Marriage and Morals was terrible, but great fun! My margins are filled with disagreeing and occasionally snarky comments. Russell discusses his opinions on the then current state of marriage and on its future.

You may guess that I disliked the book because of the conclusions Russell draws. However, his conclusions were the smaller factor in my dislike. The larger factor is that Russell conveys the attitude that his arguments are so rational as to be indisputable. He never examines the validity of his unstated assumptions, and he often makes leaps of logic that are incomprehensible. Some of this may be due to our different perspectives; he was writing nearly 80 years ago. Perhaps it was reasonable back then to assume that men were incapable of being faithful; I really am in no position to say one way or the other. From my point of view, that assumption, among many others, seems unfounded at best.

This book started out great. I found myself agreeing vigorously with ol' Bertie like I always do. Unfortunately, the late chapter on eugenics really detracts from the value of this book, and I found it quite shocking that someone whose writings and ideas I have admired so much could write that chapter. However, I still think this book is worth reading. Russell was way ahead of his time, and he makes many good arguments about the history and future of sex, open relationships, marriage, families, and morals. ( )

Said Russell, "There is no country in the world ... where sexual ethics and sexual institutions have been determined by rational considerations." In this book he suggests that the system in vogue in Western civilization should be amended by the application of rational considerations. This got him into a lot of trouble! Some of his views were controversial, but he defended them with formidable logic. And what did he mean by “rational considerations”? That’s what this book is about.

On page 96 Russell states that marriage need not “exclude other sex relations.” This upset many people. He calls for sexual freedom among childless couples, and divorce by mutual consent. He approves of trial marriages among the young, assuming the effectiveness of contraception. He decries irrational guilt, inhibitions, and taboos. Of course, relationships that procreate children call for a much more complicated ethic. Published in 1929, this book knew nothing of HIV-AIDS and the changes it brought, but most of its arguments stand up well to the test of time. His views on population seem dated, because the demographics have changed.

A provocative book, whether or not you agree with his views. ( )

I picked this one up in hopes that my favorite philosopher might have some good I ideas on what marriage ought to be. I'm largely unsatisfied with the institution of marriage and knew Russell was as well. The first several chapters dealing with the history of marriage and the evolution of marriage in various cultures were fascinating (though a student of anthropology will recognize some things as dated).

His observations on sexual education and the general unhealthiness of Victorian stigmatizing of sex was similarly interesting and frequently scathingly sarcastic. I copied a few quotes I liked:

"It would be wise to subject all unmarried women once a month to medical examination by police doctors, and to send to a penitentiary all such as were found to be not virgins...in order to avoid the risk of certain abuses, it would be necessary that all policemen and all medical men should be castrated." --on maintaining virtue at any cost--

"The first essential is that the education of girls should be such as to make them stupid and superstitious and ignorant; this requisite is already fulfilled in schools over which the churches have any control." --on maintaining virtue through ignorance--

"Sex outside of marriage is sin; sex within marriage is not sin... but is a disagreeable duty imposed on man as punishment for the Fall, and to be undertaken in the same spirit in which one submits to a surgical operation. Unfortunately, unless great pains are taken, the sexual act tends to be associated with pleasure, but by sufficient moral care this can be prevented, at any rate in the female."

However when it came to his actual views on what marriage ought to be I found him more reactionary than reasonable in several aspects. He did however explain the system of companionate marriage proposed in the 1920's and I found that suitable for my own future-hypothetical marriage.

I'd recommend this book to people interested in the history of marriage, but also in the idea that the marriage institution is a human invention and one that may better serve us with a bit of reworking and personalization. ( )

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871402114/104-3283072-9907919?v=glance&n=2... ( )