In the beginning, there was Adam and Eve.
What was it that caused "The Fall"? Well, everyone knows that one. It was temptation. Temptation to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Not only did Adam and Eve succumb to doing what was deemed wrong and rebellious in the eyes of the Lord, but with it they also became aware of their own state. They realised that they were naked which in turn, gave them knowledge about how they could be perceived by others and, most importantly, the existence of their own sexuality. They were also made aware that their actions had certain implications - some good and some evil.
Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from every tree other than the one that would give them power. After all, that's what knowledge is.
And what was the punishment?
To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)
Woman's punishment is childbirth and marriage.
Unlike God's initial rave review of marriage and procreation ['Be fruitful and multiply', 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'...], once Eve has sinned, married life will forevermore bear pain, submission and feelings alien to those that God and nature intended for all womankind.
Cheers, Eve.
Your desire shall be for your husband seems to indicate that:
a) the desire of a woman toward her husband alone is solely by God’s grace and not by nature
and
b) the sentiment is likely not to be mutual - the woman will desire her husband, but it won't be reciprocated, leading to misery and the constant struggle to gain man's unwavering affections.
He shall rule over you depicts the age-old adage of marital roles and power struggle within the household. It also suggests that woman as the submissive is not as natural a function as we have come to accept.
I have become intrigued by Channel 4's recent series, 'Marriage at First Sight' - other TV channels are available.
What struck me most was the need for a programme like this in the first place. If you know nothing about this, the programme basically "matches" complete strangers based on rigorous personality tests, lifestyle observation, genetics, DNA and people's life and relationship goals. Put simply, it is arranged marriage for white folk.
1,500 people applied to marry a complete stranger who "experts" deemed to be The One for them. These experts are as follows:
- Channel 4 - Married at First Sight
The first point to make is the fact that so many people felt the need to be matched by people who may be "experts", but did not really know them at all. It is not like asking your best mate to set you up or even, as in many cultures, putting your faith in your family to choose the person they believe fitting to be your spouse - a person who is up to your standards, as well as theirs. These unions are usually based on corresponding religious, family and educational backgrounds, the ability of the man to support the woman financially, and good genetics.
Half of my family are Indian and - as a 26 year-old un-married woman - I have no doubt that, given half the chance, my dad would arrange a union he felt suitable based on his wishes both for me and for himself. Un-lucky for him, I have a British mother, a 21st Century mind and have seen East Is East. However, I do wonder if the mere existence of a TV show like this, signifies a newfound regard for the reasoning behind arranged marriages in other cultural societies.
The surprise then, is that so many people in this country - all young, successful and attractive - felt the need to apply to take part in this experiment. As the experts on the programme state, the fact that the show involves marriage as opposed to just dating or even living with a stranger for 5 weeks, signifies the people involved's true desire and commitment to getting married and finding 'The One'. That's all well and good, but it also shows that these people have all tried and failed in their endeavour thus far.
But, why?
Is it because these people are fundamentally un-lovable in some way?
Is it because they find everyone else around them un-lovable?
Or is it because the very concept of finding everything you're looking for in one other person and them staying that way forever is intrinsically flawed, if not impossible?
These days, more so than any other time in history, single life is being embraced. Women proudly embrace their independence and men flaunt their bachelor lifestyles.
- Dan Bilzerian - The Ultimate Playboy
I would say that single life is more appealing now than ever due to everything being so accessible. In the old days, women needed men to bring home the bacon - literally. Go forth, kill and bring back tea. He also had to start the fire, smash things (such as animal bones to extract meat) and generally do stuff. The Homo Habilis actually means 'Handy man' - saviour of all damsels in distress.
These days though, women are more self-sufficient than ever, as are men. Women are ambitious, career-driven and independent, with or without children; and men do the things that, up til now, women have only done (i.e. cook, clean, iron) without fear of social judgement.
Plus, these days, we can just pick up the phone and hire a handy man!
What need, then, do we have for marriage?
Do we actually require anything other than sex from the opposite sex?
And if sex is all we require, are we happy to only get that from one person for a lifetime?
I'm not insensitive enough to say that we don't require other sentiments such as affection and companionship, but do we need these things from a life-partner or could we make do with our friends and family to fill the gap when we are feeling lonely or in need of sharing an experience?
In fact, people have become more insular than ever thanks to the likes of Sky and Netflix. People would happily spend their Saturday night alone in bed, binge-watching Game of Thrones, than the hassle of dressing up and the effort of interacting with and - often forcing themselves - to enjoy the company of a group of people. Why else would people rather swipe left or right on their iPhones when choosing a date instead of actually socialising and finding a mate the good old-fashioned way?
If only, instead of subjecting Adam and Eve to a lifetime of misery together, God had said: "D'you know what, you're both too curious for your own good and bring out the worst in each other! Man and Woman clearly should not be left alone together unsupervised for any length of time", we wouldn't have felt the need to continue forcing a square peg into a round hole. After all, if marriage was a natural state of affairs, why the need for marriage counsellors or countless self-help books advising us on how to suffer through relationships as painlessly as possible? (i.e. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus). Furthermore, the latest statistics (published December 2012) estimate that 42% of marriages in England and Wales end in divorce. It is also estimated that: 34% of marriages are expected to end in divorce by the 20th wedding anniversary
During the programme, the "experts" mention on many occasions the importance of the participants' friends and family being on board with their decision to marry a complete stranger, due to the importance of social acceptance and reputation. This made me wonder, in choosing a partner, how much of our decision is ours and how much of it is influenced by those close to us opinions? I think I probably know more about what my parents would want from my future husband than I do.
I wonder, what if - as we may have one friend who we go to for advice and another we would call for a wild night out - we had the freedom of having multiple partners for different requirements, instead of pinning our every desire on one person. It is no wonder that more and more of us are turning to online dating when we are looking for someone who is a culmination of our every need: funny, attractive, smart, wealthy, ambitious, kind, family-orientated, sociable, attentive, etc. etc. We are going online in the hopes of finding this person, because most likely, in the land of the living, they don't exist.
If these 1,500 people who applied to take part in the experiment believed that these four professionals had the ability to introduce them to that perfect and mystical being without having to put the groundwork in themselves which up til now has only ended in disappointment, who can blame them?!
What I fear is the "10%" of unknown element that Dr Anna Machin, the evolutionary anthropologist, refers to.
I took the 'Relationship Test' on the show's website twice and by just changing a couple of the questions I was unsure of (due to different experiences in different relationships), I went from being deemed a "Relationship-Centred Worrier, Attachment type = Anxious", to "Content Coupledom, Attachment type = Secure". Hmm...
The thing is, human-beings - especially females - are such complicated beings. We think we know what we want, but if it was put in front of us, we'd probably run a mile! Furthermore, I can guarantee that my answer to questions such as "Do you feel secure in your relationship?" would change from one day to the next dependent on my mood, hormones, stress levels and whether or not my boyfriend had "liked" another girl's profile picture or not that day!
On the wedding day, one of the women who had been "matched" on the programme, mentioned how all of her new husband's friends and family kept remarking how similar they both were, how he is the male version of her. (This couple had been deemed a 100% match by the experts, the most compatible match they had ever seen.) The woman said to the camera, "er, that's not cool, that's weird. He likes the same things I do and we're scarily, like, alike, apparently. So I don't know, I think that's a bit weird. I don't want him to be exactly like me, 'cause that's a bit weird, right?"
To the experts, these two people were a perfect match. As a female, even I could see before they met each other, that the woman was not going to be attracted to this man. I'm aware that what might be perfect on paper - or in the eyes of your friends and family - might just not be what floats your boat.
According to the experts, the main problem with internet dating and is the lack of oxytocin - i.e. chemistry, or "The Spark". You get chatting to someone 'cause they tick all the boxes you've filled in on your online wish-list, but when you meet them, there may just be nothing there. And vice versa. How honest really are we when we answer questions about ourselves? When a girl posts a photo caked in makeup (which she certainly doesn't look like when she wakes up in the morning) or proclaims herself to be "laid-back and easy-going" (which she definitely won't be when you roll in at 2 o'clock in the morning when you said you'd be home at 9...) etc.
Sure, people may say online dating is great for people who lead busy lives and have focused on their careers up til their early thirties then suddenly turn round and realise they're alone - as with the singles on Married at First Sight.
To that I would say,
but haven't you been happy up til now?
I would say they probably have been. They've probably lived fulfilled lives with their work and going out and the majority of the people on the programme said the only reason they've decided that now's the time to settle down is because all their friends have.
But what if they hadn't?
Why is 'Friends' still one of the most popular shows on TV? It isn't a love story about the ideal marriage, kids and a house in the suburbs. It portrays six friends in their thirties who all live in a flat and socialise together, have pretty casual relationships and even when Chandler and Monica get married, they never really spend a minute alone!
People will obviously say, what about love?
Love is great, if you are lucky enough to find it. But the question is, does marriage develop love or stifle it? If it wasn't for religion, would marriage even exist? Would human-beings by their own nature and free will choose to be with just one person for the rest of their lives? Or would they recognise in themselves their own flaws and incapabilities to maintain such long-lasting loyalty and affection for another despite any wrongdoings or mental and physical changes that person may undergo during the course of their lifetime?
Does it not say something that man had to be instructed to 'love his wife as he loves himself' and the wife to 'respect her husband'?
In the words of Groucho Marx, "marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?"
