In which book did Tabini marry Damiri?
Got a question for Foreigner readers:
by CJ | Dec 1, 2011 | Journal | 35 comments
35 Comments
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I’m now minded of a great line from Babylon 5, where Sheridan, when told Lennier had left the station to join the Rangers, showed a bit of jealousy at the other’s clear attachmenet to Delenn and dismissed it with, “Well, on Earth, we say ‘three’s a crowd,” to which Delenn ripostes “On Minbar, three is sacred.”
Would they wait until a pregnancy was confirmed to marry – as then the bond would involve three individuals if one included the fetus.
It depends on the motive for the marriage…as the presence of a child binds clan to clan, and involves all the relatives. And we think WE have inlaw troubles. 😉
@ ready4more — Yes, I agree. I’ve seen too many single moms and a few single dads who struggle to provide a decent home and love for their kids, because their marriage partner wasn’t as married, shall we say. To me, marriage is supposed to be permanent, a commitment not to take lightly. I can somewhat understand the idea of a limited contract, though. I was lucky: my parents had a lifelong love, loved me, and although my mom worked once I got into kindergarten, she was a pro artist and ran a small business next door to our home, so I got the best of both worlds, there. Yet I’ve also seen that relationships are often not so permanent, and some can have toxic effects.
Hmm, one thing about atevi relationships I wonder about. Atevi seem to go for serial monogamy, pair bonds between two people. But they also seem to have certain holdover traits that indicate a pack or pride or troop structure (like wolves, the great cats, and apes, and cetaceans) in which there’s an alpha male and female, a beta pair, and other mated pairs, generally related by blood kinship or by mated pair bonds (marriage, more or less) or strong friendships, and in which there is a bond of loyalty and family/friendship flowing up from the group to the leader, or from an individual of less than or equal status to another of greater or equal status. So, then, is there a tendency for married couples with loyalty to a leader, or another tendency (perhaps competing) for, well, some form of polygamy or polyandry (one male with several females or one female with several males) ? Or, I don’t know, a sort of mutual group marriage who all raise their group’s children? In other words, a relationship that would resemble those pre-/semi-sapient pack/pride/troop structures’ mating hierarchies? (Trying not to be muddled, crass, or judgmental, since it apparently works for apes and for other social and close to sapient animals, and things like that were known, even common, in human history.)
Or, well, have I drifted too far off topic? If so, sorry. — Not wishing to cause any headaches for unwanted attention on items not on topic, either.
If anyone is interested in the “contract marriage” thing… the country is, surprisingly enough, Mexico. The couple would decide on a term, with a minimum of two years, with the contract being renewable if the couple so chooses. Apparently, this is partly because social customs prevent people from living together before marriage, and divorce is becoming more common in Mexico. The couple would enter the marriage with an agreement for what would happen to the kids, property, etc. in case they decide to split up after two years. And, there is a mention of a benefit for women that I wouldn’t have thought of: if the husband is abusive, it’s easier to just walk away after two years without having to go through a divorce. And the man has a lot less leverage to keep her from leaving, since who gets the kids, etc has already been decided.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/1101/Mexico-s-temporary-marriages-till-death-or-two-years-do-us-part
I think it’s quite sane: puts everybody on notice the agreement is done for if people aren’t polite to each other. And gives the hormone thing time to settle down to: “Do I like this person?”
Plus it forces a couple to think ahead to kids, property, and other flashpoint issues and settle that.
For most of the history of the planet it’s been a given that the two least reasonable people are the couple, so wiser, older heads had better agree on these things. This is imho an interesting compromise.
Jane and I have a really helpful set of behaviors. We always say good night. We always say good morning, and pursue it until we get a clear ‘good morning,’ no matter what else is going on. The servee at supper always thanks the cook. And when one of us does a major job around the house—sweeps the kitchen floor, takes out the garbage, brings in the cans, cleans a room—the other says thank you. I cook, Jane tidies up the pots, usually; but if she’s under stress I do both, and she says thank you. “Thank you” and “good morning” are the best rule, we think. And taking walks where there’s nothing to do but talk—that’s good, too. If more married couples took a mile walk before dinner, there’d be a lot better communication.
Since like is only for lettuce, what kind of emotional attachment is there in a marriage? That they do marry and do obviously have feelings for each other is shown in the books, but we really don’t know and perhaps can never know how the Atevi mind works.
It does make for an interesting time when ones relatives may try to kill you.
It’ll be interesting to see how that Mexican contract idea works in practice. There’s the traditional, conservative cultural view on marriages and family ties. There are the considerations CJ and philosopher77 noted. There are the caveats ready4more raised. The idea seems like it could work. But the proof’s in how it does in the real world, and only time will show that. Kudos to Mexico for trying to find some workable alternative, to improve chances both for better, longer partnerships/marriages, or for a way to work things out if the relationship doesn’t work long-term.
As I see it, one of the real problems US society needs to find a new solution for is the need for extended relationships, a group cooperating for the adults, kids and teens, and seniors. It gives emotional and physical support, protection within a larger group, financial and legal power, healthcare is easier, all sorts of advantages. Yet somehow, during the urbanization and technological revolutions of the 20th century, most Americans lost all but the immediate nuclear family, mom, dad, kids. When the kids grow up and leave, who helps their transition or their parents? If mom or dad leave, who helps the single parent? If someone gets sick or injured or disabled, who helps out? If someone loses a job, again, who helps provide that support and safety net? Who’s there for experience the small unit doesn’t have, but maybe grandma and grandpa, aunts and uncles, cousins — or family friends, best friends, and good neighbors can provide? And, ahem, what, pray tell, in the event that a family member is LGBT (gay etc.)? The family unit and close friends *need* to be there in support, instead of that family member going without support enough. I have wondered recently if possibly some of the community center approaches, or a group home concept, or a few of the workable things from communes / kibbutzim might work to fill this need. It seems as though the subdivision and clubhouse were intended somewhat for this, yet mainly for individual, separate homes. Now, I’m very much an independent-minded cuss and something of a loner. I know this. Yet I also know I need those bonds of friendship, family, and love, and have more than enough experience in my adult life (or adolescence and childhood) that there is always some trouble in life that needs more than just oneself to get through. It just seems like that’s a source of a lot of the problems we’re seeing right now. The other being the strange, creeping paranoia about allowing people into those very kinds of close relationships that might provide healthy support. (What’s wrong with a society that fears its kids hugging each other or getting hugs from a responsible adult, or those adults hugging each other? Basics like that. If you create such fear of basic drives and needs, you create crippling maladjustments, perhaps the very things that were feared.)
Hmm, seems I hit a hot button and found a soapbox, there. ‘pologies.
Actually, the ancient Irish (CELTS) had 10 forms of marriage, from year, produce an heir for either party, renewable up to life long. Provisions tot children, fosterage and property divisions were covered by law and maybe contract (can’t. quite remember. This existed well into the Christian period. Personally I found it pretty interesting that a Catholic country (Mexico) would come up with the idea today.