of sorts. God made the universe through Divine Wisdom as stated in Proverbs. Wisdom has generally been seen as female correlate to God. So there may very well be couples in heaven due to primordial union not always or even ever present on earth.
We see the advantages of simplicity of union, purity of union, intenser more expansive knowledge of the spouse, and with all these a stronger bond more likely to endure the vicissitudes of life in this present world even before paradise. This is the road to paradise.
The disadvantages of monogamy are largely due to death and disease. Married to a comatose spouse is not pleasant to think about. Of course, I see no reason why a spouse could not gain some sexual gratification by body friction should privacy be possible to satisfy sexual frustration. It might be good for the comatose patient. People do come out of comas. No, I do not think this perverse. It is sad, not perverse. Sleeping with corpses is perverse but not with living incapacitated spouses. In many cases in the past, monogamous couples had help from extended family and community neighbors to deal with problems of illness. One supposes in an Edenic society such help would be forthcoming from some place, conceding sickness at all. But the incapacitated spouse is certainly a problem, though marriage is for better or worse, sickness and in health.
Federalism is the best type of government. The Whore Babylon centralized state is evil. The smaller the local unit the better. Monogamy is as small as you can get beyond the individual.
William Blake thought it better to kill the child in the cradle than to nurse ungratified desire. But many childish desires are unwise and should be curbed. More to the point, it might be better to kill the child in the cradle than to place it into the hands of parents torn by marital strife. This is what ruins children more certainly than raising a gate before the staircase and pulling the child back from an open window, etc.
Other Works by the Author
Collected Poems I
Collected Poems II
Elements of Physics: Matter
Elements of Physics: Space
Elements of Physics: Time
Unified Field Theory: An Essay
Space as Infinity II
Golden Age Essays
Golden Age Essays II
Golden Age Essays III
Golden Age Essays IV
Golden Age Essays V
My current biography and contact links are posted at . My writings include essays, poetry and dramatic work. Though I write poetry, my main interest is essays about the panoply of human experience and knowledge. This includes philosophy, science and the liberal arts. Comments, reviews and critiques of my work are welcome. Thank you for reading my book.
A preface lays out the basic matter. Chapter 1 lays out arguments for a communal, hippie type of marriage arrangement, polygamous and likely leading to bisexuality. It discusses the problem of pre-adult sexuality as it relates to such a communal arrangement. I use interpretations of the Bible that might be used by proponents of this polygamous lifestyle to support their argument biblically as well as from pagan tradition. These involve illegal relationships based on present law in America. I go on to show problems with this type of marriage. It is complicated, susceptible to STD's and transmission of neuroses, likely to squeeze out masculine influence in child rearing. It would intensify favoritism and social conflict by near proximity of participants, lead to inbreeding in spite of communal relationships. Chapter 2 describes an Edenic marriage for a Golden Age of the Peaceable Kingdom. It is monogamous and empathetic in a one way fashion. Through telepathy (mind reading) and empathy, the joys are shared in common, while the pains of each spouse are separated by standoffish behavior in order to allow the other party to help out, through a sense of duty, the one who is suffering. This is oscillatory in nature: join in pleasure, move back from pain. The war of the sexes is resolved by having the wisest party for each problem make the decision. Wisdom should rule the household. This will not solve the ignorance problem and arguments over who knows best, but will eliminate the base problem of one sex controlling all decision making by law or custom. Games and disciplines to increase telepathy and/or mind reading are recommended. There must be no MI5/MI6 counter-intelligence/intelligence war going on. Knowledge breeds trust. Couples should dance together and exercise together. People should regularly massage each other, as this is healing and agreeable when done with care and wisdom. In-laws are out of the marriage except for God the Father and Divine Wisdom. You never grow up compared to them. I note that the drawbacks of monogamy come from illness, somewhat ameliorated by help from extended family and community assistance. The work ends noting that marital strife is a plague to children born into it.