Marriage is an institution, a legal and economic institution in the first place. What the romantics will not like, but in principle marriage is neither about love nor about romanticism, but about the economic activity within the private life a legal framework to give. That is why it is also an entirely bourgeois institution. For if you build a house together, build a family and accumulate wealth, you want to ensure a certain security. For this, and for nothing else, marriage was invented.
The great tragedy only began by deliberately pushing these aspects into the background and insisting that it had to be based on love, but this is an extremely uncertain basis. But it was not only that, the marriage was given with a stipulation that she could not accomplish. Disappointments are pre-programmed. This is like attempting to teach piano playing to a fish. This cannot work. And actually marriage cannot work. Except one remembers the essential, sober and functional.
No matter whom you marry, the marriage is a bourgeois, conservative affair, which consolidates the old values and makes it clear that there is a connection that excludes all others. Within these, there is a fixed roll distribution and the corresponding requirements. Thus marriage is a natural enemy of feminism. The transfer of rights to a person as property rights cements economic, separating tendencies, which feminism has to work against, as far as it is understood as connecting and facing life.
In the case of Sologamie, as the wedding with itself, the situation is pushed to the top. It is comparable to that of a hedgehog, which is rolled up in the approach of danger. If a real danger threatens, this withdrawal in itself and the attention of the prickly outer envelope to the potential aggressor is a healthy reaction. It becomes unhealthy if the injunction is maintained after the disappearance of the danger. Sologamie remains in this arrangement. Perhaps you have been wounded. Then it makes sense until the wounds are healed. But this initial evasion reaction is declared an ideal state. In itself, turned only, the sick form of solipsism is explained as a normal case. Moreover, he is glorified, the ever-increasing individualism is pushed to the extreme.
Innocent, even almost naive, is explained that self-love is simply the turning away from self-hatred. It is explicitly stated that there can only be two aggregate states of self-reference, self-hatred or self-love. A few seem to point out that this kind of simple solution to human complexity is profoundly contradictory. Imagine, however, that I can not love myself when I get an emotional connection to another person. How gloomy must be to look at the world and the lives of those who represent it.
Sologamie is not only a bankruptcy of feminism but also of humanity and a glorification of bourgeois-capitalist morality. It is precisely in the choice of the appropriate form that it is manifested how much you want to achieve it. Self-love, as a contribution to myself, not only, but also in the mirror of the You, corresponds to the complex possibilities of humans to encounter and exchange much more. Even water has more aggregate states than the Sologamie thought. But perhaps water is also more versatile than human.