What would the world be like if marriage no longer exist in the distant future? And people don't need a partnership to get benefits. Plus they can have sex without limits, and they can have more than one lover. And cheating doesn't matter.
My first guess is that everybody would get angry at each other for cheating all the time. Especially women - they're the ones who get pregnant, so they're the ones who have to bear the consequences of reproductive sex. Without an institution like marriage, the man could just run off and never think about the woman he impregnated again, and that's just not fair. So my guess is, after a period of anger, people would gradually reinvent marriage, realizing that, for all its faults, it's actually a pretty good idea.
So, this is a world where the concept of being together with one person exclusively doesn't even exist. You said that cheating wouldn't matter; I'm guessing the problem of attachment and having the exclusive right to someone would be gone. In that type of world, people would probably be more expressive about sex. It would probably become a much more open subject to broach, not so taboo as it is generally in this time. Of course jealousy would still exist with two people who genuinely love each other, which might make the notion of cheating important to them. Dag nabbit, that idea comes from marriage... The question would be whether that 'connection' would still be there. Perhaps a type of marriage would be reinvented. Food for thought. I disagree with @minstrel , as the OP did say that cheating wasn't a problem in this world of his. There would be a lot more unintended pregnancies, but I think the problem would go down with time as the education and tools for reproductive health and knowledge in adolescents increases. One night stands would probably become acceptable in society, and careful usage of anti-pregnancy tools would be encouraged more. Of course, there could be instances where minstrel's situation might happen, and that is a problem. There's also a flip side that I don't think many see though. Maybe I'm just being particularly optimistic today. I'll put some more thought into it.
If we're assuming that sex isn't treated as a shameful thing, then I'd guess that there would be a lot fewer unintended pregnancies--preventing pregnancy would be a simple health issue, without a lot of shame and self-deception wrapped around it, and without anyone trying to limit access to contraception. That doesn't help with the problem of *intended* pregnancies. Of course, I guess it would be possible for a society to develop where people have a committed connection to their child, but where that connection doesn't include any of the other elements of marriage. So, they both financially support the child, they share responsibility for caring for and housing the child, but they don't share finances and they have no romantic or sexual attachment. Maybe it would be normal to have three homes--Mom's home, Dad's home, and a third home where the child lives, cared for by Mom today and Dad tomorrow.
The Mosuo in China have no concept of marriage. In fact they use it as a threat to naughty children. http://books.google.com/books?id=9_2ohLhc_EMC&pg=PA209&dq="misleadingly translate as walking marriage"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=03e9UYrrIoPwrQfW6YHoCQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="misleadingly translate as walking marriage"&f=false So it would probably be like that then.
I think marriage and polygamy (I think that's the right term) aren't mutually exclusive. To me, the idea of a lockdown on sex to uphold a relationship is inane. I find that whatever sacredness that was given to sex truly destroyed many a chance for happy lives for many. To need to know that your partner cannot have sex with another is just insecurity. Yes, I'm sure that for many it's the only way they kept a partner as long as they did because their relationship was in shambles but for the most part they never should have been together in the first place. The entire idea of joining two people for eternity might be romantic but many couples can't pull it off as they're not good for each other in the long run and they eventually figure it out. People who truly love each other need not restrict their partners. A true partner will always come back and take up any responsibilities they need. Jealousy will always exist but free love would do wonders for society.
It could also create overpopulation if unintended pregnancies isn't controlled. Maybe in the society, humans no longer give birth naturally. Humans might get replaced by artificial humans who can not have babies. The babies will only be grown in tubes so the fake humans won't have to worry about pregnancy.
That's more futuristic what if's than anything in the realm of current possibilities. Also, overpopulation wouldn't be an issue in a world of free sex. The taboo from sex comes from marriage and religion, with that out of the picture, free sex would be common practice and no one would bat an eye at it. Contraceptives and being smart would be much easier to learn and access as well as sex pressure would be eliminated from teens as they wouldn't have any restrictions and sex would be a normal thing for them to know about. If anything, becoming pregnant would be considered more stupid than shameful and abortions would probably be occurring more frequently.
Think in reverse. Effective, one time birth control exists (in that future). All newborns are treated at birth. Reproduction is a right that has to be earned. The part of all intending couple's earnings are compulsorily saved up by the authorities or some organisation and used to raise and educate the child. Those who fail to qualify lose their savings into the child rearing pool. Done. Sex has not reproductive consequence, marriage is unnecessary. There is no such things as "cheating".
Hmmm. I think this issue goes way beyond sex. Of course foolproof contraception would make 'babies' something that could be planned, and if there were other means to care for and raise the babies, then people could choose how they do this. Fine. But ...how people in love feel about one another? That's a different thing altogether. I don't think allowing sex to happen willy nilly, with anybody who comes down the pike, is going to be a comfortable situation for some people. Of course people who aren't particularly attached to their partners or to anyone, this will be a wonderful development. However, there are people on this planet right now - and unmarried ones as well as married ones - who get incredibly jealous of their partner's HOBBIES, never mind who they have sex with. And I do think that people who are truly in love with each other are happy that way, and don't particularly want to have sex with somebody else. And they might feel a bit threatened and unhappy and unwanted if their partner started wanting to have sex with other people. It comes down to self-confidence, and the balance in a relationship. I would rather have a 'free love' society than one which demands total fidelity in marriage and condemns sexual activity outside it. But don't tell me there wouldn't be problems with it. Unless people stop caring about each other, and unless sex between two people has no more meaning than eating breakfast and taking a leak, I think this will not be an optimal solution. Instead of pressure to be faithful to a partner, there would be pressure to be free and easy instead, and folk who weren't comfortable with that would become the social outcasts. To some extent that pressure existed in the 60s when I was young, and still exists today. Pressure is pressure. It's not freedom at all. I don't think it's possible to make a 'rule' that will make everybody happy.
It strikes me that there are segments of society where some of these issues are already in play. My husband and I have watched a few episodes of Honey Boo Boo, about a family in the South. The woman has several kids, by several fathers. She lives with the father of the youngest child. They were not married for a long time (I understand that they have since gotten married). But, my husband was discussing this show with someone he works with, who is from Georgia, not far from where this family lives. So my husband and this woman were discussing the situation, especially with how the mother had no desire to get married, and this woman said that in the South, this sort of situation is very common -- people don't care about getting married, they'll just go from one relationship to the next, within a group of people who they've known for a long time, and often the children of one woman will have many different fathers. This is also an area with high rates of poverty and where education is not highly prioritized. I think Bryan's suggestion above, about "earning" the right to reproduce is intriguing. People who adopt children have to go through this rigorous process of a home study, where they have to show good health, good financial standing, a clean home, etc. A common lament is that everyone should have to go through this sort of process, particularly when there are stories of people who give birth to children, only to abuse, neglect, and sometimes kill them.
it worked just fine for pacific islanders, till the christian missionaries descended on them and f-d everything up by forcing conversion and making everything that had worked well for millennia a sin... so i see no reason why it couldn't work again, as long as religions no longer exist...
I lot of this is being studied right now. Read the The Red Queen or other such books, there are many of these. They study other species or past cultures to arrive at why we are doing it wrong now.
Well, but if cheating doesn't matter, then the word "cheat" becomes void - it does not exist - and people born and raised in such a society who sees no value in attachments would see no problem in changing partners. And that includes women. So the man runs off, who cares? Get another one who would/could help you. After all, the premise is that "people don't need partnerships to get benefits". There would need to be something in the system that takes care of this - say, what if there's a government-run chain of nurseries and creches that would essentially take your baby for you, like a boarding school for infants? And mothers retain the rights to children and come to visit, but largely remain disengaged from the child's activities and upbringing, leaving the teachers and nannies to do the job.
People can already have sex without limits if they just open their minds to it. I personally think the world would be a better place. Less stress on people from his nagging wife, or her lazy husband. And of course, there would be less stress from limiting who you have sex with or fear your spouse may be cheating on you. I already never plan to marry, cause I seen how bad it can be, and want to avoid that drama.
Religion doesn't f*k things up. Misinterpretation f*ks things up which brings out ( naturally I suppose, but tiresome ) a lot of prejudice. To the op - ever see Logan's Run? same thing. The children were raised by robots so the adults could par-ty. Lol. Having known a lot of people who work in children's service's I'd see that as exploding. As everyone would be wrapped up in doing their own thing. Subsequently the children would have a hard time building an identity making each new generation more distant with one another.
Problems in marriage comes from the cheater, not the one being cheated on. My dad cheated on my mom, and was so caught up in cheating he forgot two of my birthdays, and was upstairs on his computer so mom and I went and did our own thing. I was ignored by him for most of my childhood. Personally, I'd think it was a shameful thing if a culture was like that, ignoring all responsibility for the sake of pleasure, because that really did hurt me.
The thing is, Duchess, our culture indoctrinates us with a religious (particularly Christian) sense of morality. The Church has had a monopoly on sex for centuries, and it was not until just over a hundred years ago or so that we realized sex is 100% natural. If a culture existed where there was no concept of marriage or life-long attachment, then there would be no feeling of betrayal or shame. OSHO says in the video, the hildren would be the responsibility of the community. They would have their parents, who would not be bound to each other, and they would have many aunts and uncles and cousins to call "family." The family unit we know is not entirely necessary, especially if you follow that model. Love could flow freely without an address. The problem with marriage does not lie with just one person. I'm sorry you disagree, but marriage itself has problems. People rush into it. People forget they change. People become attached and jealous and possessive. In fact the institution of marriage is all about possession and control and ownership. The wife BELONGS to her husband. The husband BELONGS to his wife. We "fall in love" with people who make us feel a certain way and we want to keep it forever. Marriage is, on one hand, an attempt to make that happen, and to do so we have to confine and even stunt our natural growth. On the other hand, marriage is a business contract. If we stopped looking for people to address our love to and to receive our love from then we would have no need for the constant attachment that leads to marriage. We should learn how to simply love, to be love. Let love flow through us to everything around us, rather than distorting it to feelings addressed to one person. Yes, if you're going to uphold the institution of marriage, then cheating is wrong. I hope to be married some day. But marriage is not the best and only way to make a civil society. It came with religion.
If there is one thing that I would say broke the world, I would say it was organized, institutionalized, depersonalized religion, with its rules and dogmas and overwhelming need to spread everywhere at any cost. It gave us just another excuse to differentiate one body of people from another and thus justify an us vs. them mentality. There was spirituality before religion, so religion is not necessary to be spiritual. I've always said, "don't give me religion; give me Christ." Today I say, "don't give me anything; God lives in me." I believe in Christ, yes, but I don't live or operate under any one religious paradigm.
I'm not even going to fight with you over this, because I have come to the epiphany that I don't care about what others think of what I say/write/do.
Getting rid of marriage isn't going to change people's opinions on cheating and sex outside a relationship (unless you have a Brave New World type of thing going on). Even if there was no marriage, I think a lot of people would still be inclined to be in monogamous relationships.
That's fine; I'm not looking for a fight. That is just another way of looking at the world. Of course getting rid of marriage won't solve the problem, monogamy is in our culture, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But if marriage and monogamy never existed as rule like we know it does, then who's to say it would not/has not worked. The desire to be coupled to only one person is natural. As natural as the desire to have many partners. The incompatibility occurs when two people of different natures tries to fit the monogamous mold. When people see love as an isolated controlled phenomenon, that is when trouble arises, as far as I can see. When people "need" to be the only person in another's life. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I'm not trying to change anyone's or step on anyone's toes, but coming from families in which some marriages have worked and others simply have not, I know marriage is not the only way to make a community. While the cheater is always wrong, marriages fail for more reasons than infidelity. We just have to start asking why questions.
