Sex, Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage

From fairest creatures we desire increase,

That thereby beauty's rose might never die,

But as the riper should by time decease,

His tender heir might bear his memory...

                                             Sonnet 1, lines 1-4, William Shakespeare

From Literature, we find a lot of existential questions and answers.  We have such a glut of books, that one can scholar one’s way through life, and have some roaming Kerouac-ian lifestyle, with a running dialectic through one’s head.  Above I have put one answer.  I am not siding with it, but I will elaborate on it.  And I really owe the interpretation to classes I sat in on and didn’t write notes.  But through the osmosis of listening, and remembering bits and pieces, summarize for my own mind.  If I may interpret these lines incorrectly, blame it on the fact that I am a terrible note-taker and a lazy scholar.

These four lines summarize an interesting view of immortality.  My father believed something similar. I don’t know if he stole it from Shakespeare.  My father is an ardent Catholic as well—and a good man.  It essentially is the idea that one’s children, one’s heirs, remember their parents and thus their parents achieve immortality.  Now there are many striking things about this philosophy:

1.      It doesn’t rely on heaven for immortality and thus is an agnostic and/or atheistic view.  Though, it doesn’t necessarily exclude heaven and Christ, etc.

2.      It places children—and notice they are called “heir[s]”—squarely as property receivers.  And it is notable that much of the British had laws on property and wills, by this time.  I think.

a.      While there may be more poetic interpretations, such as Fortune has more poetic interpretations, I think it’s fair to say that owning property then passing it on to one’s child is one facet of this immortality.  Maybe look at it as a gift.

3.      This immortality is also striking, because the poet didn’t know of DNA and Evolution.  And so, in a lot of symbols and signs, what we have in lines 1-4 is an argument for Purpose.  The Reason and Purpose of having children, so that we can pass on our property and personhood to the witness, our children.  And in turn, we have a purpose.

I find this striking, because it is the poetics behind the reasoning for an evolutionary purpose.  Shakespeare was, like, I’ll channel the future Darwin, when I begin my sonnets.  And you, naysayers with cats and dogs for your only witness in life, had better have damn good argument to beat this one.  Because it is scientifically, agnostically, christianly, valid, if not scotch-taped wrapped tight with a Christmas present.  Inside this argument is where the Simple Life Plan meets the poetic and scientific life one.

It is so comforting to know that all I have to do is the Simple Life Plan, and it has its poetics.  What I mean by the Simple Life Plan is very much in accordance with a traditional view of the American Dream; only simpler.  I grow up, get a job, marry, buy a house, have two children, make sure they don’t die, and then retire where near water.  It’s simple, effective, legalized, evolved, and immortalized.

And yet, are things ever simple?  No.  Even the Shakespearean argument for Purpose has paradoxical implications for the dialectically-doomed.  Like me, in other words.  Do we look at our parents as immortal when they pass?  I hear in China they do.  Should we somehow take the 2^nd Law and Honor our father and mother, and make a cult from this argument.  No.  We follow the Simple Life Plan and we are living the philosophy, living our purpose.  And yet, what if the adversary comes to your door one day and makes you Job?  What if you’re queer?  What if you’re a lone hack who can’t get published or a wife?  Life presents challenges and problems.  And so that Purpose may just have to wait till it’s gone.

Or, what if you’re a relatively normal couple who looks at the world in a cynical view and say, Why would I want to bring someone here, into this world?  You know, we’ve been there, wishing we had never been born, not wanting to be buried in a Pet Cemetery, so we have to live this life again.  Beauty’s rose may have so many thorns that you don’t mind if it is cut before its time.  In short, if we’ve thought we would have a simple life, we were dead wrong, and just looking at a news article and witnessing it all, may have us saying: his tender, yet brown fern might bear his being forgotten.  That’s at an extreme.  It’s so paradoxical how life is, that bringing in a child to this world, you had better think it through.

 I mean who wouldn’t want a baby for an accessory?  They’re cute, cuddly, and bonding.  But once it knows how to say, fuck you, and asks you, why you brought me to this slave factory, you may question this whole simple immortal plan.  And when the child has gone from 1- 10, in age and personality, and she’s growing at the rate you are growing gray hairs.  And you wait till 2am, when curfew was midnight, and he or she has about as much appreciation for the house you bought as he does his own hygiene, then you see the speed and relativity of how fast life is moving and how worry and concern are becoming psychosomatic.

Is Shakespeare for real?  By now, I just want to hear waves again, and not concern myself with the grandiose immortality.  And when I actually have to do the mathematics on doling out the estate, you know King Lear’s rain storm was no pathetic fallacy.

And so you see I’m trying to portray very real parenthood.  Shakespeare’s Immortality is a bit outdated.

                                                                           *

There may be a compromise, though.  And it is for the mindful individuals who don’t go around rutting and popping out hellions.  But this takes a discipline.  I call it the Long View (somewhat the opposite of the Green Day song).  I propose that society should be traditional in one area.  And this is greatly supported by data and history.  It’s a rather old fashion word you hear every once and a while: courtship.  Courtship says the interested parties will be PATIENT, will get to know one another, postpone sexual intimacy, until the time is right.  Who’d a thunk it?  But it is the wisest course of action, despite what Elvis believes and most of society.

It is the wisest love, in my opinion, because it gives respect where sex demands none.  A couple can be intimate on all levels, just not the most blissful one.  Why this boundary?  Because scientifically speaking, when two people have sex, there is a bond, in that arena.  Sure, third date sex rule or one night stands or anonymous sex is gratifying, but when developing a relationship, there is, in my lay observation, almost a direct correlation between the speed at which things come together, and the speed in which things fall apart.

Of course, both people have to understand it is a courtship.  And here’s another benefit, let’s say I am friends with five girls but have sex with all of them.  Can I rightly call them friends?  No.  I may date one or two, but, if we dove into bed, and then dove into a relationship, when the flame goes out, the romantic inclination, WE ARE LEFT WITH EACH OTHER.

Take the same scenario, only I don’t have sex with any of them.  I court one or two.  I find out one is an alcoholic, the other is incompatible for minor reasons.  I know these things.  I don’t lose the friends.  And then three years goes by, I see the alcoholic and she no longer drinks and has taken up a multitude of interesting hobbies.  In other words, I may like her more, but she needed to quit drinking.  These are only a few lame examples that show that the Long View patiently waits till there is a solidified foundation for the relationship, with things like fidelity and communication are as if married already.

Does society follow the Long View?  Not everyone, especially in the media, i.e. celebrities we worship.  I mean there are reality shows that are ridiculous about dating.  Fail.  False.

Following the Long View model, one is not only free to select, but free to, get this, enjoy the company and friend for who they are.  And there’s no pressure, except that overwhelming one society condones.   But these third date relationships, I guarantee, 9 out of 10 make the false assumption that they have a foundation or will along the way.

This is all very traditional I know, and may be boring.  But next time you’re in the sheets with the latest Subject, the next day you may wonder where things really are going.  And her idea of trust is letting the condom break, and his idea of trust is secretly waiting to ask for a third girl to the party.  And so you don’t know each other. 

Just relax.  I’m not judging.  I’m calling for a foundation, so that once firm, things truly can be simpler.  Which if you’re like me, you want the Simple Plan to Immortality, but will settle for a simpler existence.