A different future for marriage

Some years ago — gosh, seven, now that I take a look — I wrote a post on the future of marriage, with some of my thoughts at the time. Just today I saw an article on-line that harmonizes remarkably well with what I wrote, though it reflects an option I don't believe I considered at the time. The option is "platonic life partnership," and it means ... well, it's interesting.

When I read the headline, my first thought was, "Marriage without sex," and it didn't sound like much fun. In a sense it's that, but in a sense not at all. The idea is that modern marriage combines multiple relationships into one: a spouse should be a lover, a best friend, a co-parent, and a part of the household. Marriage is supposed to involve compaibility of values, of temperament, and of sexuality. And the concept here is, Why not unbundle those? So the article talks about people who are best friends, who already know that their temperaments and values are compatible, who therefore decide to set up a household together even though they have no intention of ever fucking each other. That's not to say they plan to live lives of celibacy: they are perfectly free to fuck other people. But it means that they don't rely on a bond as passionate, unreliable, and evanescent as lust to ground a relationship that requires permanence — the way that establishing a household, building a financial future, and raising children do.

So these people establish permanent partnerships with their best friends, and then date on the side. If one of their dates wants to stick around for longer than a one-night stand, right away there is a conversation about, "My life is tied to my friend here. If you want to be part of my life, you have to accept that."

The original article is here in USA Today, but seems to be behind a paywall.

I read it here in MSN Start, but I don't know if that link will work for everyone.

Interestingly, this kind of relationship fits all of the descriptive statements that I mentioned in my post from so long ago, except in two places where the statement may not be applicable:

• Marriage is a school for character. 
• Marriage provides a home for raising children.
• Marriage must be practical, not idealistic.
• Adultery happens. Get over it. This one's not really applicable, because there is never any sexual expectation built into the relationship in the first place.
• Marriage does not have to be between one man and one woman.
• Once the kids are out of the house, it might be time to call it quits. The applicability of this one is open to question. What I really meant at the time was, Don't quit while your kids are still in the house because they need you. And I still believe that. But why should we expect the bonds to loosen over time? Because "People change"? Yes, people change; but I think one of the common kinds of "change" is that the fog of romantic lust slowly dissipates over time, revealing a relationship between people who are in other (non-sexual) respects seriously incompatible. In a "platonic life partnership" there isn't that fog of lust in the first place, so maybe the odds of long-term compatibility are better. I think we need more empirical research to be sure.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting respin on the concept of marriage. I'm glad to see there are people thinking through the options. And I'll be interested to see where it goes.