In Defense of Platonic Marriage
Oct. 29th, 2022 11:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rocky41_7Recently The Asexual Agenda brought to my attention this article , where the author makes an argument for why platonic marriages are invalid and generally undermine the institution of marriage, and while the article is over a year old, I felt the need to write a response.
Obviously, asexual people are harmed by the notion that platonic marriage should be forbidden or frowned upon, but I think more generally the obsession with controlling how other people operate their marriages is damaging to all of us.
Response under the cut.
To begin I would like to provide some definitions for the reader.
Asexual (adjective) – A sexual orientation characterized by a lack of sexual attraction to others.
This is the most basic definition of asexual, although it is often considered a spectrum within which various attitudes towards sex and sexuality may exist. Here are some things asexuality is not:
- A choice to abstain from sex for religious or personal reasons (celibacy)
- A low sex drive (libido and sexual attraction are separate things)
- A medical condition which makes it difficult or impossible to become sexually aroused (arousal and attraction are separate things)
- An absence of romantic attraction to others (Romantic orientation is separate from sexual orientation. A person may be asexual but still desire romantic relationships with people of the same gender as themselves [asexual homoromantic] or with people of any gender [asexual panromantic] or no one [asexual aromantic/aroace])
A person who is asexual may feel negatively towards sex (they do not ever desire it to be a part of their lives), neutral (they have no strong feelings but may engage in it from time to time or to satisfy a partner), or positively (they enjoy sex and may even seek it out despite a lack of physical attraction). Naturally, people fall into broad gray spaces between these categories.
Allosexual (adjective) – Characterized by feeling sexual attraction to one or more genders (i.e. not asexual).
Before any objections to the existence of asexuality, I would like to clarify that I myself am asexual. I have never experienced sexual attraction to another person and I don’t expect I ever will. It is not a hormone imbalance (I’ve been tested for that). It is not a response to sexual trauma. It is not a medical condition. It’s just the way I am, the way I’ve always been, the way I anticipate I always will be.
I can’t speak to Mr. Hawkins’ exact definition of platonic marriage—whether he means a marriage without sex, or a marriage with neither sex nor romantic feeling from either party (a “friend” marriage), but since the fixation is on sex, I will adopt the former definition for the purpose of this response.
I begin with these clarifications because Mr. Hawkins’ article on platonic marriage specifically calls out asexuality, and yet fails to address at all how such a prohibition on platonic marriage would affect an entire subset of people. There are, I’m sure, allosexual people who may enter into a platonic marriage, but as an asexual person myself, I particularly sympathize with the plight of those who desire lifelong companionship, but may be ambivalent about or averse to including a sexual element to that relationship.
I believe there are a number of critical mistakes in a movement to proscribe or even generate broad social disapproval of platonic marriages. I will begin with the more practical aspects, and move onto how such censure would be harmful not only to the asexual community, but to anyone whose marriage falls outside the traditional standards.
I will set aside the issue of policing this matter, because I do not believe there is any realistic way in which the state could determine who is secretly engaging in a forbidden platonic marriage and who is following the law and having sex with their spouse. There certainly is no non-invasive way to manage this, and thinking back to the dehumanizing enforcement of anti-sodomy laws in the United States, the very thought of allowing the state or community to police whether a marriage is sexual or platonic is somewhat terrifying.
Therefore, assuming the state or society has some reasonably reliable method for determining whether a married couple is engaging in a sexual relationship, I would ask Mr. Hawkins to define the standard of his idea of marriage. That is: At what point is a marriage sexual enough to constitute a valid marriage in his view?
(The following scenarios presume satisfaction with the relationship on both ends; the only thing at issue here is the legality or legitimacy of the marriage.)
If my husband and I have sex on our wedding night and never again after that, and remain married until death, is this a valid marriage because we were, at one point, sexual with each other?
If my spouse and I regularly masturbate next to each other, and become aroused this way, but don’t put hands on each other, is this a sexual relationship?
If my husband and I have exclusively non-penetrative sex, is this sufficiently sexual?
If my wife and I are living long-distance long-term for work reasons, but regularly engage in sexual phone calls which we find arousing, are these valid sexual encounters?
What if I get my spouse off, but they do not touch me in return (at my request)? Is this a sexual marital relationship?
If my spouse and I bathe together and habitually see each other naked, but do not touch each other in a way intended to bring about orgasm, is this sexual intimacy?
If my wife and I were having regular sex, but we have reached an age where both our sex drives and our physical ability to engage in strenuous activity have declined, and our sexual relationship tapers off, has our marriage become platonic and therefore invalid?
You see how messy this becomes. Whose standard are we using to define a sexual relationship? And why should someone else’s definition of a sufficiently sexual relationship be forced onto your marriage?
The fixation on sex as a crucial component of the relationship confuses me somewhat, because Mr. Hawkins first touches on what are, to me, far more vital aspects of a marriage. He talks about how marriage helps us become “our better selves” and how marriage shapes “mutually joined lives.” Marriage is far more than a sexual relationship—to me, the defining characteristic of marriage is the commitment. To choose a person as your life partner and bind yourselves together, theoretically for the rest of your lives, is a monumental show of trust and love. Certainly, separating is not as difficult today as it once was, so if things don’t work out, you can cut short that commitment. But even if a couple divorces, at one point, they felt that desire to commit to each other and share their lives together. Marriage is an arrangement of companionship and partnership—both of which can exist without sex.
For allosexual people, I think it can be difficult or even uncomfortable to imagine a long-term romantic relationship without sex. Certainly, the dating field becomes quite a bit more fraught as an asexual, regardless of your own attitude towards sex. Many people find the idea of a partner who is not sexually attracted to them upsetting regardless of whether or not the asexual partner is willing to have a sexual relationship, and I’m not here to criticize or delegitimize that feeling. Mr. Hawkins mentions “sex-starved,” neglected marriages, but rightly points out that this characterizes a marriage that was intended to have a sexual component that it doesn’t, or doesn’t have to the satisfaction of one or both parties. There are doubtless many who can empathize on the point of a marriage which is not sexually fulfilling, and I certainly don’t seek to demean or diminish the importance of sexual compatibility in a long-term romantic relationship. As frustrating as someone who enjoys a very active sex life would find me, a partner indifferent to sex, I would also find it difficult and possibly frustrating to try to satisfy a partner who had intense sexual needs. Neither of us is right or wrong—our needs are simply incompatible, hardly different from a couple in which one person wants a passel of children and the other can’t stand the idea of kids in the house.
But individuals engaging in platonic marriage are not “sex-starved.” They enter into this arrangement with the intent that sex will not be a part of the relationship. They may later decide they are unsatisfied with this, but that could be true of any other aspect of the marriage, even other aspects of the sexual relationship. And as noted, divorce is relatively uncomplicated today, so one is hardly trapped by societal convention if the marriage turns out to be less fulfilling than you expected. All marriage is something of a gamble, betting that you and your spouse can work out any difficulties that arise. Sometimes that’s true and you work out a compromise or a mutually-rewarding solution. Sometimes it’s not, and you have to decide if this relationship is as viable long-term as you originally thought.
Mr. Hawkins tells us that “sex has long been at the core of marital meaning.” Call it nitpicking, but I would disagree—reproduction has been at the core of marital meaning. Marriage for love is a relatively recent development—marriages in the past were as much for financial reasons and the need to produce heirs or children to carry on the family trade as for any personal affection. Marriages might not even take place at the will of the spouses, but of their families. The focus on the marriage bed was not about sexual pleasure and intimacy as much as it was about producing offspring. Mr. Hawkins himself repeatedly mentions the “possible creation of life” as part of how sex “alchemizes” friendship and sexual attraction into marriage. It seems almost patronizing to point out that infertile couples, couples who don’t want children, and couples who can’t reproduce already “lack” this alchemical ingredient. Are their marriages also invalid? As anyone who’s had bad sex before can attest to, sex without intimacy is certainly possible. A sexual relationship is not an inherently close one. As with all aspects of a relationship, there must be intent. A couple can regularly engage in sex and still feel they don’t really know each other at all. Sex does not grant you a magical understanding of your partner and sex being a part of your marriage does not necessarily make it a close or healthy marriage.
Furthermore, as with most who oppose broadening the definition of marriage, there seems to be some fear that someone else’s marriage is going to degrade your own. If the concept of platonic marriage is unsatisfying and vaguely uncomfortable to you, the great news is that no one is making you get platonically married. Unlike with the enforcement of sodomy laws, the police are not going to kick down your bedroom door and announce you and your consenting adult partner are being charged with illegal sex. If what you desire for yourself is a “traditional” marriage between a man and a woman intended to produce children, then you are fully at liberty to pursue this for yourself. The existence of platonic marriages in no way impedes your ability to enjoy the sort of marriage you seek for yourself. Nor does it somehow cheapen your own relationship—the existence of romantic relationships that operate differently from your own are not a threat. You may choose to commit yourself to your partner for life with a sexual component—platonic spouses have made the same choice, minus the sexual aspect.
Mr. Hawkins talks about how the definition of marriage was “remodeled” to “accommodate” same-sex couples, phrasing with seems charged with underlying disapproval. In this are the echoes of the pearl-clutching that went on only a few years ago when the debate on same-sex marriage was still active—the classic “Well can I marry my dog then? Can I marry my toaster? Are we going to legalize pedophilia?”—as though same-sex marriage were some slippery slope towards total degeneracy and the devolution of language into meaningless gibberish. Again, there seems to be a belief that marriages that differ from the “traditional” model are somehow a threat towards those marriages, that by broadening the accepted definition of marriage we are moving towards a society where up is down and black is white. Mr. Hawkins freely admits that we have the ability to modify the definition of marriage as it suits our society, as we have redefined other societal terms whose old definitions were too restrictive, yet he seems to oppose the notion that the definition of marriage should ever be updated.
He says, “those who identify as ‘asexual’ can now find a place within the institution of marriage,” and then uses his article to declare why an entire group of people—people like me—should be locked out of the institution. In fact, this phrase itself is framed as a negative—as though asexual people were inserting themselves where they do not belong. Why are asexual people less deserving of committed companionship? Why don’t asexual people deserve to make the same showing of love and devotion as allosexual couples? As I noted before, asexual people are not the only ones who may find meaning and reward in a platonic marriage, but I find it particularly hurtful that Mr. Hawkins acknowledges there are people who have no sexual attraction to others, yet rather than see this as a reason why platonic marriage must be permitted, he sweeps us aside and decides we simply are not permitted to partake in the rewards of marriage, unless we are willing to submit to a sexual relationship (whatever that means).
When Mr. Hawkins uses words like “prune” to describe the redefining of marriage and how removing sex from the marriage makes it no different than other platonic relationships, I feel he’s missed his own definition of marriage from the beginning of the article, where he describes a relationship where you devote yourselves to each other and help each other be the best you can be and walk through life with one another. Marriage isn’t just “this is someone I like to have sex with.” Marriage is about choosing a life partner. Maybe this is someone you’re sexually attracted to and in romantic love with. Maybe it isn’t. A commitment to such a partnership is not defined by sex. Sex may be a part of it, and the parties may desire it to be, but it doesn’t need to be, and your sexual marriage is not lesser because your next-door-neighbors are platonically married.
I assume Mr. Hawkins is someone for whom sex is a vital part of his romantic relationships. This is a valid state of affairs, although as someone who has never experienced attraction, I do struggle to understand the fixation on sex. For me, sex is not a crucial part of my romantic relationships. I can enjoy a romantic relationship with a total absence of sex, which I expect is even more baffling to Mr. Hawkins than his need for sex is to me. Why is his definition of marriage valid while mine is not? If we each find our relationships fulfilling and rewarding, something that adds color and joy and stability to our lives, why should he be allowed to define my marriage out of existence? Why should I be prevented from having a legally and socially recognized commitment to my partner, ‘til death do us part, just because Mr. Hawkins and others would be unsatisfied in my relationship?
Mr. Hawkins also frets about the stability of platonic marriages—to which I have to laugh a little, because as we all know from witnessing 48-hour celebrity marriages, a relationship is only as stable as the people in it are committed to making it, with or without sex—and the risk of nonacceptance by family members, to which I cringe. A family who fails to accept a marriage within their ranks because of religion, sexuality, race, or any other such reason based on immutable characteristics, is not a reason to prevent that marriage. The idea that we should prevent any kind of marriage because “the in-laws won’t approve,” rather than encouraging these biased in-laws to have a more open mind, is precisely the kind of thinking that keeps society mired in outdated social norms. That my partner’s father may disapprove of our marriage because it lacks a sexual component may put additional stress on us—most of us want our families to celebrate and approve of our marriages—but it is not a justification for blocking us from marrying at all.
Similarly, this fear about justices of the peace refusing to marry couples who make it clear their relationship will remain platonic is no justification for denying a legal right. It is not up to the justice of the peace to define marriage—it is their job to marry couples who have a legal right to marry. If they choose not to, they can be removed from their post. A justice of the peace should not be permitted to deny a platonic couple any more than they should be permitted to refuse to wed a same-sex couple. The justice of the peace is not a religious figure performing a religious union ceremony—they are an officer of the state performing a legal duty. If they are not willing to perform the job, regardless of their private feelings on platonic marriage, they should look elsewhere for work.
Lastly, Mr. Hawkins speculates that individuals who simply struggle to maintain long-term romantic relationships might choose platonic marriage to obtain some of the benefits of marriage without the strain of trying to manage a romance, to which I say—so what? Marriage was a financial arrangement for centuries. Spouses were chosen for how beneficial the union would be, not based on how much they wanted to have sex. Particularly for women of the past, when we were not permitted to own land, open a bank account, or hold a job, choosing a man with a successful financial future might have been the only viable choice we could make for our future financial stability. Pretending this was never a consideration before flies in the face of history.
This isn’t a case of trying to get the good without the bad—Mr. Hawkins even acknowledges that entrants into these platonic marriages seek “the benefits and responsibilities of marriage” (emphasis added). By his own estimation these are people who are willingly shouldering the responsibilities and duties of a caring spouse, not someone looking to freeload off another person under the guise of a marriage. If someone is willing to take on the work of being a spouse, why should the absence of sex be the deal-breaker? If these people are volunteering to take on the responsibilities—as Mr. Hawkins lists them: colicky infants, defiant teens, parenting disagreements, dirty dishes in the sink, unexpected bills—why should they be denied? How many sexual marriages exist today with one or both partners refusing to put in the work for a healthy, happy marriage? Yet these are permissible, because sex is involved, but the committed asexual partners should not be allowed to call each other “spouse”?
For years as the divorce rate of the United States climbed social pundits lamented how these splintered families left children adrift and lacking in proper parental guidance without a balanced system of two parents. Yet now, if a single mother chooses to marry her friend so that they can raise their children in a joint household, this is a problem because they aren’t having sex? Are these parents not seeking to provide the healthiest, most stable household they can for their children? Why is this not a valid solution to the struggles of single parents? Why is not a “pro-social norm”? It may not be one widely chosen—certainly a platonic marriage is not for everyone—but for those who find it a rewarding system where they are supported and cared for and are able to raise their children in a loving, secure household, why should it not be an option?
I simply don’t see this harm Mr. Hawkins catastrophizes about. I don’t see how platonic marriages, entered into only by the willing, will somehow be responsible for the partial or total collapse of other people’s marriages, or the institution of marriage as a whole. He briefly mentions the declining marriage rate, but I don’t think this supports his point of “marriage isn’t special anymore so people aren’t doing it as much.” Or the fear that this will become the case. If people aren’t getting married as often as they used to, perhaps it’s because marriage is no longer serving society as well as it could—which to me, makes the case that broadening it would improve those statistics. The other more likely cause, to my mind, is that people are no longer expected to get married, necessarily. In the past, getting married and having kids was what you did. If you didn’t, there were questions about your aberrant behavior and massive societal pressure to conform. That still exists for many today, depending on your community, but generally to a much lesser degree than in the past. In short, it may be that people are choosing not to marry because deciding not to get married is now an option. Looking back on the days when everyone got married and no one got divorced is less like looking at a halcyon past where everyone met their soulmate and it always worked out than looking back on a time when getting married was a requirement and you weren’t allowed to leave no matter how miserable your marriage might be. It’s looking back at a lack of choice. Mr. Hawkins seems to implicitly criticize the declining marriage rate, and yet looking at people now who affirmatively and enthusiastically want to get married, he would refuse them, because their marriage does not align squarely with his own vision of what marriage should be.
Mr. Hawkins ends by imploring us not to celebrate platonic marriages even if they are legally valid and insisting that those desiring committed nonsexual companionship should find some other form of social contract to form. But it isn’t necessary—we have a social contract: marriage. Which is currently not legally defined by necessitating a sexual element. The fear that platonic marriages will undermine the whole institution of marriage is pervasive throughout Mr. Hawkins’ article and I wonder why proponents of traditional marriage feel it is so fragile it can’t accommodate new or “non-traditional” couples. Marriage has persisted as a form of social contract for so long because of how valuable we find it and the meaning we put into it. You can get married by going down to city hall with your partner and filling out the appropriate paperwork. Yet for most Americans, the true celebration of their marriage is the social ceremony, which often incorporates the religion(s) of the couple, because this is where they have chosen to put the meaning. We celebrate marriage in the way that is most meaningful to us—at church, at synagogue, at mosque, outdoors, in the homes of our friends and family—and all of these are valid because marriage takes on the meaning of what the individual couples choose. It is a deeply personal, intimate relationship and choosing to define it solely on the basis of whether or not sex is a part of it seems so terribly reductionist. Trying to rob wedded couples of the rewards of societal recognition of their union and their love out of fear that it somehow encroaches on the legitimacy of your own marriage seems petty and mean. Such unions which bring love and joy into the lives of the parties should always be celebrated.
- An asexual who hopes to someday be married
Obviously, asexual people are harmed by the notion that platonic marriage should be forbidden or frowned upon, but I think more generally the obsession with controlling how other people operate their marriages is damaging to all of us.
Response under the cut.
To begin I would like to provide some definitions for the reader.
Asexual (adjective) – A sexual orientation characterized by a lack of sexual attraction to others.
This is the most basic definition of asexual, although it is often considered a spectrum within which various attitudes towards sex and sexuality may exist. Here are some things asexuality is not:
- A choice to abstain from sex for religious or personal reasons (celibacy)
- A low sex drive (libido and sexual attraction are separate things)
- A medical condition which makes it difficult or impossible to become sexually aroused (arousal and attraction are separate things)
- An absence of romantic attraction to others (Romantic orientation is separate from sexual orientation. A person may be asexual but still desire romantic relationships with people of the same gender as themselves [asexual homoromantic] or with people of any gender [asexual panromantic] or no one [asexual aromantic/aroace])
A person who is asexual may feel negatively towards sex (they do not ever desire it to be a part of their lives), neutral (they have no strong feelings but may engage in it from time to time or to satisfy a partner), or positively (they enjoy sex and may even seek it out despite a lack of physical attraction). Naturally, people fall into broad gray spaces between these categories.
Allosexual (adjective) – Characterized by feeling sexual attraction to one or more genders (i.e. not asexual).
Before any objections to the existence of asexuality, I would like to clarify that I myself am asexual. I have never experienced sexual attraction to another person and I don’t expect I ever will. It is not a hormone imbalance (I’ve been tested for that). It is not a response to sexual trauma. It is not a medical condition. It’s just the way I am, the way I’ve always been, the way I anticipate I always will be.
I can’t speak to Mr. Hawkins’ exact definition of platonic marriage—whether he means a marriage without sex, or a marriage with neither sex nor romantic feeling from either party (a “friend” marriage), but since the fixation is on sex, I will adopt the former definition for the purpose of this response.
I begin with these clarifications because Mr. Hawkins’ article on platonic marriage specifically calls out asexuality, and yet fails to address at all how such a prohibition on platonic marriage would affect an entire subset of people. There are, I’m sure, allosexual people who may enter into a platonic marriage, but as an asexual person myself, I particularly sympathize with the plight of those who desire lifelong companionship, but may be ambivalent about or averse to including a sexual element to that relationship.
I believe there are a number of critical mistakes in a movement to proscribe or even generate broad social disapproval of platonic marriages. I will begin with the more practical aspects, and move onto how such censure would be harmful not only to the asexual community, but to anyone whose marriage falls outside the traditional standards.
I will set aside the issue of policing this matter, because I do not believe there is any realistic way in which the state could determine who is secretly engaging in a forbidden platonic marriage and who is following the law and having sex with their spouse. There certainly is no non-invasive way to manage this, and thinking back to the dehumanizing enforcement of anti-sodomy laws in the United States, the very thought of allowing the state or community to police whether a marriage is sexual or platonic is somewhat terrifying.
Therefore, assuming the state or society has some reasonably reliable method for determining whether a married couple is engaging in a sexual relationship, I would ask Mr. Hawkins to define the standard of his idea of marriage. That is: At what point is a marriage sexual enough to constitute a valid marriage in his view?
(The following scenarios presume satisfaction with the relationship on both ends; the only thing at issue here is the legality or legitimacy of the marriage.)
If my husband and I have sex on our wedding night and never again after that, and remain married until death, is this a valid marriage because we were, at one point, sexual with each other?
If my spouse and I regularly masturbate next to each other, and become aroused this way, but don’t put hands on each other, is this a sexual relationship?
If my husband and I have exclusively non-penetrative sex, is this sufficiently sexual?
If my wife and I are living long-distance long-term for work reasons, but regularly engage in sexual phone calls which we find arousing, are these valid sexual encounters?
What if I get my spouse off, but they do not touch me in return (at my request)? Is this a sexual marital relationship?
If my spouse and I bathe together and habitually see each other naked, but do not touch each other in a way intended to bring about orgasm, is this sexual intimacy?
If my wife and I were having regular sex, but we have reached an age where both our sex drives and our physical ability to engage in strenuous activity have declined, and our sexual relationship tapers off, has our marriage become platonic and therefore invalid?
You see how messy this becomes. Whose standard are we using to define a sexual relationship? And why should someone else’s definition of a sufficiently sexual relationship be forced onto your marriage?
The fixation on sex as a crucial component of the relationship confuses me somewhat, because Mr. Hawkins first touches on what are, to me, far more vital aspects of a marriage. He talks about how marriage helps us become “our better selves” and how marriage shapes “mutually joined lives.” Marriage is far more than a sexual relationship—to me, the defining characteristic of marriage is the commitment. To choose a person as your life partner and bind yourselves together, theoretically for the rest of your lives, is a monumental show of trust and love. Certainly, separating is not as difficult today as it once was, so if things don’t work out, you can cut short that commitment. But even if a couple divorces, at one point, they felt that desire to commit to each other and share their lives together. Marriage is an arrangement of companionship and partnership—both of which can exist without sex.
For allosexual people, I think it can be difficult or even uncomfortable to imagine a long-term romantic relationship without sex. Certainly, the dating field becomes quite a bit more fraught as an asexual, regardless of your own attitude towards sex. Many people find the idea of a partner who is not sexually attracted to them upsetting regardless of whether or not the asexual partner is willing to have a sexual relationship, and I’m not here to criticize or delegitimize that feeling. Mr. Hawkins mentions “sex-starved,” neglected marriages, but rightly points out that this characterizes a marriage that was intended to have a sexual component that it doesn’t, or doesn’t have to the satisfaction of one or both parties. There are doubtless many who can empathize on the point of a marriage which is not sexually fulfilling, and I certainly don’t seek to demean or diminish the importance of sexual compatibility in a long-term romantic relationship. As frustrating as someone who enjoys a very active sex life would find me, a partner indifferent to sex, I would also find it difficult and possibly frustrating to try to satisfy a partner who had intense sexual needs. Neither of us is right or wrong—our needs are simply incompatible, hardly different from a couple in which one person wants a passel of children and the other can’t stand the idea of kids in the house.
But individuals engaging in platonic marriage are not “sex-starved.” They enter into this arrangement with the intent that sex will not be a part of the relationship. They may later decide they are unsatisfied with this, but that could be true of any other aspect of the marriage, even other aspects of the sexual relationship. And as noted, divorce is relatively uncomplicated today, so one is hardly trapped by societal convention if the marriage turns out to be less fulfilling than you expected. All marriage is something of a gamble, betting that you and your spouse can work out any difficulties that arise. Sometimes that’s true and you work out a compromise or a mutually-rewarding solution. Sometimes it’s not, and you have to decide if this relationship is as viable long-term as you originally thought.
Mr. Hawkins tells us that “sex has long been at the core of marital meaning.” Call it nitpicking, but I would disagree—reproduction has been at the core of marital meaning. Marriage for love is a relatively recent development—marriages in the past were as much for financial reasons and the need to produce heirs or children to carry on the family trade as for any personal affection. Marriages might not even take place at the will of the spouses, but of their families. The focus on the marriage bed was not about sexual pleasure and intimacy as much as it was about producing offspring. Mr. Hawkins himself repeatedly mentions the “possible creation of life” as part of how sex “alchemizes” friendship and sexual attraction into marriage. It seems almost patronizing to point out that infertile couples, couples who don’t want children, and couples who can’t reproduce already “lack” this alchemical ingredient. Are their marriages also invalid? As anyone who’s had bad sex before can attest to, sex without intimacy is certainly possible. A sexual relationship is not an inherently close one. As with all aspects of a relationship, there must be intent. A couple can regularly engage in sex and still feel they don’t really know each other at all. Sex does not grant you a magical understanding of your partner and sex being a part of your marriage does not necessarily make it a close or healthy marriage.
Furthermore, as with most who oppose broadening the definition of marriage, there seems to be some fear that someone else’s marriage is going to degrade your own. If the concept of platonic marriage is unsatisfying and vaguely uncomfortable to you, the great news is that no one is making you get platonically married. Unlike with the enforcement of sodomy laws, the police are not going to kick down your bedroom door and announce you and your consenting adult partner are being charged with illegal sex. If what you desire for yourself is a “traditional” marriage between a man and a woman intended to produce children, then you are fully at liberty to pursue this for yourself. The existence of platonic marriages in no way impedes your ability to enjoy the sort of marriage you seek for yourself. Nor does it somehow cheapen your own relationship—the existence of romantic relationships that operate differently from your own are not a threat. You may choose to commit yourself to your partner for life with a sexual component—platonic spouses have made the same choice, minus the sexual aspect.
Mr. Hawkins talks about how the definition of marriage was “remodeled” to “accommodate” same-sex couples, phrasing with seems charged with underlying disapproval. In this are the echoes of the pearl-clutching that went on only a few years ago when the debate on same-sex marriage was still active—the classic “Well can I marry my dog then? Can I marry my toaster? Are we going to legalize pedophilia?”—as though same-sex marriage were some slippery slope towards total degeneracy and the devolution of language into meaningless gibberish. Again, there seems to be a belief that marriages that differ from the “traditional” model are somehow a threat towards those marriages, that by broadening the accepted definition of marriage we are moving towards a society where up is down and black is white. Mr. Hawkins freely admits that we have the ability to modify the definition of marriage as it suits our society, as we have redefined other societal terms whose old definitions were too restrictive, yet he seems to oppose the notion that the definition of marriage should ever be updated.
He says, “those who identify as ‘asexual’ can now find a place within the institution of marriage,” and then uses his article to declare why an entire group of people—people like me—should be locked out of the institution. In fact, this phrase itself is framed as a negative—as though asexual people were inserting themselves where they do not belong. Why are asexual people less deserving of committed companionship? Why don’t asexual people deserve to make the same showing of love and devotion as allosexual couples? As I noted before, asexual people are not the only ones who may find meaning and reward in a platonic marriage, but I find it particularly hurtful that Mr. Hawkins acknowledges there are people who have no sexual attraction to others, yet rather than see this as a reason why platonic marriage must be permitted, he sweeps us aside and decides we simply are not permitted to partake in the rewards of marriage, unless we are willing to submit to a sexual relationship (whatever that means).
When Mr. Hawkins uses words like “prune” to describe the redefining of marriage and how removing sex from the marriage makes it no different than other platonic relationships, I feel he’s missed his own definition of marriage from the beginning of the article, where he describes a relationship where you devote yourselves to each other and help each other be the best you can be and walk through life with one another. Marriage isn’t just “this is someone I like to have sex with.” Marriage is about choosing a life partner. Maybe this is someone you’re sexually attracted to and in romantic love with. Maybe it isn’t. A commitment to such a partnership is not defined by sex. Sex may be a part of it, and the parties may desire it to be, but it doesn’t need to be, and your sexual marriage is not lesser because your next-door-neighbors are platonically married.
I assume Mr. Hawkins is someone for whom sex is a vital part of his romantic relationships. This is a valid state of affairs, although as someone who has never experienced attraction, I do struggle to understand the fixation on sex. For me, sex is not a crucial part of my romantic relationships. I can enjoy a romantic relationship with a total absence of sex, which I expect is even more baffling to Mr. Hawkins than his need for sex is to me. Why is his definition of marriage valid while mine is not? If we each find our relationships fulfilling and rewarding, something that adds color and joy and stability to our lives, why should he be allowed to define my marriage out of existence? Why should I be prevented from having a legally and socially recognized commitment to my partner, ‘til death do us part, just because Mr. Hawkins and others would be unsatisfied in my relationship?
Mr. Hawkins also frets about the stability of platonic marriages—to which I have to laugh a little, because as we all know from witnessing 48-hour celebrity marriages, a relationship is only as stable as the people in it are committed to making it, with or without sex—and the risk of nonacceptance by family members, to which I cringe. A family who fails to accept a marriage within their ranks because of religion, sexuality, race, or any other such reason based on immutable characteristics, is not a reason to prevent that marriage. The idea that we should prevent any kind of marriage because “the in-laws won’t approve,” rather than encouraging these biased in-laws to have a more open mind, is precisely the kind of thinking that keeps society mired in outdated social norms. That my partner’s father may disapprove of our marriage because it lacks a sexual component may put additional stress on us—most of us want our families to celebrate and approve of our marriages—but it is not a justification for blocking us from marrying at all.
Similarly, this fear about justices of the peace refusing to marry couples who make it clear their relationship will remain platonic is no justification for denying a legal right. It is not up to the justice of the peace to define marriage—it is their job to marry couples who have a legal right to marry. If they choose not to, they can be removed from their post. A justice of the peace should not be permitted to deny a platonic couple any more than they should be permitted to refuse to wed a same-sex couple. The justice of the peace is not a religious figure performing a religious union ceremony—they are an officer of the state performing a legal duty. If they are not willing to perform the job, regardless of their private feelings on platonic marriage, they should look elsewhere for work.
Lastly, Mr. Hawkins speculates that individuals who simply struggle to maintain long-term romantic relationships might choose platonic marriage to obtain some of the benefits of marriage without the strain of trying to manage a romance, to which I say—so what? Marriage was a financial arrangement for centuries. Spouses were chosen for how beneficial the union would be, not based on how much they wanted to have sex. Particularly for women of the past, when we were not permitted to own land, open a bank account, or hold a job, choosing a man with a successful financial future might have been the only viable choice we could make for our future financial stability. Pretending this was never a consideration before flies in the face of history.
This isn’t a case of trying to get the good without the bad—Mr. Hawkins even acknowledges that entrants into these platonic marriages seek “the benefits and responsibilities of marriage” (emphasis added). By his own estimation these are people who are willingly shouldering the responsibilities and duties of a caring spouse, not someone looking to freeload off another person under the guise of a marriage. If someone is willing to take on the work of being a spouse, why should the absence of sex be the deal-breaker? If these people are volunteering to take on the responsibilities—as Mr. Hawkins lists them: colicky infants, defiant teens, parenting disagreements, dirty dishes in the sink, unexpected bills—why should they be denied? How many sexual marriages exist today with one or both partners refusing to put in the work for a healthy, happy marriage? Yet these are permissible, because sex is involved, but the committed asexual partners should not be allowed to call each other “spouse”?
For years as the divorce rate of the United States climbed social pundits lamented how these splintered families left children adrift and lacking in proper parental guidance without a balanced system of two parents. Yet now, if a single mother chooses to marry her friend so that they can raise their children in a joint household, this is a problem because they aren’t having sex? Are these parents not seeking to provide the healthiest, most stable household they can for their children? Why is this not a valid solution to the struggles of single parents? Why is not a “pro-social norm”? It may not be one widely chosen—certainly a platonic marriage is not for everyone—but for those who find it a rewarding system where they are supported and cared for and are able to raise their children in a loving, secure household, why should it not be an option?
I simply don’t see this harm Mr. Hawkins catastrophizes about. I don’t see how platonic marriages, entered into only by the willing, will somehow be responsible for the partial or total collapse of other people’s marriages, or the institution of marriage as a whole. He briefly mentions the declining marriage rate, but I don’t think this supports his point of “marriage isn’t special anymore so people aren’t doing it as much.” Or the fear that this will become the case. If people aren’t getting married as often as they used to, perhaps it’s because marriage is no longer serving society as well as it could—which to me, makes the case that broadening it would improve those statistics. The other more likely cause, to my mind, is that people are no longer expected to get married, necessarily. In the past, getting married and having kids was what you did. If you didn’t, there were questions about your aberrant behavior and massive societal pressure to conform. That still exists for many today, depending on your community, but generally to a much lesser degree than in the past. In short, it may be that people are choosing not to marry because deciding not to get married is now an option. Looking back on the days when everyone got married and no one got divorced is less like looking at a halcyon past where everyone met their soulmate and it always worked out than looking back on a time when getting married was a requirement and you weren’t allowed to leave no matter how miserable your marriage might be. It’s looking back at a lack of choice. Mr. Hawkins seems to implicitly criticize the declining marriage rate, and yet looking at people now who affirmatively and enthusiastically want to get married, he would refuse them, because their marriage does not align squarely with his own vision of what marriage should be.
Mr. Hawkins ends by imploring us not to celebrate platonic marriages even if they are legally valid and insisting that those desiring committed nonsexual companionship should find some other form of social contract to form. But it isn’t necessary—we have a social contract: marriage. Which is currently not legally defined by necessitating a sexual element. The fear that platonic marriages will undermine the whole institution of marriage is pervasive throughout Mr. Hawkins’ article and I wonder why proponents of traditional marriage feel it is so fragile it can’t accommodate new or “non-traditional” couples. Marriage has persisted as a form of social contract for so long because of how valuable we find it and the meaning we put into it. You can get married by going down to city hall with your partner and filling out the appropriate paperwork. Yet for most Americans, the true celebration of their marriage is the social ceremony, which often incorporates the religion(s) of the couple, because this is where they have chosen to put the meaning. We celebrate marriage in the way that is most meaningful to us—at church, at synagogue, at mosque, outdoors, in the homes of our friends and family—and all of these are valid because marriage takes on the meaning of what the individual couples choose. It is a deeply personal, intimate relationship and choosing to define it solely on the basis of whether or not sex is a part of it seems so terribly reductionist. Trying to rob wedded couples of the rewards of societal recognition of their union and their love out of fear that it somehow encroaches on the legitimacy of your own marriage seems petty and mean. Such unions which bring love and joy into the lives of the parties should always be celebrated.
- An asexual who hopes to someday be married
no subject
Date: 2022-10-29 05:02 pm (UTC)I mean.... Okay, I'm probably somewhere on the ace spectrum (I don't care enough to stick a label on it), but I always assumed people in depth talking about people who they're not in a partnership/some sort of sexual connection with talking in depth about what goes on in their bedrooms was a bad sitcom joke. I guess we all make assumptions about other people's relationships (due to how their flats are set up if we've been there or what else we know about them), but I've never talked with any of my friends/colleagues/relatives about whether I or they are actually having sex with their partners/regularly bring a third on board/how exactly their throuple dynamics work/whether they perhaps sleep alone (I, personally, would insist on two bedrooms even if I were happily married, I firmly believe everyone needs their own space and I sure as hell know I do and don't want someone breathing into the back of my neck every night).
There are certainly contexts where these conversations are necessary and useful, I've simply never been in one of those. But it's certainly not something that simply comes out of the blue.
So, again I'm likely missing the mark here but.........how would anyone know? Why would anyone even care???
Sorry, I've been thinking about this all while making dinner and I....just don't get it.
no subject
Date: 2022-10-29 06:00 pm (UTC)This dude seems to be particularly going after people who are open about the fact that their marriage is platonic and he pretty much admits it would be fraught trying to legally prohibit platonic marriages, so his goal seems to be more to encourage social disapproval of them rather than to actually outlaw them.
Either way, this weird obsession with how other people behave inside their own marriages (excluding behavior that's genuinely harmful, of course) is such a weird thing on the right...why do you CARE if your neighbors are having sex or not? Literally what difference does it make to you?
It's just so...the thing that really got me is that he explicitly mentions asexual people but then is totally comfortable shutting sex-repulsed aces out of marriage altogether, as a ground rule. It just seemed so unkind, I couldn't stop thinking about it.
no subject
Date: 2022-10-30 02:52 pm (UTC)Really, why does anyone care. This is the main thing I stumble over. The times when we had to prove marriage consummation with the bloody sheets should definitely be over.
no subject
Date: 2022-10-30 06:30 pm (UTC)