“But luxury has never appealed to me, I like simple things, books, being alone, or
with somebody who understands.”
― Daphne du Maurier
While I categorically agree with Daphne Du Maurier, I've much pondered upon the last clause, somebody who understands. Does this person have to be a friend? A partner? A spouse? Or a lover?
The last three identities are often used interchangeably, I'd say mistakenly as I believe these are completely separate things. You can choose your partner, but a spouse cannot always be chosen, based on demographics and cultural influence, you may be married off to someone you don't know at all, let alone intimately. And a lover is not something you choose consciously, it's a phenomenon that happens to you and you gleefully, greedily accept. It's a rare occurrence that sets the truly lucky ones apart from the rest.
Now to back to our original problem, who should this "somebody who understands" be? Can you share your intimate desires, whims, and the like with a friend? Perhaps not. I don't think Maurier referred it to be a friend either. So it's the second category that holds the three clashing identities I mentioned before. A spouse set by your family is a hit or miss, they can easily be your ruin.
Recently a piece of writing by a random person came to my attention regarding marriage and dating scenarios in South Asia. They were saying how men are in a power position when it comes to arranging the marriage. They get to choose the woman as a product, by how she looks, her hair, her nails, how she walks, talks, how’s her family tradition. But when it comes to dating, women hold the power. A few men in line, she can choose her pick, however she wants. It is no wonder women wouldn’t lean towards arranged marriage more. What happens if your husband has money, is from a great family, has a great educational background, yes, all those useless things, and then is a complete idiot, racist, misogynistic asshole? This is troublesome for women, but for men, it’s mostly unimportant, they just want to get laid legally. But it can also be equally bothersome for men who can think.
But having a loving partner who understands you is no easy feat, illustrious Daphne Du Maurier doesn’t elaborate much on that unfortunately. As I see it, such a partner should be the closest person you can have on earth, your greatest ally, the ultimate life support system. They are closer than the family you grew up with, (they’ll die soon enough), and they will become your new family. But can you really rely on such a relationship?—you may ask. Sadly you’d be right. We do break up. We choose family. We betray our partners, only to prove there was no love or ‘understanding’ as Maurier would say, to begin with.
A loving partner who understands you should be closer to you than the children you have together. Children are a byproduct of you and your loving partner, they are not the true life-support system as Asian households make them to be as a fateful result of arranged marriages. Marriage not working? Get babies. He/she doesnt love you anymore? Get babies. Don’t feel too well? Bored? Yes, get babies. Got a baby? Get more babies. Then live for the babies, once they are old enough, live OFF the babies. They are your investment farms for the future. Not your carrier, not your partner. Yay.
South Asian family system is held in high regard (obviously by South Asians, because white folks don’t have emotion, right?) but I see no value in there. I see only a fragile system that’s somehow functioning due to the old joint family system we had around and the emotional responses it manufactured. I don’t see it working anymore.
The photos are mine.
