I Don't, Do You?

I've wanted to write this for a long time but I've just had things to do and it's quite important to me so I wanted time to get it right. Well, now I've got that time, let's see if I can manage it.

Firstly, let me just explain that I'm against marriage. Mostly because of arbitrary reasons, either because I feel that it's pointless (1 in 3 marriages end in divorce, it's no longer a serious commitment) and secondly, because I don't feel I need someone to officiate over my relationship (whether it's the Church or the State I don't really feel I require their validation to enjoy my life).

However, this post is my more concrete thoughts on marriage, what it is, where it's come from, and hopefully, why you shouldn't be enamoured with it either.

Firstly, I'm going to explain how it is the least feminist institution going, derived entirely of patriarchal oppression and male dominance, and I'm going to do it without even mentioning that marriage was originally a ceremony to signal the transfer of a woman's ownership from father to husband (oops).

No, I'm going to steer clear of the marriage particulars, and instead look at how marriage came to be in the first place. I mean, I assume that at one stage we were just savages, not far derived from apes in terms of sociability and cultural customs. Therefore, let's turn to biology for a few answers.

Primate reproduction 101
If there's one thing that endless hours of David Attenborough and Steve Irwin (not so much) teach you, it's that only the best get laid. It's practically the founding block of evolution. It's also a biological fact that, due to a primate's lengthy gestation period and relatively instantaneous refraction time, one male could impregnate all females in a given society at any one time.

So, if the females are so choosy, and the men are so promiscuous, what do the non-elite males do? Let's say, for argument's sake, that there is a population of 100 males and 100 females (I could draw a diagram, depends on how bored I get later).

Those 100 females each choose one of the top 5 most gorgeous, handsome, strong, reproductively attractive males to have relations with. And the males, being males, don't say no. Therefore, 100% of the females get some action, while only 5% of the males get busy too.

This leaves 95% of the males with nothing to do but hit the gym, get disgruntled, and play football (that's what sexual frustration does to a man). Eventually, tired of this arrangement where they don't get any, and sick of watching the exhausted elites strut about with their smugly satisfied faces, this 95% decide enough's enough. They decide that the arduous task of impregnating the females should be split equally and, being the larger part of the stronger sex, they get their way.

Yes, it's unnatural, yes, it's 'might is right', yes, it's inherently male oppression, but hey, that's monogamy. And to ensure the continuation of this system, they introduced the institution of marriage, binding one woman to one man for their natural life.

"But!", I hear you cry, "this is surely a fairer system, I can't see how you can claim it's disadvantaging anyone."

Well, no, culturally and socially it's impeccable. It is now so much an ingrained aspect of our society that the idea of polygamy is abhorrent.

But biologically, it is the product of male force (that disgruntled 95%) removing the ability of women to choose their favourite male to mate with, ie. the epitome of male-female oppression.

And that is why feminism and marriage cannot be reconciled.