【自译】短期婚姻比终身制婚姻更科学
A temporary marriage makes more sense than marriage for life
文/Vicki Larson 译/Justin.Z
In November 1891, the British sexologist Havelock Ellis married the writer and lesbian Edith Lees. He was 32 and a virgin. And since he was impotent, they never consummated their union. After their honeymoon, the two lived separately in what he called an open marriage. The union lasted until Lees’ death in 1916.
1891年11月，英国性学家哈维洛克·艾利斯娶了身为女同性恋的作家伊迪丝·李斯。当时艾利斯32岁，还是个处男。由于艾利斯患有阳痿，两人婚后从未行房。在度完蜜月之后，两人分居两地。这段艾利斯口中的开放式婚姻一直到1916年李斯去世方才告一段落。
This is not what most would consider a model marriage. But perhaps because of its unusualness, Ellis was able to introduce an idea that remains as radical and tantalizing today as it was in his time: trial marriages, in which he envisioned couples exploring a temporary union of varying levels of commitment that allowed them to have sex, access birth control and have an easy divorce if desired, as long as no children were involved. The idea captured the minds of many progressives, including the British philosopher Bertrand Russell and the Denver judge and social reformer Ben B Lindsey, who embraced the new economic and cultural freedoms in the post-Victorian era.
这样的婚姻对大多数人来说都算不上是模范婚姻。但也许正是这种婚姻的不寻常，才使得艾利斯能够提出这个无论在当时还是现在看来都很超前且诱人的观点：试婚。按照艾利斯的设想，这段暂时性的结合可以分为不同等级的承诺，双方根据相应的承诺进行性行为、避孕，而且只要没有孩子，双方就可以按自己意愿离婚。这种观点充分体现了包括英国哲学家伯特兰·罗素和丹佛法官、社会改革家本·林德赛在内的很多进步人士的想法，他们在后维多利亚时代尽情拥抱着新的经济和文化自由。
While Ellis gave this type of temporary marriage a name, others had been talking about similar unions years before, including the German poet Johann von Goethe, who entertained the idea in his Elective Affinities (1809), and the American paleontologist E D Cope, who wrote in his book The Marriage Problem (1888) that marriages should start with a five-year contract that either spouse could end or renew with a further 10- or 15-year contract and, if all still went well after that, a permanent contract.
在艾利斯给这种暂时性的婚姻命名之时，已经有其他人谈论过类似的婚姻形式了。德国诗人歌德在其小说《亲和力》（1809）中就调侃过这种想法。美国古生物学家爱德华·德林克·科普也在其作品《婚姻问题》（1888）中提出，婚姻应该以一个的五年合约开始，到期后双方都可以中止或者续约10年或15年，如果到时候进行顺利，再续签一个终身合同。
In 1966, the American anthropologist Margaret Mead suggested a two-step version of marriage – an ‘individual commitment’ that would fit college students of limited means and could be easily dissolved or else converted into a ‘parental commitment’ if they were ready and willing to take on the obligations of children. In 1971, the Maryland legislator Lena King Lee proposed a Marriage-Contractual Renewal Bill so couples could annul or renew their marriage every three years. In 2007, a German legislator proposed a seven-year contract; in 2010, a women’s group in the Philippines proposed a 10-year marital contract; and in 2011, Mexico City legislators suggested a reform to the civil code that would allow couples to decide on the length of their marital commitment, with a minimum of two years.
在1966年，美国人类学家玛格丽特·米德提出了一种“两步走”式的婚姻：第一步称为“个人承诺”，这对经济不宽裕大学生来说非常合适，期间也可以随时分手；而如果双方已经准备好并且愿意承担起抚养孩子的责任，就可以迈入第二步“父母承诺”。1971年时，马里兰州的立法委员莉娜·金·李也提出了一个《婚姻合同更新法案》，该法案允许配偶双方每3年进行一次选择，更新或终止他们的婚姻关系；而在2007年，一位德国立法委员提出了一种七年制婚约；菲律宾的一个妇女组织也在2010年提出了一种十年制婚约；到了2011年，墨西哥城的立法委员曾主张对民法典进行改革，允许配偶双方自己决定其婚姻的有效期，最低为两年。
Clearly, lifelong marriage was due an overhaul. Despite all the talk, however, no laws were ever passed, and the idea of renewable marriages remained just that – an idea. But temporary marriages have actually been successfully practised for centuries, among Peruvian Indians in the Andes, in 15th-century Indonesia, in ancient Japan and the Islamic world, and elsewhere. And it appears that we might be ready to put them into practice again.
很显然，终生制婚姻亟待改革。虽然在这之前有过不少争论，但目前没有任何一项相关法律被通过，这种可延长式的婚姻一直以来都只是一种想法而已。但实际上短期婚姻几个世纪以来都有成功实践的案例，其中就包括秘鲁印第安人居住的安第斯山脉、15世纪的印尼、古代日本和伊斯兰国家，在世界其他地方也有先例。看起来现在是时候再次实践这种婚姻模式了。
In a recent survey, many Millennials indicated that they’d be open to a ‘beta marriage’, in which couples would commit to each other for a certain number of years – two years seemed to be the ‘right’ amount – after which they could renew, renegotiate or split, as Jessica Bennett wrote in Time magazine last year. While it wasn’t a scientific survey, it points to a willingness to see marriage as something other than ‘until death’, which, in fact, it is not. In 2013, 40 per cent of newlyweds had been married at least once before, according to the US think tank the Pew Research Center. Since 10 per cent of first marriages don’t even make it past five years, a renewable marriage contract makes more sense than ever.
美国记者杰西卡·班尼特去年发表在《时代》杂志的一篇文章中指出，近期的一项调查显示，千禧一代中有不少人都表示他们可以接受试婚，期间双方可以约定婚姻的时效（目前看起来两年是个比较“明智”的期限），到期后可以选择续婚、重新协商或离婚。虽然这项调查并不是完全严谨的，不过也反映出了人们不再把婚姻看做是“一生之约”，而且实际上婚姻本来就不是一辈子的事。在2013年时，根据美国智库皮尤研究中心的调查显示，40%的新婚夫妇都是再婚。鉴于有10%的一婚甚至都撑不过5年，这种续约式的婚姻模式如今看起来比任何时候都要可行。
Our current contract – ‘until death’ – might have worked when people didn’t live all that long (according to the American sociologist and author Stephanie Coontz, the average marriage in colonial times lasted under 12 years); or when many women died in childbirth, freeing men to marry multiple times (which they did); and when men of means needed women to cook, clean and caretake, and women needed men for financial security. But that isn’t why we marry nowadays. Still, we congratulate couples on their anniversaries and get nostalgic as the years add up – 15, 25, 50, 75. Are they years of wedded bliss? Not always; many long-term marriages are loveless and sexless, and sometimes full of anger and resentments. But if they make it until a spouse dies – success!
我们目前的终生制婚姻在人的寿命不是特别长的时候或许还是可行的（据美国社会学家史蒂芬妮·昆兹指出，殖民时期的平均婚姻长度不到12年）；又如，很多女性在分娩时不幸去世，使得丈夫可以多结几次婚（很多男人确实这么做了），这种情况下也无妨；而当生活富足的男人想找个女人来做饭、洗衣、照顾家庭，女方也需要男方的经济支援时，也说得过去。但我们现在结婚并不是为了这些。虽然我们仍然会在结婚纪念日的时候为他人送上祝福；看着二人携手走过15年、25年、50年、75年，我们也会随着岁月的累积而变得怀旧。但这些时光就一定是甜蜜的吗？那可不一定。很多持久的婚姻既没有爱也没有性，有时候还满是愤怒与憎恨。但只要能熬到对方与世长辞的那天，这段婚姻也就算圆满了！
Longevity alone shouldn’t be the marker of a happy, healthy marriage. Rather than staying in marriages ‘until death’, renewable marriages would allow partners to tweak their marital contract accordingly, or agree that it’s beyond tweaking and end it without the shock or drama of a contentious divorce or lingering doubts about what went wrong. And as the late Nobel-winning economist Gary S Becker noted, if every couple had to personalise their marital contract based on what they consider important, there would be no more societal stigma or judgment over what are essentially private decisions.
婚姻的长度并不应该成为评判婚姻是否幸福美满的唯一标准。比起长相厮守，续约式婚姻不仅可以让双方按需修改婚约，在双方都没有留恋时也可以干净利落地离婚，免得经受离婚争议带来的打击和麻烦，也不用一直纠结究竟是哪里出了问题。正如前诺贝尔经济学奖获得者加里·S·贝克尔所言，如果每一对夫妇都必须遵从自己的内心来定制他们的婚约，就再也不会有针对个人抉择的那些社会耻辱或者偏见了。
If society is truly concerned about the decline in marriage, perhaps it’s time to rethink ‘until death’. And if brides- and grooms-to-be truly want a happy marriage, then it is time for them to take responsibility for defining their goals and expectations in a renewable contract, and stating – out loud or on paper – ‘I choose you again’ as often as they mean it.
如果社会真的对婚姻状况表示担忧，也许现在就是时候重新审视“一生之约”的模式了。而如果即将结婚的新人们真的渴望拥有幸福的婚姻，那他们现在就应该肩负起责任，在他们的续婚合约中设定好他们的目标和期许，并且在每一次被爱呼唤时大声说出或写下那句：“我又选你了”。
附注：
- 译文完全是自己翻译的，由于本人水平有限，译文难免有错误或不够精准的地方，欢迎指正；
- 感谢@一生悬命 、@敲橱柜的冰河 及@Sunray 对译文修改提出的意见；
- 文章原文搬运自Aeon，原文链接：点击跳转。
