Truish PH. Just as Vidal's assessment is true--though treated as satire by those who condemn free thought from their absolute vantage of moral superiority. Even the 'Romantics' were against the institution of marriage, deeming it a 'mind forged manacle'. Let's not forget too that one of the Romantics' seminal thinkers was the feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, who lived in sin with William Godwin and died after birthing Mary Wollstonecraft/Godwin/Shelley. Mary got the latter surname from Percy Shelley, with whom she lived a life of free love (having several babies). They only married, eventually, so as to appear 'respectable,' and to secure the adoption of Percy's kids by his first wife. They were deemed unfit.
Among other things, in her 'A Vindication of the Rights of Women', Wollstonecraft argued that femininity, over-refinement, sensibility, concern with appearances and seductiveness were parts of a false consciousness fostered by males. Among other 'cultivations' of the women of her day she listed: "reputation over genuine modesty; looks over reason and understanding; sensibility over physical and mental vigour; and deceit and cunning over love".
William Godwin said it was absurd to think the inclinations of two human beings should coincide over long periods of time, deeming marriage as inevitably leading to some 'portion of thwarting, bickering and unhappiness'. The 'evil' of marriage imposes a yolk upon the romantic delusions of youth, after which each is obliged 'to make the best of an irretrievable mistake'. They become the 'dupes of falsehood' and 'shut their eyes upon reality'. 'The institution of marriage is a system of fraud', whose crippling effects spread to all other aspects of judgement. We ought to unceasingly 'search after virtue and worth', but we must 'check our inquiry and shut our eyes upon the most attractive and admirable objects'. Moreover, while we deny ourselves, we must strain perennially to perceive those attractions we forego in the gossip and grim visage of her to whom we're bond! Marriage is a bad habit with all the accoutrements of respectability, so that its very inmates wax sanctimonious in its defense, and take spurious comfort from their conventional entrapment.

*but the Animal instint Analogies used over these 33 pages are to my mind too superficial and artificially connected to animals I have little identification with!*

Ah Hanrahan, because you live out of touch with nature, you might
think yourself very different, but you could also just be kidding
yourself. I remind you that just 500 grandmothers back, which
is a blink in genetic terms, your ancestors did live in caves!

What we notice, if we look closer, is many things that are common
amongst many species, including ours. You share something like
98% of your dna with chimps and bonobos, so like it or not,
they are your long lost relatives :)

Nobody is claiming that genes determine behaviour, simply that
they have a huge influence on behaviour, including sexual
behaviour.

The urge to have a baby, thus a change in sexual habits, the feelings
of gushes of oxytocin bonding mothers and babies, etc, they
are all common amongst many species and they sure do affect womens
actions! Motherly love is not just about choice. Have you never
heard a mother saying that she doesen't like her children but
that she loves them? Its not magic, but hormones and genes at work.

Similarly males are commonly born with an urge to penetrate and
impregnate vaginas on a regular basis, some more then others,
but its still a natural urge. Its probably more difficult for
married guys, when that vagina happens to be a few inches away,
but is not available.

If women regularly had swollen clitorises and could not sleep,
because hubby was not in the mood, perhaps their perceptions of
what it is like for some males, might be a little different.

PH I thought I was addressing the issue but am obviously missing some vital point.

Most sex happens in the passion or heat of the moment and sometimes contractual arrangements are not entered into prior to penetration ie. Do you all solemnly swear should a child result from this liaison that all parties share responsibility, or if (say) the man says no I won't and the woman still proceeds with that knowledge and signs the contract. I wonder if the men would still like that arrangement if most of the time it meant casual sex was no longer available.

Humans tend not to be business like about sex - it might even ruin the moment but even if they were and a pregnancy occurs would a man really feel comfortable with leaving the mother with the burden of responsibility?

I know PH is talking about his discomfort with the idea of forcing a man to make a contribution rather than it being a voluntary decision, but do we really want taxpayers to foot the bills for others' casual sexual liaisons? That is the reality - in the end someone has to foot the bill and what is fairer than the parents of the child.

Yabby
It might be the same for women whose husbands are no longer interested in sex or sex with them. Or who become impotent for medical reasons.

One has three choices, stay under those conditions, stay and have affairs or leave. Perhaps it is easier for women to be celibate - having not been in the shoes of a man I could not say.

No-one is forced to remain in an unsatisfactory arrangement.

Pelican,
the trouble is that women can and do deny the father any meaningful role in the child's upbringing, contenting herself with his fortnightly cheque! What if the man had that kind of power; "I'll take the baby dear, and here's my bank account number". How would that be?

But this is getting boring.
I'd just observe, en passant, that it's interesting how this debate is utterly polarised along gender lines. Which would suggest that none of us are thinking objectively--or even subjectively! Both sexes are thinking cohort thought, identity politics. What a dreary race we are!
Adieu

Are we done yet?

I think we can all agree that there is
likely to be a wide range of alternatives
that will be tolerated in the future to
traditional marriage and family arrangements
in the context of the growing individualism
of our society. Such as single-parent families,
cohabitation, serial monogamy, reconstituted
families, childless couples, communes, "open"
marriage, gay couples and gay-parent families,
and of course - remaining single.

As for navigating sexual territory - the choice
is (as it's always been),
up to each individual, to do what is right
for them.

I can only speak from my own experience. I was
lucky enough to find a grown man who was capable
of loving fully, with all of his heart. The most
vital, playful, joyful human being, with an
energetic life force born of a strong family
upbringing. His honesty, devotion, and unconditional
love bound us together in an inseparable state of
familial bliss that has been unshaken to this day.
We've worked alongside each other from day one.
And I'm grateful for that, because I know that's
a tough thing to do for a lot of people because,
for some, there always has to be a chief.

Anyway, I think that I've said all I really wanted
to on this thread - and once again - Thanks to you
all for having contributed.

Thanks for an interesting thread Foxy. It certainly was an interesting if not predictable debate.

Squeers
I was assuming equal access to the child concerned. I have always said that while a man has a financial responsbility (as does the woman) he should not be curtailed from the experience of fatherhood by a recalcitrant mother (excepting any abuse issues on either side in which case a different story).

We are a dreary race, but there is very little new in human experience (maybe space travel is one). :)