Like how Carrie Bradshaw says in SATC, 'You take the traditions but decorate it your way', each one of us has a different take on 'romantic relationships'. There is no generic requirements for a relationship. What works out for Mrs. Weasley may not work out for Ms. Doubtfire.
90s is the period of actual women liberalisation. With financial independence and power in the work front and examples of women adorning pivotal positions in the society glamorised, the attitude of 'I don't give a fuck' starting creeping in a higher dose from one generation of woman to the next. With this sudden embarkment of powerful estrogen, any model in which both man and woman were in co-habitation, physically or otherwise, began to be questioned. And so the advent of 'equality', 'respect', 'what works for you, works for me', 'women need it as much as men do', came into play. With women becoming more confident and vocal about their desires, wants and needs, men, who had been for ages, flashed their 'scores' and 'polygamous' privileges undercovers became awry of the 'vows of commitment' and vocalised their brain threads.
What was reached as a pact was synergies of both sexes. Flings, one night stands, hook ups, open relationships, on a break, on a vacation, just sex, live in relationships, marriage but no progeny, seeing/dating/relationship/commitment, marriage but with a pre-nup, marriage but single weekends and the traditional marriage/relationship. Name it and there is a permutation-combination to the alliance.
In the age where being a prude is bigger outcast then a slut, we don't question the relationship dynamics. 'Dude, if it works for them, it's cool'. But in the bigger picture, sociologically, we are left with dying and weak fragments of marriage and commitment. With divorce no more a taboo and breaks up a reason for guilt free rebond, the hormones of attachment and bonding are on the verge of extinction. Am I judging the Practice? No. I guess, we are mentally accustomed to the futility of romantic alliance. Love is hyped. Loyalty is for pets. As I said, what works out for Mrs. Weasley may not work out for Ms. Doubtfire.
But call me prude, but I still and will always question and show explicit disgust towards cheating. Having the cake and eating it too is not a privilege. Keeping the other party hanging whilst you go hitchhiking is abhorish. The convenience of defining a relationship is given on when both the parties are at the same page. Not when one party has masks of all kinds adorning the wardrobe.
What the heck! Till both the parties have a yes nod to the modalities and are abiding law of the land, not the draconian law, like condemning LGBT relationships, who the hell cares about what you do in the closed walls of the bedroom.
Polygamy is illegal in the country and adultery as a ground for divorce is only available to the woman, woman in a live in relationship has same rights as that of the wife, child out of a wedlock has same rights, with certain restrictions, as that of the legitimate child. Win, win situation for women.
P. S. - DON'T HATE US.
