Marriage and its Regulation of Desire

“Marriage is the flimsiest weapon against desire. You may as well take a pop-gun to a python” (Winterson 78)

Throughout the novel, the narrator has shown that their relationship with marriage is complex. They do not think positively about marriage, which is off-putting yet comforting. Our whole lives we have been culturally conditioned to think marriage is the ultimate goal in life and over the summer I finally realized that I don’t have to get married if I don’t want to and I instantly felt more liberated. And because media reflects culture, most literature, that I’ve read, portrays marriage in a positive and idealistic manner. The narrator’s critique of marriage goes against the grain and provides a more realistic view of marriage. Earlier, Winterson describes the superficiality of marriage, “I used to think of marriage as a plate-glass window just begging for a brick” (13). The passage surrounding the quote portrays marriage as just for show, an appearance to uphold. It frames marriage not as the reflection of ultimate happiness but as something someone does for damage control, in order to prove to everyone else that they are worthy of love and a family. I also think it implies that marriage needs to be destroyed by a brick, but what is the brick? In relation to the narrator’s past love life, I would say the brick is adultery or as the above quote says, “desire.” In the narrator’s eyes, marriages are supposed to be broken up. Marriages exist only on the basis that everything that isn’t a marriage exists: adultery, polyamory, same-sex relationships etc. The juxtaposition of “desire” and “python” is a reference to the original sin, the downfall of the first marriage in the bible. Since the “first marriage” went so poorly, what kind of model does that make for the rest of history? Marriage is meant to regulate everything that is not marriage and therefore stifle and control it. In early Puritanical tradition sex was actually seen as a good thing that should be very pleasurable thing, as long as it was within the confines of marriage. John D’Emilio and Estelle Freedman refer to these practices in their book, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. Since the Puritans were also a pro-natalist culture (we must populate the earth to keep our religion going and survive this horrible New England climate) they endorsed having lots of sex, as long as it was in wedlock and resulted in a child. This American (I do not know the British context but I cannot imagine it being that much different due to the Protestant roots of both countries and the colonial legacy of Britain in America) contextualization of marriage sees it as a channel for desire but as the narrator sees it, desire cannot be regulated. Desire is all powerful and reckless and does not care about an arbitrary agreement like marriage. The narrator is a frequent adulterer because sexual attraction cannot be simply stifled or swept under the rug.