The other night, whilst reading in bed, I looked at my left hand and thought I'll never get to wear a ring on my fourth finger. I don't know why it suddenly occurred, or re-occurred, to me then but it did, nor why my eyes this time welled. It must have been the lateness of the hour when thoughts are more intriguing or poignant.
book was laid down flat on my lap and the matter considered. Why was
it bothering me now, when the reason was more choice than
circumstantial? And when I've never hankered after any of that? That
being the shared life, the shared space, the belonging to another, or
the big white wedding: the frothy dress, flowers, church.
so you don't have to do it that way, but some people live for that
day: walking down an aisle towards their intended with friends and
relatives looking on. Frankly, the whole idea of that she-bang makes
me want to run. But the big day is really a minor concern because
afterwards, when the knot's been tied, there's the whole living
together, which the majority of couples today will have been doing
beforehand anyway, but then it gets real. More real. You can't just
walk away when you've had enough, well you could, but legally you'd
still be bound to each other, and undoing that is no picnic, not so
much for the paperwork involved but in the untangling of yourselves
emotionally speaking. And I'm not sure that is ever achieved, in
spite of the ex you eventually put in front of wife or husband.
is tough, even in the best of examples where illness and death parts
the union, because in those bridged years there's been struggles
within and struggles without; there's been learning when to support
and when to be supported; there's been knowing when to give space and
when to give undivided attention; there's been forgiveness; there's
been compromises, and, of course, there's been love. Love of some
description, though it may not have been the highly romanticised
version that we see everyday in films and on billboards or read about
in novels. Love, whatever its form, changes, and that's their success
story: the fact that they've let it.
so, it begs the question: can you ever truly know someone outside of
wedlock? And if you commit, do you spend your whole life together
even within a marriage there's a part of you held back. Just for you.
But then perhaps that's where my thinking is wrong. All barriers have
to be broken down and none kept, for what's the point otherwise.
Isn't that a prerequisite of marriage and in general coupling: to
give all of yourself to another?
on and at this point my head goes into its usual spin. For aren't you
then just Mr and Mrs and not individually Jane and John, or Jane and
Janet, or John and James. Joined together, like conjoined twins, as
symbolised by the exchange of rings. Individual thinking must
diminish – from now on you must think as a pair.
have to admit there is an element of that; you can't continue to be
what you were. And for a person who likes their own company, more
than the permanent presence of others, that prospect, imagined or
actual, is naturally scary. It's not a simple diagnosis of fear or
selfishness; for some people being alone and having time alone can be
as vital as life-giving water. Without it they shrivel inside, until
it manifests on the outside, giving them a pained expression as if
all the nerves running the length of their bodies are being pinched.
Their malaise reached a critical level: is the relationship worth it?
yourself, could you go through life with that degree of tenseness?
For at its heart that is what it is: an inability to relax and an
wanting to please, not just themselves but someone else all the time.
There has to be a loser and usually it's the one whose most concerned
about the loss, potentially, of their identity and how they've thus
far navigated life.
not equal to that task, of having what others prize, for in those
circumstances I'm far more likely to choose the oyster over the
in reference to 'the hour of the pearl' as coined by John Steinbeck
in Cannery Row.
Picture credit: Oysters, Edouard Manet