Jeans have evolved over the years into apparel that blend,
adapt and cannot be torn away from one’s skin, if one is used to wearing jeans.
The longer it stays on you, you live in it and Jeans becomes an indestructible
part of you. You cannot do without. It becomes your second skin! You feel naked
when you cloth in other garments and when you are not in it. You come to live
in it, to say figuratively.
Live-in-Jeans or Live-in-relationship! The later has an
added advantage unlike with the jeans there is no emotional bond that would restrain
you from jettisoning out. Is it more a matter of convenience, or am I being
prejudiced and or biased?
The Live-in concept that is now commercially attributed to
the denim wear may have originated from the live-in relationships human beings
have come to adopt. Though, not a rage yet, it is gradually and imperceptibly
catching the attention and impending to be the choice of the “Generation- next”.
But the similarity between a jeans that we live-in and the new convenience
relationship does not extend yonder.
Can one be critical of this new concept of living together
without the sanctity of wedlock, legal license or social acceptability? In a
world that is increasingly resonating with the voice of intolerance, prejudice
and simultaneously the demand for individual freedom, freedom of thought and
way of life, I feel an individual need not have to cede to the scrutiny of the
Jones next door. I guess, what my son or daughter does with their life as
adults are their choice. Can I put the straight jacket of conventions and the
overbearing of a sententious father? I feel my nose should not extend beyond my
hands. albeit! And indeed it is a capital “BUT”!
I began to wonder about the live-in-relationships and
convenience partner concept that is now seen in many case, when a close friend
to whom we enquired if she could refer from her circle of acquaintances any
matchmaking proposal for my niece. She did not decline, but at the same time
expressed fear that it is now considered akin to donning the cross and heavy
mantle when such an exercise is done in earnest. The incidences of broken marriages-
divorces, separations and in extreme cases suicide are many that people are
scared or frightened to engage in match making.
Now I would like to think if marriage is worth all the risk,
that is being attributed to the system and in certain cases, uncritically so.
Soon after the World War II and when the Cold war gripped Europe it was not
uncommon for young men and women to choose not to have children as they did not
wager much survival chances for the continent that was then threatened by Armageddon.
Some even decided to stay out of wedlock and its collateral commitments.
What is it that prompts the young to disregard conventions of
marriage – something that all may have seen practiced by their parents and elders,
an institution that has been thriving for centuries? True there are and have
always been cases of baleful and unenviable living in wedlock. Perhaps as true
and chancy as a violent misfortune that may befall on a travel by Air, Sea or
land!
Whatever may be the raison d'ĂȘtre that bring youth into
cohabiting and in a living-relationship with out what they perceive as
entrapment of marriage, can I as an adult and in the afternoon of my life
criticise the right of individuals to live their life as they deem fit? Have
not I accepted the conventions of the society and lived a life in compliance to
the accepted rules of matrimony? Was not that my personal decision? And what if
a young fellow or lass decides to break the boundaries of convention and
trappings and chart a life they deem fit for them in their pursuit of
happiness?
Should I fret, fume,
feel sad, morally offended, and be outraged?
But what disturbs me somewhere is the probable denial of the chance
for posterity to be reared in the undeniably heavenly cocoon, a sanctuary of the
family. Of a home where commitments are indeed what bonds the members.