The Case for Full Marriages and Free Marriages in Law
Society’s responsibilities:
The mark of a civilised society is it’s degree of enactment of rules and laws that attempt to enhance and generate the choices that people have to find the things they need in life. A secular society will provide the maximum amount of choices in all spheres thus catering for the people at large; a society ruled by the authoritarianism implied by one form of extremism or another will deny the choices to the people.
In the interests of peace and harmony, society, through the State, has a moral duty to serve its people by catering for their real legal needs in partnership affairs. But it needs to be careful that it is not seen to be regulating and coercing human conduct into a moral judgement on the choices that it provides.
Preamble to the proposal:
In life women exploit the opportunities that men present and men exploit the opportunities that women present. This discussion paper is aimed at resolving these marital disputes and simultaneously giving men and women the opportunity in law to satisfy their needs. Further, it is to counter the inequalities presented to society by the domination of the feminism agenda and its promotion in atheistic and secular circles to the detriment of the human spirit and the future of humanity that the tentative proposal has surfaced in my mind. It proposes to change the entire concept of marriage in world society and I wish to sound it out through this paper. I wish to see if there is any support for the idea that there should be two types of Marriages (:Full and Free) that is presented on the grounds that it is evolutionarily sound, and thus of the highest moral stature. Further, same sex marriages and polygamous marriages for both sexes must be allowed by the Law which can be Full or Free or a mixture of the two as suits the parties concerned.
There are different concepts of marriage. A detailed rational explanation is needed of why society decided that this socially-recognised bond is necessary, who the bond serves whether it is the two participants, the society or the State. A normal marriage should be defined in terms of the means it adopts for union on issues such as the cultural, religious, traditional and political affiliations and practices of the two parties, love, committment to duties and responsibilities towards the family, financial distribution of resources, and extra marital affairs allowance. Marriage should be a binding contract between two people who wish to live together, which does give the partners certain rights in relation to each other. Having sex with one’s partner and aiming for children are implicitly part of the contract and therefore constitute the ‘rights’ of the two parties in marriage unless it is overriden by a marital clause in the form of a prenuptial agreement. Without such a prenuptial agreement if the husband wished to exercise his ‘right’ to father children with his wife against her will, an annulment/divorce must immediately be sought by her with no alimony involved. In other words she cannot have her cake (have a marriage and all the benefits from having a husband) and eat it (not give the husband what he needs). In the interests of implementing the equality of the sexes, the law on marriages must attempt to redress the unfairness that a woman can have a biological child of his own at will whilst the male is dependent on the woman to have his own biological child. The institutional and contractual agreement within which a man and a woman come together in marriage needs to address this controversial issue in a way that protects the human rights of bath parties: this can only be achieved by having two different categories of marriage in law.
Sex is the most contentious issue in a marriage as women are sensitive to being forced into sex and thus suffer rape http://shantanup.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/658/).. If the man or woman cannot have sex it should be clear from the outset. Lots of marriages end up in divorces because one party does not get enough sex or gets too much of it. The other contentious issue in marriage is on the associated development of family through through offspring. Women have certain biological features that give them scope for furthering their desires for a baby or an abortion while the man has no such scope. A woman may therefore mother a child without the help of a consenting man by simply having affairs until she gets pregnant. Further, she can use the man’s weakness in wanting to simply ejaculate to deal with his sudden hard-on erection which generates a biologically strong need for relief through masturbation or sex with a woman. It is an animalistic need and even chimpanzees are known to masturbate. It is a weakness that women exploit for the purposes of sexual gratification and for motherhood. The man’s need to satisfy his lust in this way is not an actual consent to the woman to enable her to have a child. Further, age is a factor that has to be taken into account when examining sexual conduct in marriage.
The sex drive of a man wanes with age whilst all that the woman has to do to have sex is to open her legs and let the man do it. Some women have orgasms and delight in them and enjoy them whereas others only enjoy sex when it is part of a loving act. Some ‘unorgasmic’ women feel that they are married to men who are not much good at sex and do not feel any need to give their wives sexual pleasure. Women thus feel aggrieved that men are using them to ‘stick their penises into their wives’ vaginas whenever they want’. It is however also true that some women can have multiple orgasms at minimal stimulation and others may suffer from frigidity while at the same time some men suffer from the medical condition of premature ejaculation so cannot help the fact that they are unable to satisfy their partners sexually. Consequently, women may feel frustrated and this will alter their perception of rape as a crime. So there are all kinds of variables to consider.
It is not appropriate for any person or the society to tell a man and woman in a marriage how they should conduct their sexual activities based on external ideas of morals on what sex is and what should happen in their marriage. Yet when one partner has a cause for complaint, society must act to address the grievance to restore the individual’s human rights. One way of addressing these issues in establishing the concept of marriage is for a facility in law that enables each party to a prenuptial agreement to state their positions clearly. In Eastern marriages when some women get married they accept the understanding that there is an implicit clause stating that if her husband wants to have sex with them, he is legally entitled. Children are also implicitly part of this unwritten agreement. On the other hand in western marriages generally women would not want to give their husband that authority. Hence, we need concepts of Full and Partnership Marriages respectively that enable people to enter into a marriage of their choice. By not acknowledging the need of the man to be able to father a child in the same way that a woman can mother a child by bringing in a strict concept of Full Marriage, the State is engaging in immoral behaviour. Men and women must both have the opportunity of entering into the kind of marriage that suits them. It is for the State to provide this option. Thus, This paper is on what we as humanity should do to further the interests of humanity into the future. One option is to make marriage itself illegal. But if it is not made illegal, it means that society needs to define what marriage is for the people to be able to make a judgement on whether individuals should enter into this institution in their personal lives. Currently there are no guidelines on what a marriage should be. From what I have seen of the nature and character of different men and women in life, I decided that humanity is suited to two different types of marital association belonging to a Full and Free categories.
Since marriage is a legal institution endorsed by law, how a husband and wife treat each other during their marital union is their own internal affair and not for anyone else to interfere in by telling them about the moralities of their behaviour until such time that one party has lodged a complaint to the external authority over them (the State). Then the State will have to show the basis of its judgement on how to resolve the problem by pointing to the law on the responsibilities of each party to the marriage.
Full marriages:
There is a unique contract that should be termed ‘Full Marriage’. In this form of marriage, the partners blend in with each other and adjust to the needs of the family as the total focus of the union.
The mere fact that a two people of the opposite sexes are coming together means that sex is very high up on the agenda in the fulfilment of this union. In this unique contract the wife has to make herself ready for sex if the husband desires it because the union of marriage is based on the understanding that it was a good idea to have sex. Since the man cannot get ready for sex whenever he wishes to (get an erection) the woman generally but not always use the opportunity of an erection to enjoy the act or when he is ready which in later years when the men gets less frequent as he becomes more and more impotent to be able to get a good erection. Such is the basis of the reality on which the marriage is to be made complete and ‘Full’ and the woman must understand this from experience. She must acknowledge that it is going to be good for the two parties and the family that they have as good a sex life until he can no longer do so physically and that day does come sooner or later when the wife will be unfulfilled and there will be no chances of having a baby in the marriage. So the reality is that they must make hay while the sun shines. In the Full Marriage the husband and wife should be ready for sex at anytime that either partner wants is so long as they can physically engage in it. This means that neither party can say ‘I am not in the mood for it’: if he can get it up and she is free sex should take place as a normal matter of the course of the marriage.
All the income in a marriage becomes joint income to run the marriage and optimise the functioning of the household and family. The individuals have disappeared in a Full Marriage as two humans become a single unit with a common purpose. There should therefore be such a law in which all the income is in joint ownership of the husband and the wife. A joint Bank Account into which all the money comes in to pay for the rent and household expenses should be established and if there are any savings, separate savings accounts for the wife and the husband into which the extra money is divided on a 50:50 basis. If money is subsequently required for an investment in major purchases such gold, household goods, house, land or for children’s education and marriage, these savings accounts should be used proportionately to pool resources to fund this expenditure. This is the type of law that should be brought in everywhere rather than a law of making the husband pay a set proportion of his income to the wife as ’wages’ in slaving over the cooker and cleaning the house and doing the marketing on top of all his income that he must already be spending on household expenses. All household work should be done by both parties as agreed with each other rather than with State interfering to outline the duties of each partner.
Love in marriage does help a lot as the wife will not mind for such a perfect union of care and love for each other. This is the concept of a Full Marriage of the union of man and woman in near perfection.
This view of marriage assumes that without long-term sexual relationship and a child born out of wedlock (biological or adopted) the marriage is not a proper marriage because it has not established a family but simply an agreement to live together as a partnership for other reasons.
Free marriages:
In Free Marriages it is a partnership arrangement in which there is no commitment to sex virtually on demand and for children to be issued as the natural course of the consummation and progression of the marriage. It makes no attempt to balance out the unfairness implicit in the female sex being able to parent their child whenever they feel like and the male sex being deprived of that pleasure and need. Thus, women in Free Marriages do not accede to demand of the man for freely available sex and his need for offspring so that they dictate when sexual intercourse takes place and when and how a child is conceived, or in the case of a partner’s infertility, a child is adopted. The wife and husband therefore have no duties and responsibilities towards each other in terms of the development of a family.
Responsibilities to children:
No one can force anyone to love their children, so that the State must take the decision because otherwise the children will become a burden on the State. According to this proposal, in a Full Marriage all incomes are pooled together and children are a family priority so are cared for automatically as a commitment of marriage that both parties have agreed to from the outset. However, in a Free Marriage, from the outset as a condition of marriage the State will require the two parties to enter into a prenuptial agreement of who pays what proportion of his and her income towards the upkeep of the family home and for children’s welfare during the marriage.
For the divorce, the Marriage Certificate will specify the provisions of the Law on the legal requirements of each party in both Full and Free Marriages to contribute a certain proportion of their incomes for the childrens welfare. The percentage will depend on the ages of the children and will continue until they are adults, that is 21 years of age. A Judge will decide on the custody of any children based on the specific circumstances of the families.
Sexual and other abuses in marriage:
The reporting of marital sexual abuse by either party is sufficient grounds for instantaneous divorce in a Full Marriage. Any unacceptable deviant act of sexual perversion from straight sex constitutes sexual assault. Thus if the assault on the woman seems imminent, the woman must uttter the words, ‘Stop, I divorce you’. In Hindi, they would say: ‘Yeh apradh band kijiye, mein aapko divorce karti hun’. The marriage is finished and any following advances by the man to have sex with the wife will be come under the category of Attempted Rape and Marital Rape. Both charges are punishable in law. However, for enforcement to be effective the woman (or the man for any other reason that he may have for divorcing the wife like this denial of sexual privileges of the Full Marriage) must lodge the Divorce proceedings at the police station within a 24 hour that is the cooling-off period. The divorce itself will be finalised in Law within in 48 hours rubber stamped by a Law Officer at the Police Station. This is the provision for the reporting of sexual and other abuses in marriage.
Love and Arranged Marriages:
The notion that those in Full marriages treat women badly is not correct. Arranged marriages can be functional and transcational as opposed to love marriages but thethe too can inculcate mutual respect and desire on the part of both parties. Arranged marriages by themselves do not determine how one thinks about and treats women; the culture of the society strongly influences that. And subsequently how the individual’s character changes (for better or worse) with time and from association with his partner in life will override the cultural influence. Arranged marriages are just a convenient manner in which society brings together a man and a woman.
Implications:
Marriage means combining the two opposite sexes into a union, and thus the binding together of the sexes. There are different degrees of union. Full Union is one extreme form of marriage where the commitment of the two parties towards each other is total. It does not matter who is the bread winner, the other part has to fit in with the rest of the demands on the marriage. Children are part of these demands. Both parties find out the existential realities and serve each other so that the marriage flourishes. Men and women surrender to each other. The idea of marital rape does not arise. There are duties, responsibilities and righteous actions of each party to the marriage. It is a cultural thing and I do not expect western people to understand the concept of ‘dharma’. Most Indians live like that and have well educated women who submit to such an wedding arrangement so that it is not the result of a male-dominated imposition. On the other hand Free Marriages is a western concept. That is why I have labelled it Free. These are two different ideas of moralities concerning human conduct in the biological imperative that reproduction must take place to further the species. Full marriages are more strongly based within the rationale that society must strengthen and proliferate as far as human numbers is concerned and reduce social problems. The mutual servant/master paradigm serves the partnership to intensify the marital union much more so than in a Free marriage. Individual marriages is therefore a question of degrees of union. The cutting point between the two relationships is the question of sexual union in terms of the commitments made to habit and the generation of children.
Essentially, why bother with marriage if the partners do not pool resources? In this paper I have made the case for an ideal form of marriage to which everyone should aspire to and conform. Theoretically, it is possible for two mature, intelligent people to be capable of deciding between themselves how they want to run their partnership and its finances to arrive at such an ideal. By ‘mature’ I mean knowledgeable and wise, for which one needs intelligence and vast experience (the more experience, the better the judgement), then they will arrive by themselves to a form of marriage that is fair on both parties and hence optimal (the ideal). One therefore does not need the State to enact detailed laws on how a marriage should proceed. But the law does not cater for the mature and intelligent only. Does it mean that we need detailed laws for every possible thing in order to allow for morons who do not know how to behave in fairness and harmony? People have a tendency to complain about such laws if they didn’t suit them. But we need to take each case on its own merits and decide.
What needs to understood about the case I have put forward is the idea that one lot of marriages known as Full Marriages come associated with duties and responsibilities whist another lot of marriages known as Partnership Marriages (or Free Marriages) come without any such strings attached. Howsoever emotional the act of penetration appears to the sensitive person and so looked upon as a form of violence by feminists in particular, especially if it comes unsolicited, in the former case the feeling of intrusion that it might represents is overshadowed by the acceptance by the woman that she has a duty to perform in conforming to the concept of the ideal marriage that Full Marriages represent. Full Marriage caters for women who are so devoted to their husbands and Marriage that they will let them have sex anytime he wants it; and the husband does the same.
The two types of marriages listed here will require different contractual obligations in law that the State deals with in the event of disputes, such as Marital Rape, Responsibilities towards childres and Finances. In Full marriages if the woman wishes to subsequently break that contractual agreement by withdrawing her consent to both sex (to enable the consummation of marriage) and their attempts to produce a child (as the central issue for marriage), the marriage must be terminated immediately through divorce at the instigation of either party and the property that is built up shared on a 50:50 basis, with no further alimony to be paid by either party to the other.
Sex can be a commodity as is clear from the availability of prostitution in most societies, and sex is also sometimes an expression of love and this is exhibited most clearly when people make up after an argument with the therapy of sexual intercourse. But sex is primarily a reproductive process which has evolved to serve the biological function of procreation in the biosphere. The intensity of sexual desire in humans is part of that evolutionary process. The compulsion to engage in sex is therefore a need established by the biology through its effects on the mind. The mere fact that sex cannot take place until the male has an erection is evidence that it is largely led by the male of the species. These are just pure commonsense arguments that some consider indefensible. The only reasonable standpoint is Biology, and what Reality states, not some moralistic notion that might be represented by the term progressive. Whilst the religions have their basic views on sexual morality there is no reason that progressive atheism in particular should jump on to the bandwagon of feminism.
I have studied marriages in the Indian community of Hindus and decided that there should be a choice in law for people to enter Full or Free Marriages so that people get what they really want: the notion of letting people select on ‘commitment marriage’ or ‘lackadaisacal marriage’ for which the laws will be different on Marital Rape and Property Rights. The law needs to satisfy the individual demands of the population in the transactional world that we call the ‘market place’.
I am in favour of all types of freely-entered into marriages, including same sex marriages and polygamous marriages. What is at issue are the rights of the parties to justice in the event of marital disputes, including on marital rape, finances, and psychological torture. The law on these should necessarily be different whether the marriage is a full marriage (in which both parties know from the outset engrained in a legal document that they will share all aspects of the marriage in proportion by pooling resources in accordance with the principle from each party what he/she brings to the marriage and to each party the proceeds of the marriage that sustain the concept of family commitments in terms of duties and responsibilities) or a free marriage in which each party retains his/her independence of action in sexual conduct and finance disposition in what is a non-commitment marriage. This will erode the anomalies that currently exist of what constitutes Marital Rape in particular and give the children of the marriages the rights that accrue from the nature of the marriage that their parents entered into.
This proposal discusses the States position in relation to what is clearly observable in society as two groups of marriages. There are enormous numbers of Free marriages particularly in western societies. My partner and I have entered into a Full Marriage in which we do dictate to the other person the rights we have on how to share our resources and responsibilities for finance, sexual conduct and children. The proposal will simply classify Free marriages for what it is, and mine for what that is. Once the option is available to the public by the enactment of the law setting out the provisions for these two categories of Marriage, people who see their morals fitting into your ideals will have the option of entering into that legal framework, whilst those who are inclined to fitting into my ideal will have the option of entering into this legal framework. Everyone will know where they stand, including the children from these two categories of marriage.
The current legal normal marriage does not describe the objectives of the marriage. Full and Free Marriage Certificates will have these explicitly outlined. What needs to be understood is the simple fact that people who are compatible for one form of marriage will find the partners for that form of marriage; those compatible for a different type of marriage will find partners for that type of marriage. Two clear categories of marriages for which the legal framework has been established.
It is wrong to use the argument that the proponents of this Law assumes that God made women for men’s pleasure and that I am misogynistic It is intended to provide a reasonable discussion on attempts to solve the problems of humanity. Evolution led to the human species being what it is today so if anything made women for mens’ pleasure it is Nature. We should leave God out of this analysis.
Premarital Sex:
The Full Marriage in Hindu-India has more meaning with particular regard to virginity. It regards sex before marriage as demeaning to the person. It recommends that the man and woman should refrain from sex prior to marriage because the breaking of the hymen for the loss of virginity is a symbolic act of union that turns the girl into a woman (for which she saves herself) by the one and only special person in her life. Of course, a number of energetic sports can rupture a woman’s hymen. I do not recommend that women give up sports to protect the rupture of their hymen prior to marriage anywhere in the world. Women must do exactly what gives them pleasure in life. But you should know that if the blood is not detected on the bed sheet after the wedding night in Indian marriages in India it raises suspicion in the family of the man that the woman who has arrived was not a virgin. I do not know what the situation is these days but I was informed once that arguments have followed soon after marriage that a new wife might have been immoral with premarital sex if this was the case. I do not know if it led to anything serious like violence against the wife or even separation and divorce. Maybe people do not take any notice of these things these days. I would suggest some researchers in India should do a sociological study of the current customs of how the culture is shaping up in this respect.
Divorce and finance distribution:
There should be divorce on demand, and the criteria for divorce should not be set by the State whether or not the marriage is a Full Marriage or a Partnership Marriage. Any level of difficulty in the matter of the availability of legal divorce approved by society is a denial of human rights because it forces people to live together who have provably failed to demonstrate their compatibility for marriage. If this is not agreed upon, the rest of the discussion of the contents of this paper serves no point because we will have different standards on human rights.
The divorce procedure is as follows: A 24 hour cooling off period for confirmation of the divorce spelled out at the heat of the moment or as a considered decision by either party in a Full Marriage should be required during which the woman is protected legally from being sexually assaulted by the husband and which will then be treated as Marital Rape. On this confirmation of verbal divorce, there should be no turning back and divorce papers must be filed within a further 24 hours at a Police Station where the circumstances of the dispute are reported in detail. For any sexual assault that takes place within the 48 hours if confirmation of divorce does not take place in the Police Station the charge of Marital Rape will have to be dismissed by the prosecutor as concocted/perverse.
The same procedure for divorce must be applied to Free Marriages. However in Free Marriages all sexual assaults are cases of Marital Rape whether or not divorce takes place. Thus any unconsensual sex is punishable in law with a jail sentence of 2-3 months for first offence and 6 months for second and subsequent offences. Divorce does not necessarily follow the court cases.
For a Full Marriage, the woman cannot demand any alimony if she breaks the contract by refusing sex and the family property built-up will have to be assessed on simply the financial contributions that each party has made to the marriage and the valuation of the respective domestic contributions. Finances for children’s upkeep will be based on a proportion of their subsequent incomes. In Free Marriages there will be severe disputes on who was at fault and who has contributed more to the family financial structure so that a Judge will have to decide how much alimony the husband or the wife will be entitled in the divorce settlement. Thus, if she has no intention of divorce by uttering the words ‘Stop, I divorce you’ when trying to stop her husband raping her it means that she wants to have her cake (the goods that marriage to a husband has brought to her life like money, security, etc) and eat it (not give anything back in return). That is selfish and precisely what is being tackled by the proposal. A man is entitled to make any demand he wants in a Full Marriage, but not in a Free Marriage. If the woman does not like the demand, and the man decides he has had enough he can divorce instantly without having to pay her alimony.
By denying the husband conjugal rights the Full marriage is seen to have has failed irretrievably and that the woman is prepared to find her own way in life without any financial and other security brought to her life from her husband. She will lose some degree of custody over any children of the marriage who will be considered as jointly ‘owned’. If no prenuptial clauses are included in a Free marriages they will also require draft guidelines on how the Law will deal with these issues when the divorce settlement for alimony and child custody comes before a court. The proposal identifies a need for Full Marriages and Free Marriages in society as a solution to marital disputes.
Incidentally, the Islamic law denies the woman the right to verbal divorce with immediate effect so it is sexist in allowing only a man to have the privilege.
Sexual enjoyment and sex education:
There are biological and cultural barriers to the enjoyment of sex. Nature through evolution developed in humans the ability to think of sex as much more than a procreative exercise. The details of how men attempt to satisfy their wives in sexual foreplay and intercourse is something that is for the individuals to work out whether in full marriage or in free marriage. The more you love your wife the more you will attempt to satisfy her by tongue, finger or other objects like dildo, if the penis proves inadequate to do this because one is suffering from premature ejaculation or cannot get it up at all in cases of impotence. How much one enjoys the various types of sexual behaviour depends on the individuals concerned. It is wrong to think that in Full marriages the man is less inclined to find out about what his wife likes and how to get her into orgasms. A lot of men may be ignorant about these things and some maybe feel that their religion does not allow them to try and enjoy sex as a common joint experience that leads to orgasms for both or they abuse their women by denying them the right to enjoy sex. In some cultures I have heard that they mutilate the clitoris to stop women having orgasms? If it is true I wish to make clear that I am against all such practices that make sex unnatural, including circumcision on non-medical grounds. Feminism is also a cultural barrier to the enjoyment of sex.
Why should those men who wish to enjoy the full experience of sex be deprived of that pleasure by not having the social structures in place that enable them to fulfill their biological needs? Giving the legal basis of Full Marriages in law will sort out the women into groups who are more sexually active and so will go for partners who are more highly charged for penetrative sex; whilst those who have wish to have greater independence and freedom in marriage can then find partners for Free Marriages so that they can only be penetrated when they ask for it. Those who do not want any male penetration can stay single and use sperm donation to have their children. Those who are homosexuals can marry their own kind. The State needs to provide all these options to the people with legal provisions to suit all the categories of human partnerships and relationships knowing that people differ in their sexual tastes and requirements.
I am against the idea of individualistic living in favour of socialisation with a view to furthering the human species so that we have a good future. We must develop society in which the maximum numbers of men and women can experience the sexual capacities of their bodies through sex enjoyment. This is achieved by providing these choices in the types of marriage institutions that are catered for in law.
The cause of many marital disputes surrounding rape stem from the fact that some men have a tendency to premature ejaculation that does not satisfy the wife and they are put off sex. Sex education facilities are therefore needed in society to show these men how to try and overcome this medical problem with determination and the development of appropriate sex techniques that work. It could for example also teach that masturbation is recommended during a marriage: watching and reading porn and wanking it off because it is really pleasurable for men to do, in some ways it is more pleasurable than sex itself; and it means that men then leave our wives alone to do what they want with her time instead of pestering them for sex. It is therapeutic for the marriage.
Indian culture:
In India a law is being considered to make Indian husbands pay wives for doing household chores. http://www.care2.com/causes/husbands…insulting.html The question being raised as to whether it is ingenious or insulting?
There are vast numbers of people in India still who are largely illiterate let alone being educated to a college level. It is to ‘control the behaviour of these people’ into living in such a way that the State does not have to fork out money for destitutes and abandoned children that I believe they are considering a law on marital finance seriously. I agree that this is a good thing for ameliorating the plight of the poor of India (women and children), but am simultaneously suggesting to the authorities through my post that it is not sufficient, they must go further and at the same time explicitly explain to the people the correct reasoning why a law of some description is justified.
United Kingdom culture:
The United Kingdom has had 1000 years since Magna Carta (a lot more than USA and Australia) to develop into a cultured nation. English manners are impeccable. Its NHS is a service of care beyond the dreams of any other nation. The society is gun-free and even knives are strongly discouraged (they cannot be sold to under 16s). It has turned people relatively gentle and peace loving so that violent crime is low. There is consequently no need for emergency shelters for battered wives in every community. A lot of women want Full marriages in which they get a husband who is totally devoted to them and does not commit adultery as they surrender their independence in sexual encounters and do not generally report cases of Marital Rape and other forms of abuse. Free marriages in which men and women can go off and do their own thing is not part of the culture. Thus, the UK laws need to be reviewed because they are unfair; for example, what is the justification for the UK preventing bigamous and polygamous marriages? There is nothing morally wrong about the idea of polygamy and there are serious arguments in making it an available option and publicising it in society as morally acceptable for both men and women. This is because if one of the party loses interest in sex the other partner has a choice to marry another person (woman or man as the case maybe) without having to severe ties with the first partner in law with whom they may still retain an emotional attachment; therefore polygamy prevents some incidental of marital rape and makes for greater harmony within the family structure.
Opposition to the proposal:
This paper proposes that in an ideal marriage, the Full Marriage, the resources of the man and the woman are pooled together in accordance with what each person can bring to the marriage so that as far as the sexual resources are concerned the woman should give up her independent control of her sexual desires and the execution of her sexual encounters with her husband by sharing in a compromise decision on sex, as with the finances aspect of the marriage. Sex is neither a commodity nor an expression of love. It is a biological need that is led by the male sex. A lot of people go into marriage on the basis of love, but you cannot actually eat love. Apart from finances, the love has to be accompanied by sacrifices. Otherwise the marriage is destined to failure as it gets dismantled by virtue of the fact that it has not attempted the emotional unification of two parties that are endowed with considerable dissimilarites in biology and material possessions. In the Hindu system, it is said and what I have experienced is that love begins with the arranged marriage and intensifies as the years go on depending on how the parties see what they are sacrificing for each other. The concept of Full Marriage as outlined in this paper is implicit in the traditional Hindu arrangements and something that other societies can learn from. Of course western influence has eroded much of the vigour of the Hindu marriage system as individual rights are increasingly emphasised and society changes towards the liberal idea of Free Marriages. In a Full Marriage the wife is obligated to put herself out for sex even if she does not want to so that forcible entry is never in question. The partners are known to kiss and make up for arguments with sex so that it serves to quell things. That is what love is. Women have expectations in marriage, men have expectations: the reality hits them and they have disappointments. That is when the marriage enters into strains, terrible strains and problems that need to be sorted out to make the Full Marriage work. If the commitment is there to making it work, solutions appear. Any solution is a good solution if it makes the marriage last because a person needs a partner in old age, and the life partner is the best such partner not a new partner with whom more time will be needed to adjust.
It is however argued that in Full Marriages a man who coerces the woman is a rapist. They see Full Marriages as a legal framework where coercion and rape would be legal. I would justify the proposition by arguing the biological imperative as follows. What about those occasions when the woman is not ready for sex immediately and says No but if you then use the right approach and foreplay you can get your way because women can be stimulated into sexual desire through appropriate sexual foreplay. One can start slowly with verbal stimulation with words that are sexy and sometimes if you know what you are doing this is enough. She will quickly get lubrication of her vagina, and agree to sex. Or you may need to do more: appropriate type of kissing. French kissing is very effective; or more than that; the sensitive use of fingers. Thus, if a man knows the art of getting a woman ready for the moment of importance, that is penetration and thrusting to try and get her enjoying for orgasm you go from a situation in which it might be considered as rape to one where the woman is aching for sex. If a man does not know this aspect of sex he has not lived. He is not enlightened about the details of what biology has endowed human beings to do. He should read up on the joy of sex and get off the human rights morality bandwagon and learn about life. No does not always mean No. Prude feminists hate this kind of sex. Is this coercion? I call it comprehension and enjoyment of life and what it has given one. One has to be lucky to be able to get an erection just at the thought of a sexy woman; one has to be luckier still to get a wife with whom one can enjoy life. And it can also work the other way. The woman can stimulate the man to get sex. Is that coercion too? Free marriages are for those who are unlucky in love and finding a good sexual partner: full marriages denote perfect compatibility.
Need for Legislation:
People, especially the young, do not understand marriage and are skeptical of the institution of marriage in terms of what the union of marriage stands for, how their individual rights are affected, and what it achieves for the regulation of society. In other words why is it a good idea. They see marriage breakdowns in society and immediately think that marriage is a bad idea. That there is something wrong with it. If the fundamental inequalities of marriage are tackled in a new law that explains the two type marriages that they have a choice of entering into they will be more careful in choosing their partners from the very start. And of course it will resolve the issue of Marital Rape that we are all very concerned about. This is why I give explicit details of why there should be sex education facilities set up to educate young people into what sex is to go with the new Law.
It is in the interests of mankind that the institution of marriage is promoted for the good of the human species. More children will come about and there will be less need for costly artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation means of having children for the good of society. Natural child birth is also good for the children who know who their fathers are. A lot of Scandanavian and European countries are seeing their indigenous populations decline in recent decades and so get reliant on immigration for sustaining their life styles. Legal moves to improve the status of marriage will lead to greater population growth. I support this kind of vibrancy of humanity. I do not subscribe to the notion that we must regulate our population because there are too many people on Earth. Let Nature take its course and allow the population to get regulated through the market forces in a free association of human beings in society.
The State, the society, also needs information on its people for planning purposes. Giving the options in Law for the two types of marriages will allow the State to learn about the people and so politicians can learn what people need and devise policies based on harder facts on the marital commitments of the people.
Frequently asked Questions:
(1) I treat my wife and her desires as equal. I have a teenage daughter and the thought of anyone ever forcing/manipulating themselves on her is repugnant on many levels.
Such a person would be classified as a supporter of Free Marriages believing in greater individual freedoms and individual sexual-human rights, rather than the rights that would accure to the union of man and woman and to the family that results in Full Marriages.
(2) Why bother with any of it, since most western countries protect permanent relationships of all types?
I wished to takle the thorny issue of Marital Rape and family finances and the State’s position in Law on these issues.
(3) Are you a mysoginist?
I am not a mysogynist. I love human beings but do not distinguish between the sexes and I am in favour of redistributing resources to equalise the imbalances between the sexes that biology has conferred upon us. That is what the scheme does. Some women may have a severe problem with my proposal, but even ‘most women’ would not account for more than 50 percent of the population. So democracy rules.
(4) What you propose for Full Marriages gives a person a contractual right to another person’s body’.
Yes, in law. The Full Marriage should be entered into knowing this to be the case so that the commitment to the marriage is assured. The parties know what they have yielded to each other in their marriage vows on the contractual obligations to each other’s body and other things. The law can therefore be fairly and correctly applied with no complaints or circumstances for appeal on the charges of rape and other minor issues of domestic squabbles.
(5) Are you going to include ‘same sex’ marriages in your new laws? Marital sexual-assault can occur within same-sex marriages, so you are going to include all marriages in your law?
Yes, all marriages, including same sex marriages, are included in this Law.
(6) What are the problems (as you see them) that you are trying to solve with your proposal?
The problem that the proposal addresses is that currently a lot of people who wish to have Full Marriages end up in Free Marriages, and equally a lot of people who wish Free Marriages end up in Full Marriages. Bitterness follows and marriages are unhappy. Often there is Marital Rape. Divorces are a costly consequence of this failure to match the nature and character of a person to the type of marriage that he or she enters into. So the availability of the legal frameworks for Full and Free marriages will ensure that people will sign up to the right marriages for themselves from the outset because they will think carefully about their marital commitments prior to and during marriage. Marital disputes will be easier to resolve. Society will become more pleasant.
(7) (a) EVERY woman supports a marriage where she is not getting raped every time her husband has an erection. (b) Would you support an arrangement where you had to give your wife oral on demand, whether you felt like it or not? (c) Your essay is totally phallo-centric. There are lots of ways to satisfy a woman without an erection, and if you ever want a happy wife you’d better start looking into them.
I have tested my marriage in both your points (a) and (b); so there are women who know what a full union of marriage between a man and a woman is, and yes oral sex is certainly part of the sex-demand process. In other words, this view of Full Marriage explores the total unity of a man and a woman as a single philosophical concept in which there is total submission of a man to a woman’s needs and the woman to a man’s needs as far as sex is concerned, since sex is the manifestation of the idea of physical union of two different biological aspects of a species quite obviously, is concerned. Such a union of minds makes for a wonderful marriage. Think of the essay as the work of a Marriage Guidance Counsellor.
(8) What do you think of beating women into submission if they won’t have sex?
I have not made any moral judgements on what people do within their sexual relationships with each other. I am stating the facts. The fact is that there are partnership relationships between individuals in society which run into problems and cause society concern so that it has to deal with these. I have a reading of humanity on these matters and have accordingly proposed a solution in Law that will tackle the difficulties in human personal relationships in a fair and equitable manner such that humanity progresses harmoniously into the future.
(9) Why on earth would a woman sign away her rights like this? – basically why would the woman sign a contract that states that it is impossible for her to be raped?
There will be all kinds of reasons, including love, cultural, appreciating tradition, and economic.
(10) How would the Full Marriage law be enforced, what would the punishment be if the woman says no to sex on husband’s demand, and how would evidence be supplied? How will this be enforced?
In the Full Marriage the punishment for saying No to sex whenever the husband wants it will depend on how much the husband loves the wife and will put up with the lack of interest in sex. If he will not tolerate this and there are no other compensations that can be arranged he must divorce her: that is her only form of ‘punishment’ but she will expect this so her denial of his conjugal right to sex will lead to the fair outcome. The result will be that the woman divorces and remarries into a Free Marriage with the same husband or another man or stays single. The process of divorce would be immediately effective from the moment that she has verbally decided to no longer let her husband have sex on demand, following which if he persists with the physical infringement of her statement it would be considered to be a case of Marital Rape and punishable in law through the appropriate judicial process. Thus, she can change her mind: divorce and remarriage. It will come at the cost of all the benefits she saw that the Full Marriage brought to her life. The man can initiate the divorce this as well. Thus they can go together to the Magistrate and convert their Marriage into a Free Marriage, or go their separate ways.
(11) If this Law is introduced marriage rates could plummet like a stone?
There is no reason that overall divorce rates will plummet. In any case it is not the moral duty of Society/State to promote marriage as an institution. If all the people of a state wish to live separate lives and just engage in sexual and other encounters as and when they like that is to be seen as representing as good a society as any other.
(12) You picture a world in which people would be culturally pressured into accepting the slavery of this so-called “full marriage” regardless of their preferences. Is not the suggestion that any other kind of marriage is not “full” truly sick?
I do not agree with pressurising anyone to go against their free will. It is not regardless of their preferences. In this proposal a true marriage is being defined as the fullest level of physical and mental union of a man and woman when the committment is total. We can change the words to Committal Marriages and Non-Committal Marriages to take the sting out of the idea of fullness and freeness in the two concepts of marriage. That is not a problem if you do not like the description of Full and Free Marriages to describe the arrangement. But you seem to have an objection to a man and woman of their own free will coming together for love, culture, tradition, religious or economic reasons into the former. Not providing the options in Law is denying people their rights arrived at by their own free will.
(13) Do you understand that a woman is a human being and not a fucktoy?
I also understand that a man is also a human being in a 50:50 relationship with a woman to make up the human species.
14. Your Hindu Indian marriage is a perfect example. Was your wife given the choice of a free marriage? People, particularly women, are often pressured by societal mores into marriage.
She was not given the choice to enter into a Free Marriage. The culture would have brainwashed her into taking the Full Marriage option anyway. That is wrong about Indian society. I want to change that through this proposal.
15. Why are you against people only having sex when both parties want to?
The concept is based on the overriding need of society and mankind to take whatever steps that are necessary to ensure that a free association of human beings is taking place and that within that proviso the legal framework for the association should optimise the generation of healthy human beings (children) for the future of humanity. Why do you say I am against it when I have made it clear that if people do not like the imposition that the other party is placing, they can divorce from a Full Marriage. Or they can agree to become more liberal within their marriage and go to the Magistrate to rubberstamp their marriage into a Free Marriage. Enshrining these developments in law will do away with the woman’s right to cry ‘rape’ whenever it suits her thereby destroying a man’s carefully built up marital existence that he has invested in all his married life.
16. If the punishment for no sex whenever the husbands wants it and she does is divorce your idea seems completely unenforceable. Saying no to sex basically is just the same as having a no-fault divorce that is practiced in the United States?
If the procedure for divorce outlined in my paper is not followed and enforced within 48 hours at a Police Station for the termination of the marriage there will be consequences for incidence of Marital Rape, Brutality and Violence, and Financial issues that a Judge will have to consider when criminal charges are brought against one of the partner. No fault divorces do not currently give divorce within 24 hours of application in any state of the United States and in Australia and Sweden the laws are even worse. Normal marriages in western societies currently do not give the two partners the rights and obligations to sex when the other partner requires it, the commitment to children and for pooling all other resources: it is not the normal marriage equivalent of my Full Marriage. I agree with the notion of no-fault divorce but disagree with the notion of a Uniform Marriage that does not give people the choices on the type of contract that they can sign up to.
17. What does the woman stand to gain at all from this arrangement? How would you convince me to sign one of these deals rather than a normal marriage contract. A normal marriage in one that you go into the registrar and sign away on. So why would a woman sign your piece of paper rather than a currently available one?
I would tell her that a normal marriage is just a piece of paper. She needs to discuss issues with her partner on what they have in common and what their commitments should be and then independently decide for herself which of the two options Full and Free suit her best or if she prefers to stay single with a partner without any legal rights to each other’s marital or subsequent properties and incomes, or not to have a live-in partner at all. The same will apply to her partner. I have no right to make any pronouncements on why they should sign one or the other type of paper.
18. What are the benefits for a woman of a Full Marriage:
A woman may consider that Full Marriages are more efficient and productive, that is they function at low start-up and maintanence costs. Rightly or wrongly as to whether her perception is correct she therefore has a right to the facility. Another real actual benefit would be for ugly and poor women who will find husbands for Full Marriage more easily and so in many societies where they get ’left on the shelf ‘ will not suffer social-ostracism. This is because such women would be less inclined to deny the husband the conjugal rights to sex and and other needs because it is human nature that beautiful girls and sexy women assert greater human rights from society being economically more valuable as an asset and have greater earning potential.
19. How do you address the charge that your model for a “Full Marriage” contract is utterly pointless and demeaning to women?
It is neither pointless, nor demeaning. Marriage itself can be said to be demeaning to women because it takes away their freedom; that is why many feminists wish to have total women’s liberation from marriage too. Making marriage illegal would be the totally liberational policy for society to pursue. But this is madness. Whether at the instigation of the man or as a joint decision history has seen the evolution of the concept of marriage union between man and woman for the common purpose of serving humanity as an ecologically optimal solution that furthers the propagation of the species whilst giving both men and women some rights over their own bodies and mind. In recent decades the feminist movement has tilted the balance in favour of greater rights for the women in Free Marriages and policies on abortion on demand and child custody. This has caused social problems especially in relation to how children are brought up. Yes I agree that my proposal to establish the Full Marriage concept has the effect of redressing this imbalance that has occurred but this is not achieved at the cost of denying any woman her existing human rights because of the accompanying provisions for divorce.
20. Why does one ‘partner’ in the marriage have to be a servant?
Marriage means combining the two opposite sexes into a union. There are different degrees of union. Full Union is one extreme form of marriage where the commitment of the two parties towards each other is total. It does not matter who is the bread winner, the other part has to fit in with the rest of the damands on the marriage. Children are part of these demands. Both parties find out the existential realities and serve each other so that the marriage flourishes. Men and women surrender to each other. The idea of marital rape does not arise. There are duties, responsibilities and righteous actions of each party to the marriage. It is a cultural thing and I do not expect western people to understand the concept of ‘dharma’. Indians live like that. And they have very well educated women and men who submit to such a wedding arrangement. Free Marriages is a western concept. That is why I have labelled it Free. These are two different ideas of moralities concerning human conduct. Full marriages are more strongly based within the rationale that society must strengthen and proliferate as far as human numbers and reduce social problems.
21. What if the wife who has the more successful career and the husband is the parasite on the marriage?
If he wants all the free luxuries that she provides he has to serve as her servant and do whatever she wants. There has to be give and take in a Full Marriage to make the marriage function at an optimal level that brings economic rewards. If either person does not understand this they should go for a Free marriage where they are living like individuals who have just come together in a loose association and the two parties are are not concerned about optimising welfare.
22. What right do you have to expect copulatory activities in marriage?
Humans do not marry goats, cows or donkeys. They marry the opposite sex of their own species for a reason. The reason is reproductive performance. For sex: Full marriages are for sex whenever a party needs it (by the vows taken to engage in normal sex periodically) while Free Marriage is for sex at the explicit approval of the other party.
23. Why are you proposing that there should be a choice between a “marriage” that’s no different from being someone’s flatmate, and a “marriage” where providing sex on demand is a contractual obligation, and the benefits accrued are dependent on doing so? Why not just have a marriage where you get the benefits of marriage, no-one is pressured into having sex they don’t want, and you don’t lose everything if you’ve got a headache and really need an early night?
It is not just about sex. It is the whole approach to sharing their lives. There are men and women who need such Full marriages and we need to have legal framework that satisfies their biological (and economic) needs rather than frustrating it and treating such individuals as sub-normal. A normal ‘flat-mate’ marriage arrangement does not cater for this group of individuals and generates disputes on marital rape, joint finances and child custody on separation and divorce where the whims of a Judge decides on fairness. A lot of people are consequently dissatisfied with the outcomes of separation and divorces.
First published 2013