Marriage has been one of the thorny issues affecting the male-female relationship. It serves as an eye-opener for both the genders
Being a bachelor is neither desirable nor achievable, at least in this couple-prone society.
Married — to be or not to be, that is the social compulsion.
Marriage has been one of the thorny issues bedevilling the male-female relationship. It serves as an eye-opener for both the sexes, some try to bear it as a heavenly act, while others philosophize their grief through intellectual ventilation.
The knowledge of nature offers great opportunities to understand human psychology. This adventurism against the wedding rationale takes us to a novel journey in the animal and plant kingdoms.
Two persons dare to present their pre-cum-post marriage views. These dissertations purely deal with the bigoted male-oriented view. One is a doctrine, by a married person, wedlocked for the last seven long-odd months, gives a self-immolated, experience-based narration of facts. He originally ran after a butterfly in the Garden of Eden, but surprisingly ended up with a less splendid, wingless creature. Another is a theory of Nuptial Selection from a seasoned bachelor, trying to hypothesize an observation-built account of personal stakes, as he wades in a watermelon’s vineyard, armed with his weird assessment gear.
Names of the theorists are being kept anonymous, in the first case; to save the skin of the married moth-catcher, and in the other for the reason that the bachelor’s contemptuously candid approach towards the fair sex, equating the gender with a plump fruit, might leave him a roasted bachelor for good in our critically scorched society.
As the Butterfly doctrine goes, a comely and charming partner always gets unattractively lacklustre in post-marriage scenario.
When a person marries a wonderful woman, so to speak, a colourful butterfly, with all the attributes of vibrant beauty, idealism gets a severe jolt. Soon after marriage, she starts losing her wings of attraction, colours of care, spots of courtesy and flight of grace, reducing herself to a mere worm. The only thing that can be taken note of are her antennae, to have a close watch of the anti-domestic activities of the spouse. By growing ferociously agile, in a bid to keep track of such off-home movements, her kindness and love transform into over-indulgent possessiveness.
This theory holds enough water, mostly in the form of tears in the eyes of the presenter of the theory, and seldom challenged; even by the henpecked, pro-wife camp.
The loss of prominent traits shows a retrogressive metamorphosis in the butterfly, and the acquired mutation for surveillance, “mate-guarding”, makes us believe for sure that slavery is dead; long live the husband.
In the Watermelon theory, the mega-fruitarian explores the inevitable consequences that supervene after making a deliberate choice in marital affairs.
You make a selection, when you, wishfully, want to have a red, fragrantly fresh watermelon (analogy represents the favourite fruit of the exponent of the theory, grapes were considered small and sour enough to be clearly exemplified). Its choice poses a real problem. You try to find the fundamental varieties of taste in it, by looking at it closely, believing its colour and smell good enough to be sweet and juicy, but once you slash it open, it turns out to be rather insipid, unpalatable stuff, not worth eating.
The same might happen in a pre-marriage evaluation, as there is no armour against fate and femme; your careful pick of a good looking, soft-spoken “dream companion”, sometimes meets an abject failure. So little is known about the disaster of option, to your thinking it was, apparently, “sweet and scented”, but by the quirk of luck happens to be a less courteous and aromatic, to your desired touchstone. Disenchantment and dejection takes a sudden stranglehold on you, when it transpires, that equation is grossly incompatible. Although you made the choice by applying all the best parameters of judgment, it was nothing more but an exercise in futility.
The theory is assailed by some antagonists, from the pro-marriage lobby, who raise their objection that there is a primal urgency to fulfil your basic need, beggars cannot be choosers; quiet your hunger first. Do not wish for a sweet one, all you need is something simple to eat, not a lavish treat.
The architect of the theory discards the must-eat condition by such lobbyists; to him the watermelon is being taken as a dessert. Similarly, matrimony is just like a delight in one’s life, it’s not an indispensable thing, because anyone can stay alive without the sweet dish of marriage. But even if such a thing gets taste-free, it’s good to go dry as a bachelor.
