The Vow Series: FORSAKING ALL OTHERS, 'TIL DEATH DO YOU PART
Nov 17, 2022 6:57:37 GMT -5
sweetplumeria, h, and 3 more like this
Post by mirrororchid on Nov 17, 2022 6:57:37 GMT -5
The start of this essay series is found here.
Finally picking this up again for the penultimate installment.
for·sake /fərˈsāk/ v. renounce or give up (something valued or pleasant)
FORSAKING ALL OTHERS
These three little words make spouses sexless.
While the marriage could be sexless, the individual spouses are sexless also because of this phrase.
It is the promise to keep the marriage closed.
We do not forsake dining, exercising, cooking, or playing cards with others, though some vice-presidents have done this to insure no thoughts of doing more exciting things occur.
We are forsaking sex with others.
That is all we promised to forsake doing with others. (arguably the common romantic gestures that lead to sex as well, but it's all of a piece)
We did not promise to FORSAKE ALL. The word OTHERS is part of the phrase. Changing the vows in the middle is changing the rules without consultation or negotiation.
Often this happens by accident, unconsciously, but the rules are still broken.
Forsaking your spouse in the one way that it actually means, breaks the rules. And when you break rules, we sometimes call it cheating. Yet we don't accuse refusing spouses with this charge.
The word "cheating" is weaponized all too readily by refusers, though, if a refused spouse responds to the refuser's dropping the word "OTHERS" by breaking their own vows by dropping the word "ALL"
You can forsake 4 Billion potential partners, but if you accept one other beside your spouse, the rule is broken.
The word ALL is in there on purpose. You promised no one else would share your body.
Thing is, both conditions apply or vows get broken
You may not have sex with any others.
You may not forsake sex with your spouse.
Only the first one seems easy to defend. It is deeply enmeshed in society. You don't have extra-marital sex. Full stop.
Refusing sex with your spouse is met with demands of counseling, pills, medical treatments, arguing, couples' vacations, immersing yourself in research, bacon-scented candles.
Enormous amounts of effort to bring about a change of mind/heart that may well bear fruit if the refuser wants to change.
All of the effort is likely to be futile if the refuser has every intention of repeatedly breaking the vows.
It may be possible to rationalize the rule destruction.
If a couple has one last romp on the refused spouse's deathbed minutes before the great beyond, technically, no forsaking happened.
I've not heard of such contractual hail Marys being performed.
I would think we would have. Hospital orderlies are insufferable gossips.
When playing a game you can negotiate changes to rules to make the game more fun or to resolve a contradiction.
If a player breaks the rules and doesn't care if the change gives substantial advantage to the breaker, player 2 can quit the game, break rules of their own to restore balance, or call out the rule break, and propose new compensating rules to restore enjoyment of the game.
The game was begun with rules and changing them in only ways you like without negotiation should bear more shame than it does.
The refuser wants to keep passing "Go" and collecting $200, but when they land on Luxury Tax, they say that rule doesn't apply.
Maybe that's okay, but it really needed to be discussed before you answered "I do" to the game.
<to be continued>
Finally picking this up again for the penultimate installment.
for·sake /fərˈsāk/ v. renounce or give up (something valued or pleasant)
FORSAKING ALL OTHERS
These three little words make spouses sexless.
While the marriage could be sexless, the individual spouses are sexless also because of this phrase.
It is the promise to keep the marriage closed.
We do not forsake dining, exercising, cooking, or playing cards with others, though some vice-presidents have done this to insure no thoughts of doing more exciting things occur.
We are forsaking sex with others.
That is all we promised to forsake doing with others. (arguably the common romantic gestures that lead to sex as well, but it's all of a piece)
We did not promise to FORSAKE ALL. The word OTHERS is part of the phrase. Changing the vows in the middle is changing the rules without consultation or negotiation.
Often this happens by accident, unconsciously, but the rules are still broken.
Forsaking your spouse in the one way that it actually means, breaks the rules. And when you break rules, we sometimes call it cheating. Yet we don't accuse refusing spouses with this charge.
The word "cheating" is weaponized all too readily by refusers, though, if a refused spouse responds to the refuser's dropping the word "OTHERS" by breaking their own vows by dropping the word "ALL"
You can forsake 4 Billion potential partners, but if you accept one other beside your spouse, the rule is broken.
The word ALL is in there on purpose. You promised no one else would share your body.
Thing is, both conditions apply or vows get broken
You may not have sex with any others.
You may not forsake sex with your spouse.
Only the first one seems easy to defend. It is deeply enmeshed in society. You don't have extra-marital sex. Full stop.
Refusing sex with your spouse is met with demands of counseling, pills, medical treatments, arguing, couples' vacations, immersing yourself in research, bacon-scented candles.
Enormous amounts of effort to bring about a change of mind/heart that may well bear fruit if the refuser wants to change.
All of the effort is likely to be futile if the refuser has every intention of repeatedly breaking the vows.
It may be possible to rationalize the rule destruction.
If a couple has one last romp on the refused spouse's deathbed minutes before the great beyond, technically, no forsaking happened.
I've not heard of such contractual hail Marys being performed.
I would think we would have. Hospital orderlies are insufferable gossips.
When playing a game you can negotiate changes to rules to make the game more fun or to resolve a contradiction.
If a player breaks the rules and doesn't care if the change gives substantial advantage to the breaker, player 2 can quit the game, break rules of their own to restore balance, or call out the rule break, and propose new compensating rules to restore enjoyment of the game.
The game was begun with rules and changing them in only ways you like without negotiation should bear more shame than it does.
The refuser wants to keep passing "Go" and collecting $200, but when they land on Luxury Tax, they say that rule doesn't apply.
Maybe that's okay, but it really needed to be discussed before you answered "I do" to the game.
<to be continued>
