A happily married couple by - spiritual?- arrangement
Once wild oats have been sown and dreams dashed, I don’t see what could be wrong with an arranged marriage. Say, at around 72? Perhaps, there may be a little life left in the old fogies, yet, and if she comes with a dowry and he has a tidy little stash, why not pool these resources together for the greatest security, and above all, reduce rates and taxes by moving in together, into a property that is worth having until you die (facilitating a nurse if need be)? Who of Generation X (and later) wants to end up in a an OAP home?
There would have to be conditions over and above an air-tight business agreement, but I have always believed all business should have a human face, anyway. Why not approach relationships from an entrepreneural standpoint? It will always be controversial to romantics, but to the jaded ones it might offer new leases on life. We have mail-order brides catering to lusty, lonely males after all. I am proposing something far more mutually consensual than grinning and bearing the services you are indirectly being paid for.
Pre-nuptials
Before you go to see a sollicitor, and throw a wedding party, you would have to be clear on the topic of sex, first and foremost. I am hoping that by then it is virtually a non-issue. (This is not to state old people have no sexual appetites, at all. Clearly there are plenty of Hugh Heffners out there.)
Still, I am leaving the option to marry as yet, till that late (70+), for the specific reason that sex may, by then, no longer be such an elephant in the room. With sex put to bed (or not, rather), I would even not exclude the possibility of a lesbienne marriage in my case (and men forming living partnerships either, but it may be much less easily achieved) . This is not to say lesbiennes don’t have sex! Nor is it to propose the guys need to have sex together. We are looking for an exclusive contract on some important other fronts, notwithstanding this often pivotal factor in marriage.
Either way, by the age of 72 I would think it might be possible to find a partner who is able to disregard the sticky factor of sexual desire, in principle entirely, which would give one point the fewer to be in discord about.
Needless to say, there is no point discussing terms and conditions if there is not some kind of click. A fully-rounded person who refuses to give into sentimentality and nostalgia may have grown practical in old age, but not humourless and insensitive. This is why I would not liken exactly my proposal for cohabitation to traditionally arranged marriages, leaving to one side how some arranged marriages are far more reasonable than we may always have been lead to believe. It is a marriage of convenience.
It pleases me to imagine that such soulful arrangements as I propose for men and women who find themselves (still) single after mid-age will appeal to people in touch with their true selves. Neurologically and mentally programmed expectations and second-hand critera taught to us by social media and the economy at large, may have faded away, so that intuitions can replace shallow sexual attraction. It would be nice if this could happen for younger people, too, especially with more of us becoming sexually neutral or sexually tempered by mindfulness… Maybe then, love would stand a chance.
The advertisement runs...
As for myself, I still have to get my head around some of my own proposals, I must confess. The list that is to advertise my strong points, that is my marriage material guarantee, adds up to quite a set of onerous chores and one plus-point.
- Carer
- Cleaner
- Gardener
- Cook
- Chauffeur
- Secretary or assistant (should the partner want to write a biography)
- Grandmother (should the partner have any grandchildren)
- Dog walker (we must get a dog to bind us where children don’t)
- Reader (should the partner go blind or be terminally ill)
- No Financial Drain
I think the latter is the closer. Who wants to marry a gold-digger with the price of home-care, these days, to worry about?
The list of things to watch out for if you choose to live with me, however, especially by the time I’m 72, I hazzard might well outweigh the pros, hence my compromise with the tedious list above. It’s my way of saying I am prepared to pay for you to put up with me.
In turn, I have no demands outside trustworthiness and commitment to the marriage. For I am not as pragmatic as I may have sounded so far. I would like to believe there is still an “intended” arrangement, however minimal (and unromantic) it is to be. For such intangible connnecttions there cannot be any right words, really. Hopefull, past and future fall away when such quiet spirits meet and the now becomes doable in all its simplicity.
I never had a list of things I needed my husband to be, but when I decided to be so open minded that I even scrapped "male" off the list of desirable qualities, I came to appreciate there is such a thing as the violation of one's innate nature. I had compromised on the value of my personal identity a little too much for the sake of "loving the world".
It would be slightly different, again, now, in the case of a more strictly “arranged marriage”, since my priority then lies on surviving old age independently with the help of an extra pair of hands, eyes, and cerebreal faculties. I take a more holistic-medical approach. Consistent company may possibly contribute to greater health for longer: if you put two sharp minds together it would help keep you alert; you are more likely to cook wholesome meals when you cook for two; and a bit of appreciation might not go amiss (I wouldn’t know right now). I think the excarnation process might go too fast and you will lose touch with the world if left to your own devices and a cat, in a crumbling house at 85.
Risk assessment
There will always remain a covalance of risk and business relationships. We see in elderly couples that there may be little left between them but a glue that is the memories of their youth, (the children) and in half the cases, perhaps, an affection that is part habit and part rooted in the bliss of the newly weds they once were. Where this is not the case, we are not encouraged to value matrimony as anything more than mere legal contract. Love and business seldom mix, but you can love a good business deal. Once love flies out of the window, you have to settle.
Contracts minimise the risk, but it remains prevalent in all organic processes - suppose either of you develop Alzheimers, two years into the marriage? You may feel more lonely than you did before (let down, “sold short”). But a contract based on compatible business partners should incalculate delapidation and demise. This may be the point that invites ramification with contracts between multiple individuals in a kind of cooperative, but then we come close to redefining assisted living or retirement lodgings. Or an old monastery! Perhaps, I am leaning more towards personal attention, even affection, and a reciprocity which intensifies or concentrates the last goodness in you.
With all the nitty-gritty sorted (especially deciding on how much room in which to maneouver outside the conventional tags attached to wedlock; but also, on how much compliance with traditional expectations is required), and with an accommodation found, that affords plenty of personal space, and finally, some houserules drawn up (sweetly arranged around the buffer-dog), the sinking into the final sand may commence. If you are lucky, you'll enjoy these relatively secure and benign years left to you. If you both do your best to create a congenial climate and maybe spark eachother along with creative or adventurous ideas (the cinema, the botanical gardens, a city trip or who knows: helping hedgehogs cross the road, or fostering a starving child from afar, even), you may come to regret the time you have together can only be so short....
Any shining examples to go by?
I imagine Steiner got together with his Marie along similar lines. She brought cash and a new field in which to expand “his business” to the table; he had a growing audience (she might perform to) and attracted adulation.
It's an odd couple otherwise, with no glamour or je ne sais quoi, from where I am seated. There seem to be karmic motivations, but I can't see them. It feels like a marriage of convenience, subject to socio-political and in-house (theosophist) pressures and her objective to obtain a residency. Practical man this Steiner, if we add on his first marriage....
Compared to my set-up, he was still youngish when he (re) married, but I cannot see any blazing passion between them. Did they ever share a bed? I doubt it. A common goal, however, can bind, and under extreme pressures (social expectations) anyone devoted to your cause and on your side is welcome. To my mind it was a very sensible, practical and therefore inspired marriage. If Marie hadn't needed a permit to stay in Germany, who knows if he wouldn't have ended up with a much better friend, his right hand and medical team leader, Wegman, whom he has said to meet up with in every life anew. Secretly, I suspect he was a great deal more fond of her than the snippy Russian.
For the rest I can only think of bungled up arrangements. Pasternak and his Lara spring to mind. Saint-Exupery and Consuelo. I don't think Dante had anybody, at all(no Beatrice, at any rate: read his "Vita Nova" to discover where that creation came from).
Ah! Growing old. It doesn't have to be a sad story. But often it is.
