Red Pill Do Us Start

AnonJohn:   What would Red Pill Marriages Vows look/sound like?

I promise to have and to hold you, unless you get too big to hold?

In sickness and health, maybe, but definitely only in richer and not for poorer?

You’re my one and only unless you don’t give it up?

Does anyone have any real suggestions?

Athol:  Well being completely Red Pill about this, the vows are meaningless because the actual legal agreement you’re making is whatever the marriage law is in your state. From ye olde achives…  Dershowitz and Feinstein and the Legally Binding Threesome.

Jodi always kind of rolls her eyes a little at that. She just says that Connecticut is a No Fault divorce State, and basically anytime either one of us wants out she’ll be happy to tear up the marriage license and start deciding how to divide up half of everything. But we tell her “we made vows though”, she just sips her tea and says it’s all a verbal agreement and inadmissible in a court of law.

“In fact” she says, “you could have said nothing in that little church, or you could have said vows in Latin, Elvis could have been your best man, Joan of Arc the Maid of Honor and Moses could have done the service and it all wouldn’t matter any different.”   She paused for effect… “you could have just sung Puff the Magic Dragon to each other for all I care. The marriage license is your consent to the marriage agreement as defined by Connecticut Marriage Law. That’s what your marriage agreement is.”

We look across at Dershowtiz and Feinstein. They look bored.

All that being said, it does kind of make having a get together to celebrate getting married a little awkward if you don’t hold hands and say something all sappy about getting married. Well maybe not sappy, but at least meaningful… marriage is a big committment after all.

So here’s a crack at something to say on your special day…

Do you both agree to have an exclusive, vibrant and engaged sexual relationship together?  (We do)

Do you both agree to meet the other’s need for sexual consensuality and safety?  (We do)

As each other’s only sexual partner, do you both agree to explore and experiment, seeking to discover and meet each others needs for variety and pleasure?  (We do)

Do you both agree to love, support and nurture any children you have together?  (We do)

Do you both agree to forgo the right to privacy from each other and allow each other full access to each others personal communications and whereabouts at any and all times?  (We do)

Do you both agree to join your finances together, have full access to each others financial information and file your taxes together as a couple?  (We do)

Do you both agree to allow to each other full access to medical information and act on any health concerns?  (We do)

Do you both agree to commit yourself to maintaining good personal health, fitness and appearance?  (We do)

Do you both agree to maintain a home, engage in productive work and be a positive force in each other’s lives?  (We do)

Do you both agree to give each other a fair and documented warning of any potential relationship breaking problems? (We do)

Do you [Name] agree to act as the First Officer of the relationship, seeking to support, advise, respect and accept all else that entails? (I do)

Do you [Name] agree to act as the Captain of the relationship, seeking to lead, listen, appreciate and accept all else that entails?  (I do)

Do you both love each other?  (We do)

Anyway, that’s what I came up with this fine evening.

As off the cuff as this is, the future is going to be very interesting as this sort of thing becomes less and less of a playful concern, and the possibility of private contracts comes more and more into play. The more I wrote the more I wanted to write. It was a minor challenge to not start writing it out as a legal contract lol. I can certainly see that in the future, Marriage 3.0 might be far more of a “check the boxes for what you want to agree to” sort of deal. The legalities signed up for online via the Google Marriage app of something. Short term contracts might be a possibility too.

What I do know is this, though – men and women are still going to want to be in relationships with each other. The question is how that is managed as a society.

Comments

  1. I disagree with the no privacy vow. I believe some mystery in marriage can be erotic for both parties. Have you read
    “Mating in Captivity” by Esther Perel? I have found the concepts she discusses apply to my marriage. I would be unhappy with all my communications being shared. I find complete transparency dampens my attraction. I like knowing my spouse is an individual with some secrets. It makes them intriguing and in turn attractive.

  2. Ohh I sense DRAMA! over this one specially over the “full access” part. Had I mentioned that you first worlders have personal spaces of the size of small apartments?
    *getspopcorn*

  3. This post instantly reminded me of Robert Heinlein. There are several mentions of different lengths / types of marriage contracts in his books. Stranger in a Strange Land, in particular, has some interesting ideas on marriage and polyamory. Also, Jubal Harshaw is probably the best Alpha character I have read.

  4. A contract marriage per you description or Dalrock’s institutional marriage would only truly work if we got gov’t out of marriage and focused solely on contract enforcement.

    Getting gov’t out of marriage depends heavily on reforming the child support – welfare system. This is the first knot to untie before resolving the no-fault divorce disaster. Which makes sense, the current child support -welfare system was built upon those earlier perversions of law, therefore we must undo it in reverse order.

    Good point. The entire system is a jumbled mess though, it may require a complete top to bottom restructuring at one time to work.

  5. Bravo!
    Mrs. Ironwood and I did our own vows (Okay, I wrote them, submitted them for her inspection, comment, and approval. I’m a writer. And an ordained priest in my religion. Kinda my job). I wanted it to be both meaningful and poetic, as well as outlining our basic responsibilities to each other. It also had to be both acceptable to my Pagan sensibilities and acceptable to our many Christian friends and relatives. We kept it simple, no attendants, but I made sure to include a vow not just to each other, but from all of our friends and family who had gifted us with their presence that day. I had them vow en masse to render aid to our family when asked and able, and to essentially stay out of our business otherwise.

    I’ve actually invoked that clause a few times, when things got dire. Reminding someone that your marriage included vows not just between each other, but between you both and the community, can be a valuable strategic move. Our marriages are not just unions of two people, after all, but of two families — they exist in a greater context.

    I also included a personal vow between us, based loosely on an old medieval Celtic marriage formula: I vowed to feed her when she was hungry (I do all the cooking), and she promised to “keep me warm when I am cold” — which was our pre-agreed pretty language for “put out on a regular basis”.

    No, it wouldn’t hold up in a court of law — but at that point I had vetted Mrs. I pretty thoroughly, and if I felt that our commitment to each other needed legal support, I wouldn’t have asked her to begin with. In the end, a person’s commitment is going to come down to their personal sense of integrity, and if you’re mistaken about that, then not much else is going to matter. It’s all about proper wife selection.

  6. Things went downhill in marriage when the government got involved.

    It makes me wonder why gays would want that institution intruding on what they have.

  7. Heh. Some of the strongest marriages I know are Lambdas.

    Government has always been involved in marriage, and always will be. Marriage is a legal contract that arises in the context of a system of laws and regulations provided by a government. The government can be religious or civil in nature — it really doesn’t matter whose name is at the top of the page — but part of its job is to regulate the affairs of its constituency in a stable and predictable nature. That includes issues of domestic and marital regulation. Without that context, then you have no institution of marriage.

  8. The access to communication rule is an anti-infidelty clause.

    But if you’re cool with her locking her phone and texting a couple thousand times to some guy a month, I’m sure you can remove that line.

  9. Access to communication doesn’t mean you’re reading everything together right when it comes in. Just the idea that one can check should suffice.

    I dearly wish this had been a part of my marriage.

  10. @Athol Me and Mr. RedPill had kind of a blow up about me suggesting we share passwords… He claimed that that was a boundary he wasn’t willing to cross. He said I could look at his accounts anytime I asked, but that I couldn’t have the password, and he was really adamant about it. Not sure if I should drop it or not.

  11. Great ideas on vows. While my wife and I didn’t have these discussions before we were married, we did have later…much later. Thankfully we had improved as individuals and as a couple before that occurred, but having explicit conversation about marital expectations should be done at some point. Before marriage preferably. I saw Athol’s post here after I posted my “Basic Marriage Expectations” post today with my own experiences/thoughts, and the two dovetail nicely I think.

  12. The wedding vows do matter, but not as far as the government is concerned. We still have social peers to consider, and our reputation. Whether the government punishes you or rewards you for pulling the plug on a marriage, at least one party in the marriage has still just demonstrated that they can’t be trusted as a responsible adult, and are unworthy of commitment. Reputation matters.

    Or at least it would if we would start treating women like responsible adults in the first place, and stop treating divorcees like a pair of sick children in need of coddling. I’m guilty of this one myself. I had a friend fuck up his marriage with his big moth and passive-aggressive attitudes. I sat and I listened to him and let him wallow in self pity. Now, five years later if I had to do it over again, I would tell him “You fucked up, son, take your beating like a Man, and learn better for next time.”

    Whether the red pill ever fixes the marriage contract or not, it sure as hell can cure the lack of accountability that is running rampant in this society. One shaming at a time.

  13. These are great vows, Ian Ironwood. Both deeply personal to you as a couple and also practical.
    About the full access thing, I agree with Version3.0: just the possibility your partner may look at your communications is a strong enough deterrant to most people, exactly like a lock on your door works.

  14. Being cool with it? No. However, I don’t agree a solution to that kind of threat is Big Brother paternalism. I don’t see it as an either/or situation.

    What is your opinion on eroticism and familiarity? Can too much intimacy/access dampen eroticism in a marriage?

  15. I quite like these vows. Perhaps in wife selection they should be submitted and the response gauged.

    I’m thinking my husband and I aren’t doing so well on the transparency. I know none of his passwords or how to check texts on his phone (he has a different brand phone than I do.)
    If I found out he was texting some chick, I would be royally pissed for obvious reasons – but even more so because he rarely responds to MY texts!

    Then stop texting him so much. Tit for Tat.

  16. Second that, Shanna, I’d be more pissed because of his not responding to mine than his talking to other chicks (though this would boil my blood as well).

  17. Access to communication doesn’t mean you’re reading everything together right when it comes in. Just the idea that one can check should suffice.

    Exactly. People always take it to the extreme that people will be checking every word you write. Who has time for that? Aside from which, it’s not hard to have a secret email account or whatever if one is determined, so it sort of doesn’t matter a whole lot anyway.

    There are other practical reasons for password sharing but if there is nothing to hide, I’m at a loss as to why this should matter.

    The idea that always comes up in these discussions that there is such a thing as “too much intimacy/familiarity” and that one needs to “maintain the mystery” is misguided and based on thinking that sex is only good if you don’t know the person so well.

    The ‘mystery’ implies a gap in knowledge that you can then fill in as you like, that is, make a fantasy of. With that gone, you are left with a human being, warts and all, who is harder to love.

    Probably this is a result of having had sex too soon with multiple partners and then having those ‘relationships’ fizzle when you find that you aren’t as well-matched as you thought in the haze of infatuation, but I can’t help suspecting some deep-seated inability to love a flawed human being rather than an idealised projection.

  18. A nugget: the phrase “none of your business” or “that’s private” have no place in a marriage. If you are hearing that talk in anything other than jest about a trivial thing, start listening to your gut. At the very least address firmly why everything that goes on is your business.

    You want to be the captain eh? The captain makes it a point to know what’s going on with the crew at all times. Especially those who are second in command. Everything that person does has a direct effect on YOUR life from running late ftom work to banging the neighbors, it has some level of impact on you

    That’s what marriage and the legal and financial ramifications mean. You wouldn’t tolerate a business partner hiding critical information from you or secretly working deals with a competitor. Why would you be okay with that in this contract arrangement?

    It is a contact. A crappy one where the state predetermines all the terms, but a contract nonetheless.

    None of your business, that’s private and secrets have no place in a marriage. It’s a big red flag and dangerous to your marriage which makes it personally dangerous to you and your mental, emotional, financial and physical health Don’t believe me? Go to any forum on marriage and dip into the infidelity section and read all about the aggrieved parties who got the “that’s private” or “none of your business”, let it slide and wound up sideswiped and wrecked. Just wrecked in all aspects a person can get wrecked.

    Shit, if you can’t be open enough to know your spouse’s email password or phone code what the hell are you getting married for? As Athol said, it’s not like you’re frigging sitting there reading every message but just the fact that you both have access to do so, and each other knows it, is its own ounce of prevention.

    Secret email accounts aside. Lolz.

  19. After having been married for a time (13 years), I do know the person I married well. I realize they are a flawed human being. However, I also know they are an individual with separate interests, friends, and thoughts. This sense of “mystery” is about maintaining the view of them as the intriguing person I married.

    Not sharing passwords and/or having boundaries regarding private areas in a marriage matters to couples who value individual privacy. What works for some may not work for all. I do not believe there is one answer to the “access to communication” issue.

    I, for one, would find monitoring very unattractive. It places the spouse in the roll of supervisor and implies I am unable to control myself. Also, should I wish to engage in immoral behavior, I would find a way, with or without complete transparency. But, knowing I am respected to have private areas in my life makes me more satisfied in my marriage.

  20. Milf_in_Training says:

    I wish vows like this existed when I got married — they might have eliminated my divorce.

    To me, the access to passwords means exactly that — when asked, you give your spouse your current passwords, as you are not ashamed of your online/text communication. Does the First Officer read the Captain’s log? Does the Captain read the F.O.’s? Not as a rule, but neither log book is private.

    As far as secret accounts, they break the spirit of the vow. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a spouse who breaks the letter than the spirit.

  21. Glad to see the merging of finances. I have come across a handful of couples who have maintained separate accounts with each person “responsible” for paying certain bills. My comment has always been, “How odd! When do you plan to divorce?” This is always met with a sputter and protestations that their marriage is “fine, perfect, etc”. Not a single one of the couples have remained married . . . Just saying.

  22. Templar, and everybody in general as well: could you elaborate more on the topic of separated finances being bad? I’m not married yet, just in a long-term relationship, but I know of long happy marriages with separated finances as well and I cannot see much problem with it.
    I get that the purpose of getting married is, in essence, becoming one person, and that involves everything including finances, but do you guys have any other arguments to add to this list?
    As usual, great insights on every comment…

  23. There are no secrets in out marriage. Privacy yes, but not secrets. What is the difference? You need to respect each other’s privacy but not keep any secrets. If keeping information away from a spouse becomes an issue, it is no longer “private” but now a “secret”. We entrust each other a certain amount of privacy. How are you going to surprise each other on their birthday?

  24. When the finances are divied up between the two spouses, you lose the cohesion. It is really simple when both spouses make a ton of money for the bills to be split. Once tough financial times hit, people get more protective of their “own” money. It’s more like being roommates than spouses. Who pays for the vacation? Who pays for gifts? The reason the finances are blended is it turns the two people into a family unit instead of just two people who share expenses. Marriage isn’t about “going dutch”. (this is the short answer – wrote a longer one, deleted it cause I rambled too much!)

  25. “Short term contracts might be a possibility too”

    I remember a Star Trek novel I read in the 80s that mentioned marriage contracts. I think it was Scotty who’s contract was up, and his wife didn’t want to renew. I can definitely see this coming in the future.

    So have I established my geek cred?

  26. Thank you, Templar.

  27. Plain as day why my relationship is in the state it is now. For 12 years… we were never a team. Everything is separated. Respecting each others personal space. Doing our best to avoid any conflict. What we’ve ended up with is discussions mostly about the weather and sex maybe twice a year.

    For us… separating finances, parenting, and fun has led to separate sexuality and intimacy

Trackbacks

  1. […] was interesting to read these two posts side by side yesterday.  Athol Kay talked about what the law should be in marriage to make it successful and Sheila Wray Gregoire emphasized what the gospel […]

Speak Your Mind

*