Note: The content of this article is representative of a hypothetical (fictional) scenario designed to give the readers “food for thought.”
The year is 2024.
The United States Congress has just passed a new law stating that both marriage and the overall idea of monogamy is now illegal and banned in every state except for Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, North Dakota, and Utah. If a couple resides in one of these five states, they are allowed to purchase a marriage license as long as they pay a fee of $100,000. Couples may seek out a state-funded loan which must be paid back in full (plus interest) in eighteen years. In those five states, no husband or wife can file for divorce on the grounds of adultery, unless a man or woman was guilty of causing his spouse to become HIV-positive due to an adulterous affair.
In the remaining 45 states of America, the closest thing allowed to a (monogamous) marriage is what is deemed as a “Co-Parenting Union.” If any man has biologically fathered a woman’s child, he must share parenting duties with that woman (both financially and non-financially). The co-parenting duties could be shared within the same household, but if the man and woman reside in different households, they must reside in the same city and/or county. No exceptions.
Any couple can choose to live together (i.e., what is known as cohabitation), but no couple can purchase a marriage license (again, unless they live in one of the five permitted states) and no couple is under any legal or moral obligation to remain faithfully monogamous until one of them passes away.
The question for you, the reader, is how different would society look if this was the law of the land?
NO MORE EXPENSIVE WEDDING CEREMONIES OR EXPENSIVE ENGAGEMENT RINGS IN 45 OF THE 50 STATES
Many jewelry companies and bridal gown businesses would lose a lot of profits. Except for Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, North Dakota, and Utah, there would be no more extravagant (or even non-extravagant) wedding ceremonies taking place. No more scenarios of a man dropping to one knee and presenting a woman with an expensive diamond ring while proposing.
The truth is, according to government statistics, the number and percentage of married couples has dropped just about every decade for the last 100 years. So, it is probably best to just eliminate marriage altogether … right? RIGHT?
NO MORE ADULTERY OR CHEATING
No more being worried if your husband, wife, or long-term romantic companion is cheating on you. Strict monogamy is now a thing of the past. Men and women are free to engage in sexual activities with as many members of the opposite sex (or same gender) as their heart desires. Every man and woman would be required by their state government to be checked for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) a minimum of once every six months.
The truth is, a good number of adult men and women are far more promiscuous and/or polyamorous today than at any point over the last one-hundred years. So in reality, not too much would change … right? RIGHT?
A GOVERNMENT MANDATE OF 84 HOURS OF CHILD CUSTODY PER WEEK
With the exception of men and women who are incarcerated, reside in a mental institution, or have a documented history of child molestation (pedophilia), statutory rape, or other related sex crimes and offenses, each man and woman would have to commit to eighty-four hours per week of taking care of their son(s) and/or daughter(s).
No more fighting over who gains custody of the children. The ‘catch’ for the parents of children is that they must reside in the same city and county as the other biological parent of their children, or risk paying a fine of no less than $50,000.
No longer would free-spirited and financially irresponsible men take pride in being the biological father of seven different children by five different women.
NO MORE PATERNITY FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE CUCKOLDRY
No more situations where a man’s wife or fiancée could deceive him into financially supporting a child that is not his. No man would be legally obligated to financially take care of any child where DNA tests prove that the child is not his by blood or DNA.
A woman will be legally responsible for at least fifty-percent of the financial expenses incurred by the children that she gives birth to (except in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, North Dakota, and Utah).
NO MORE GOLD DIGGING WIVES AND ROMANTIC COMPANIONS
Realistically, there has always been a percentage of women who would accept a marriage proposal by a wealthy man just to gain access to his financial resources and material possessions.
Now, this would only potentially happen in the states of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, North Dakota, or Utah. Everywhere else? Nope. Not gonna happen.
A wealthy man who resides in the other forty-five states can CHOOSE to be financially generous with women, but there would be no government mandated legal obligation to provide anything resembling spousal support or alimony. Women would be forced to earn their own keep.
Most men hate women who ‘pretend’ to be in love with them just to exploit them for their finances and material resources … right? RIGHT?
DOES THIS WORLD SOUND EXCITING TO YOU? OR NO?
If these laws and policies were actually enacted in society, would you be excited? Or depressed? Provide me with feedback below in the comments section or write me at email@example.com to voice your opinion.
More about Alan Roger Currie can be found on Wikipedia.org; Visit Currie’s main website to find out more about his Email consultations, Skype & Telephone consultations, and One-on-One / Face-to-Face Coaching sessions. Currie also has an active YouTube channel where he offers his own unique brand of knowledge, wisdom, insight, and general advice related to dating and relationships. If you are a single heterosexual man, and you want advice on how to develop the confidence and courage to be more upfront, specific and straightforwardly honest about your sexual desires, interests, and intentions with women, check out Currie’s eBooks, paperbacks, and audiobooks.