What Is The Strongness Of Necessity In The Lawful Marriage?

”since the beginning of civilization, in every known society, governments have recognized a marriage between a man and a woman because it provides the next generation outstanding citizens and is the only means of melding two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole” (Kaufman 164).

Dating back throughout history woman were often considered to be too soft or docile to work. In the early 1800’s, as well as the 1950’s, it was thought that woman should not only be pure in heart, mind and body, but that they should be submissive to their husbands and not work outside the home, this was known as the Cult of Domesticity (Keister & Southgate, Inequality: a contemporary approach to race, class and gender, 2012, p. 228).

The male commissioners that observed the working environment came from the middle class whereas the women that gave testimonies belonged to the working class. The sexualization of women created a vision of an ideal woman. This “ideal” woman came from the middle class, wholly embodied her gender, and was a total image of domesticity. Working class women did not meet the standard of femininity that the male observers expected, leaving them horrified. This class conflict also helps to explain which accounts of work in the nineteenth stand as the most accurate

Pollit expounds on the true meaning of marriage; by looking at the history of marriage. For a period of time, “polygyny was the rule;”

According to the results, women began to dress differently and deal with men’s activities, like sports. Besides, female sexuality in terms of behavior started to be socially built based on what society felt was appropriate, even if that meant a negative reaction. Women’s functions and their experiments with intimacy significantly changed. Women’s gender roles shifted towards greater equality and sexual power at that time period.

During the early 1800s into the nineteenth century it was believed that men and women came from two separate spheres. These spheres influenced the way gender roles were shaped and perceived. Suggesting that women belonged in the household, apart of the private sphere and men belonged in the economic world, apart of the public sphere. Men and women were understood to be polar opposites and because of this, women were oppressed. Female sexuality was defined as “passionlessness,” and only for the purpose of reproduction. We learn that women were considered “voracious” for expressing their sexuality however, men were encouraged to express their sexuality as part of maintaining power, prestige, and masculinity. (Cott, 1978, 222). Men

Burstyn highlights that these changes altered the social and economic role of women during the nineteenth-century . She goes on to point out that there were great pressures on middle-class women not to work during this period and explains that ‘leisure women’ were symbols of the economic success of their male relatives . Burstyn suggests that marriage was vital for a woman as it was argued men needed to protect women because of their physical weakness . According to the ideal of womanhood, the home became a place where only women spent their lives and thus the ideal woman was morally pure and a guardian of the home . Burstyn also considers the contemporary issue of education for women by suggesting that if women were to become financially independent, they may no longer have the desire to marry for economic stability . If women remained unmarried, then men would, in theory, be forced to gain sexual gratification from the ‘Social Evil’: prostitutes . In the nineteenth century, the term ‘prostitute’ was used in a much wider context to how we would use it today. Judith Flanders explains that it referred to women who: were living with men outside marriage, had had illegitimate children, or women who perhaps had relations with men, but for pleasure rather than money . It is important to

(D'Emilio/Friedman, 1) This time period also brought about "petting parties" which allowed the young women to experiment sexually without fully engaging in sex. This however, did not stop a sharp increase in women who began having sex outside of marrige during this era. Women then began to change their apprances and social behaviors. They began cutting their hair short, wearing short skirts showing alot of skin, drinking and dancing in public as well as smoking. All of these changes, considered to be highly taboo at the time, might lead one to believe that the young women were rebelling to further their equallity with men in terms sexual freedoms.

prostitution comes to mind people tend to associate it with violence and how degrading it can be

Her close kin betroth her and give her a dowry in accord with law. In her own time, as is customary, the priest blesses her with prayers and offerings; and the bridesmaids shield and accompany her, as custom teaches. Her next of kin comes and gets her at the proper time, and she solemnly receives her legal dowry. Then they give themselves to prayer for two or three days, keeping chastity.” The question whether legal consent occurred, was the problem with clandestine marriages.

Marriage within the Christian faith was meant to be until death, thus the attraction between the couple was also very important. As young as 7 years old, parents would sometimes house the couple to make sure they were suited for each other. In the Muslim culture, the match between a bride and groom was not as important because the dissolution of marriage was not uncommon.

The economics of marriage was not the only pressure on children to marry where their parents directed. Sixteenth-century children, and girls in particular, were very much brought up to obey, and to believe that it was their duty to their parents… to marry the person chosen for them. It would have taken a very strong-minded girl indeed to have refused to follow her parents’ wishes. Girls who did refuse the partner offered could find themselves bullied by their parents. (3)

In the late 1800’s through early 1900’s women and men were did not “tie the knot” like the women and men do in today’s day. In today’s world, women and men get married because they have many things in common, they are in love with each other, and they choose to get married to one another. In many stories written back then, readers can expect to read about how marriages were arranged and how many people were not having the wedded bliss marriage proclaims today.

For years, many scholars have provided many discussions over the topic of gender and sexuality. However, one needs to ask themselves: Are these two topics, gender and sexuality, useful as a category for historical analysis? The articles written by both Joan W. Scott and Afsaneh Najmabadi, answer such a question. By critically examining and assessing their two article, can the usefulness of gender and sexuality as a category for historical analysis be proven.

Talcott Parsons argues this statement, by saying, that there are two broad functions of the family- primary socialisation and stabilisation of the adult personality ‘throughout the emotional security, including sexual expression, provided by marriage’ (O'Donnell, 1997).