I just finished reading the latest review column and I guess I just don't get it. Particularly this claim:
"I wish Lee Nichols would do the anthropological research to find out how most Americans live and toss us an occasional novel set in our world, where people wait for marriage and don't find it acceptable when other people move in with each other without benefit of wedlock -- not because we're religious fanatics but because we know that this is what civilization in general and our children in particular require of us. "
I think among a large segment of the society adults living together before marriage is accepted. It might not be the choice of everyone but I am not sure I know very many people who would say anything about someone else's choice to live together. Further, I don't think the majority of people wait until marriage to have sex. It certainly is not the case amongst my circle of friends who are far from a wild and crazy group. I did a quick google search and found this statistic:
"In his book Solving America's Sexual Crises, Ira Reiss says the vast majority of the young will discard abstinence. Reiss, a sociologist who has studied American sexual behavior for over 40 years, relates that many 10-year-olds support the idea of abstinence before marriage.
But Reiss also reports that before they are out of their teens, approximately 80% of young people have had sex and a significant percentage have had four or more partners. And a study by Northern Kentucky University showed that of those college undergraduates who claimed to have kept their virginity pledges, 55% admitted to having engaged in oral sex."
If 80% are having sex before 20, and the average ago of marriage is around 25, I would think the number that wait until marriage is probably even less than 20 percent. So I guess, my point is that among the population of the book, 20 somethings in an urban setting, the majority of them probably do engage in premarital sex. None of this is to say that I think premarital sex is a good idea or there aren't people who don't wait to marriage but that the picture of 20 somethings cohabitating or having sex before marriage is fairly accurate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think among a large segment of the society adults living together before marriage is accepted.
Yep. It's getting pretty close to the norm.
But keep in mind that when OSC says things like "us" or "we" or "our," he's really talking about life on Bizarro World, where up is down and black is white and mice eat cats and he is one of the bravest members of a mostly silent majority of people possessed of his particular form of moral rectitude.
"His world" is not our world. His articles make a lot more sense when you remember that he writes speculative fiction and alternate histories.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
O_O Wow, Tom.
I never would have said that, here, but I agree.
Not that I think indescriminate sex before marriage is a great idea, or support 'free love' or anything.
I suppose we all have our cloisters.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I also happen to disagree with OSC on his numbers in this Review-- not his opinion, mind you, which I think is spot on-- but I feel like most of the unmarried adults I know are sexually active. Of course, all the unmaried adults I know are fairly irresponsible people, too. . . premarital sex and social irresponsibility go hand in hand, in my opinion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe that OSC would say the same thing about you, Tom.
ScottR: Unmarried = socially irresponsible?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Yeap. Look at me. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So what does it mean, in this context, to be socially responsible?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kat-- I did qualify by using the phrase ". . .I know. . ." (I don't count virtual people like Jatraqueros)
I recognize that this is an opinion formed on anectdotal evidence.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank you. That's very sweet.
I'm still serious about the question, though. Do you consider not being married to be socially irresponsible?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:premarital sex and social irresponsibility go hand in hand, in my opinion.
Please define "social irresponsibility" for me Scott.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I know lots of unmarried, socially responsible people. Some of whom have sex and some of whom don't. I may not agree with their choice to have sex, but that's not my choice, is it? It's their life. And they are otherwise very socially responsible.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It seems to me that while virgins-before-marriage exist, they ain't common. Even among groups that believe premarital sex is wrong--it seems to happen quite a bit, especially when two people in that group are very in love and hoping to get married.
Dude, we all have sex drives (well, most of us do) and not having sex with the one person you are deeply in love with is *hard*.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm glad my parents lived and slept (I assume) together before they married for two years. I feel that in many ways it is a more socially responsible thing to do. Most of my friends (aged around 19) plan to live with their a partner before they marry, even if they don't 'plan' to actually have sex with them, simply because they want to know their partner really well before they make the final leap.
I'm not surprised most ten year olds say that they won't have sex before marriage. In fact, I'm surprised 10 year olds are considered old enough to make such a judgement. If you had asked me aged ten (and I wasn't ignorant. I'd had the usual talking to about "when a man and a woman are in love...") I would have probably skipped the question! I certainly wasn't thinking about sex in any sort of serious way aged ten years old!
These ten year olds are not pure innocents who are unmarred by the evils of modern society, they are young children who are not and should not be thinking about sex and marriage and therefore will of course assume that in the misty distant future when they marry they will be like a fairy tale character with a fairy tale prince or princess. Certainly Cinderella didn't have sex before marriage.
A thirteen or fourteen year old might give a more viable answer.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Of course, all the unmaried adults I know are fairly irresponsible people, too. . . premarital sex and social irresponsibility go hand in hand, in my opinion.
I think that you must be working with a skewed sample.
quote:It seems to me that while virgins-before-marriage exist, they ain't common.
I'm distrustful of virgins my age. I know that there reasons bound in faith, which I understand and respect, but for everyone else, I think that there is something self-abusive and unhealthy about it, and to tell the truth, I think that there is something very healthy about occasional sex. I don't want to use the word "casual," but I'm a believer that timely sex is healthy-- and should be encouraged-- not to mention, I think that there is something terribly unbecoming about sloppy marriages and half-wanted kids.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I consider myself pretty socially responsible. I engage in pre-marital sex. In fact, until gay-marriage is legalized in the US, all the sex I engage in will be pre-marital. I don't think one thing necessarily has any bearing on the other unless you define "social responsibility" as "pre-maritally abstinent" in which case discussion is moot.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:anthropological research to find out how most Americans live and toss us an occasional novel set in our world
I think he may be wrong on what he thinks "most" Americans do with regards to sexual relationships and marriage/co-habitation.
As for "socially responsible" I don't know how you judge that unless you are saying "they're playing with a fire whose effects when they get burned, burn society too" which is true but also can be applied to Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets and uninsured drivers who cause accidents.
Having sex is risky. I don't think anyone's doubting that. But how risky and therefore burdensome on society can be hotly debated.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Of course ten year olds won't have sex before marriage! Their health teacher told them what that sex thing people keep talking about on TV was just last week, and they were a little grossed out. In fact, it you ask the, if they want to have in their entire lives, they'll probably say no too.
They haven't got their hormones yet. Silly children.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Not answering for Scott, but I'll agree that extramarital sex and social irresponsibility do go together. Essentially, reducing sex to something casually undertaken with various acquaintances greatly diminishes the perceived importance of marriage. This in turn creates far more broken homes and fatherless households, damaging children and setting up an even worse scenario for subsequent generations.
An unfortunate manifestation of this is seen in modern African-American culture. Out-of-wedlock birth rates have expanded by an absurd amount (25% to ~70% since 1965). And half of these single-mother households are in poverty, compared to only 10% of married black families. The men fathering these illegitimate children are socially irresponsible because they don't stick around to actually BE fathers. And the women are also to blame for not demanding better of their men.
Other demographics are not that bad yet, but will catch up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I'm still serious about the question, though. Do you consider not being married to be socially irresponsible?
:shrug:
It depends on the individual I'm judging.
I don't know you; I'm not judging you.
I know that there are socially irresponsible married couples; my personal experience is that there are many more socially irresponsible unmarried people. At least in my circle of friends.
Xav-- I don't know that I can define 'socially irresponsible' for you in so many words; I know it when I see it. Premarital sex is socially irresponsible; so is greed; so is materialism; so is unwillingness to assist the poor regardless of their circumstances. Living outside of your means is socially irresponsible; so is an unwillingness to pay taxes, or cheating on them. I realize that this may not be the answer you're looking for, and it's by no means a complete answer.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Essentially, reducing sex to something casually undertaken with various acquaintances greatly diminishes the perceived importance of marriage.
That's not the same as living with someone you love before marriage (or deciding never to get married, but just to live with them) and having sex.
quote:I know that there are socially irresponsible married couples; my personal experience is that there are many more socially irresponsible unmarried people. At least in my circle of friends.
Sounds like you may need a new circle of friends. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Look... OSC may not be accurately depicting American society "as it is", but I think he's doing a good job of describing it "as it should be".
Art reflects society, but it also influences society. By making premarital sex such a normal state of affairs (pardon the pun) in movies, the message is clear: there's nothing to be concerned about.
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Dude, we all have sex drives (well, most of us do) and not having sex with the one person you are deeply in love with is *hard*.
That's true, of course. But if you're that deeply in love, why aren't you married?
I think that someone who really thinks that premarital sex is a problem has a responsibility to treat it as such in their writing, whether it be fiction or non-fiction. And that, I think, is what OSC did. He wrote:
quote:I wish Lee Nichols would do the anthropological research to find out how most Americans live and toss us an occasional novel set in our world, where people wait for marriage and don't find it acceptable when other people move in with each other without benefit of wedlock -- not because we're religious fanatics but because we know that this is what civilization in general and our children in particular require of us.
My only objection here is "most Americans". I don't know that it's the case, and I suspect it isn't. But I could be wrong. It certainly isn't the case among most inhabitants of big cities. But then, most inhabitants of big cities voted blue in 2004. And red won. So maybe he's right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Essentially, reducing sex to something casually undertaken with various acquaintances greatly diminishes the perceived importance of marriage. This in turn creates far more broken homes and fatherless households, damaging children and setting up an even worse scenario for subsequent generations.
Both of these sentences are given as statements of fact. Can you provide proof of either claim?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:But if you're that deeply in love, why aren't you married?
Um, I'm assuming these two hypothetical people have every intention of getting married. Do you think they need to get married *right now*? Being engaged and not having sex is hard. I've done it. You have to be pretty highly motivated in order to overcome your natural desires in that way.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Xav-- I don't know that I can define 'socially irresponsible' for you in so many words; I know it when I see it. Premarital sex is socially irresponsible; so is greed; so is materialism; so is unwillingness to assist the poor regardless of their circumstances. Living outside of your means is socially irresponsible; so is an unwillingness to pay taxes, or cheating on them. I realize that this may not be the answer you're looking for, and it's by no means a complete answer.
Thank you, Scott.
So now we are brought to KarlEd's point:
quote:I don't think one thing necessarily has any bearing on the other unless you define "social responsibility" as "pre-maritally abstinent" in which case discussion is moot.
Which by your own definition, appears to be at least partially true.
Would you say someone is socially irresponsible if the only trait on your list they exhibit is that they engage in premarital sex (which is the only thing on the list which anyone could accuse me of)?
Irregardless:
quote:Essentially, reducing sex to something casually undertaken with various acquaintances greatly diminishes the perceived importance of marriage.
Yikes!
You are lumping all of premarital sex together and describing it as "something casually undertaken with various acquaintances".
That type of attitude is not shared by everyone who has sex outside of wedlock. I myself have only had sex with one person in the last three or four years.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I think that you must be working with a skewed sample.
Almost definitely. My unmarried friends are mostly white or Asian, in their 20s, have pretty good paying jobs, no college degree, and are extremely intelligent. But I never said I was working out a scientific survey, Irami. I noted, in fact, that my evidence is anectdotal.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:That's not the same as living with someone you love before marriage (or deciding never to get married, but just to live with them) and having sex.
OK, but it's my impression that OSC's article was talking particularly about promiscuity more than monogamous relationships that merely lack a marriage license. But even then, the unwillingness to codify the relationship on paper (especially with the easy availability of divorce these days) says 'I want to be able to walk away any time I like' or perhaps 'why buy the cow when I'm getting the milk for free?'
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scott, I'm not worried about what you think of me. I've long been used to the pressure to get married, and to people assuming that since I'm not, I must be any one of a variety of unsavory things.
I don't believe that caving into pressure and doing something that you know is a bad idea for you personally is responsible. But people do it all the time.
But I can see how you would think that doing otherwise is socially irresponsible. Not because being unmarried is bad in itself, but it does imply a certain amount of disregard for public opinion. Social responsibility is all about doing what will make your neighbors happy.
In my experience, especially in the church, everyone has a story. Every girl I know who is LDS, over 25, and not married has an "I almost got married" story somewhere. Either it was the wrong guy, or he broke her heart, or it didn't feel right, or they did get married and it turned out to be a disaster so they are not now, but everyone of them has a reason. Same for most of the guys, the exceptions being the socially inept ones who don't date because they haven't figured out how yet.
Even in your circle of friends, I suspect you are dealing with an appalling lack of imagination when you assign them motives. You ought to ask sometime - you might get to hear their stories.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:But even then, the unwillingness to codify the relationship on paper (especially with the easy availability of divorce these days) says 'I want to be able to walk away any time I like' or perhaps 'why buy the cow when I'm getting the milk for free?'
I find this really insulting. I have two sisters whom I love dearly, both of whom live with a boyfriend. One has been with the same man for almost ten years, and dated him for three before moving in together. Neither of them EVER want to get married because my mother went through two messy, messy divorces. (Neither of them ever want kids for much the same reason.) I reacted differently-- I got married in the Temple, a comittment I would have a very, very, VERY hard time breaking. But I don't judge or blame them for not getting married, for reacting the way they did. Again, I think you're assigning people motives without ever asking them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Would you say someone is socially irresponsible if the only trait on your list they exhibit is that they engage in premarital sex?
Yes. I would NOT say that behavior is going to devour their lives or characters and make them terrible, awful, evil people, or that the destruction of society is imminent because Joe slept with Jenny. These are my FRIENDS I'm talking about here. I don't hang with evil folk.
That's why I'm not a Republican. Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Both of these sentences are given as statements of fact. Can you provide proof of either claim?
The correlation of societal trends is good enough evidence for me. If you have an alternate explanation for the simultaneous change in sexual morals, drop in the marriage rate and increase in single-mother households over the past 40 years, I'm listening.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No wonder everyone you know who has premarital sex is socially irresponsible. The key element for you of social irresponsibility is having premarital sex.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I've only ever had sex with my wife. I'm not a supporter of strict abstinence.
I've had premarital sex. And lived with my wife, before she was wife.
I don't think I particularly harmed civilization in anyway (nor would I say everyone can and ought to do as I did, these matters are intrinsically subjective, IMO), so I'm left to conclude that OSC's basis is a specific social fanaticism (since I understand that people across religions/denominations feel similarly), even if he doesn't think so.
Of course, it's really just my word versus his, as neither of us bother to privide any sort of proof of the harm (or non-harm) to civilization of these sorts of actions.
*shrug*
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Doesn't saying that casual sex diminishes respect for marriage imply that you believe marriage is all about the sex? I believe that marriage is much, much, more than that.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: OK, but it's my impression that OSC's article was talking particularly about promiscuity more than monogamous relationships that merely lack a marriage license. But even then, the unwillingness to codify the relationship on paper (especially with the easy availability of divorce these days) says 'I want to be able to walk away any time I like' or perhaps 'why buy the cow when I'm getting the milk for free?'
Or it says, "I'm secure enough in our relationship to not need a piece of paper to validate it."
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:I find this really insulting. I have two sisters whom I love dearly, both of whom live with a boyfriend. One has been with the same man for almost ten years, and dated him for three before moving in together. Neither of them EVER want to get married because my mother went through two messy, messy divorces. (Neither of them ever want kids for much the same reason.)
Exactly the point. They go INTO the relationship already calculating the costs/benefits of getting OUT of them. I.e., neither participant has any particular committment to stay long term, though they will if they continue to like it. I will give them credit, though, for not wanting to bring children into such a situation.
quote:I reacted differently-- I got married in the Temple, a comittment I would have a very, very, VERY hard time breaking. But I don't judge or blame them for not getting married, for reacting the way they did. Again, I think you're assigning people motives without ever asking them.
What motive did I assign, other than wanting the perceived benefits of a marriage-type relationship without the risks & potential sacrifice? Isn't that exactly what you just described?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Even in your circle of friends, I suspect you are dealing with an appalling lack of imagination when you assign them motives. You ought to ask sometime - you might get to hear their stories.
You're a peach. Never change.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
quote:But even then, the unwillingness to codify the relationship on paper (especially with the easy availability of divorce these days) says 'I want to be able to walk away any time I like' or perhaps 'why buy the cow when I'm getting the milk for free?'
I completely disagree. I absolutely intend to marry the person I am with now. However, because of the need to finish schools in different states, we have decided to wait until next May when I finish graduate school and can move out to Maryland. It has nothing to do with wanting to be able to walk away at any time but wanting to be able to live in the same state when we get married. This is a very common situation in my social circle. I have lots of friends who are dating someone they plan to marry but because of school and financial situations have choosen to wait.
I also think that there is a distinction between "casual sex" and premarital sex. All casual sex is premarital sex but not all premarital sex is casual sex.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative group, found that people who had premarital sex only with their future spouse experienced no higher rates of divorce/marital strife then those who waited to get married. I'll look to see if I can find the study again if anyone is interested.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I know that there reasons bound in faith, which I understand and respect, but for everyone else, I think that there is something self-abusive and unhealthy about it, and to tell the truth, I think that there is something very healthy about occasional sex. I don't want to use the word "casual," but I'm a believer that timely sex is healthy-- and should be encouraged-- not to mention, I think that there is something terribly unbecoming about sloppy marriages and half-wanted kids.
I disagree.... While marriage and sex within marriage is healthy, sex without marriage is somewhat dangerous. Bad things do not always result, but they happen too often and are often too severe to justify calling premarital sex healthy. This can range from abotion, undesired pregnancy, broken families, and STDs on the extreme end, to relationship difficulty, skewed value systems, and more general problems on the more subtle end of the spectrum. I've observed many go through these sorts of problems, with little to show in return other than a temporary satisfaction of desires and some sort of vague sense of having fulfilled a social expectation.
OSC is wrong - in real American society you are expected to have sex before marriage. It is a misguided expectation, like the expectation that you binge drink in college, but it exists nonetheless. I think it causes many Americans to overestimate the important of sex, as if it determines the worth of your relationships or as if you cannot be happy without it. That's perhaps one of the greatest dangers of them all when it comes to accepting premarital sex - that collectively the choice to accept that course of behavior creates a society in which our children think it's not only healthy, but neccessary. It's easy to justify any behavior when "everybody's doing it."
I don't, however, think that trying to pretend like abstinence is the norm solves that problem though. OSC goes wrong there.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Or it says, "I'm secure enough in our relationship to not need a piece of paper to validate it."
Probably an empty cliche' that guys use to convince women that this arrangement is somehow sophisticated or perhaps even more "secure" than marriage.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Probably an empty cliche' that guys use to convince women that this arrangement is somehow sophisticated or perhaps even more "secure" than marriage.
Probably a response used by insecure women who need a legal contract to make them feel safe in a relationship....
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Probably an empty cliche' that guys use to convince women that this arrangement is somehow sophisticated or perhaps even more "secure" than marriage.
I know just as many girls that hold this view as guys. Marriage is all about commitment. This commitment can be made without going to a church and the government. In fact, the only real reason I see for a non-religious person like myself to get married is to be more socially acceptable. A ceremony and certificate has no impact on the level of commitment between two people.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:They go INTO the relationship already calculating the costs/benefits of getting OUT of them. I.e., neither participant has any particular committment to stay long term, though they will if they continue to like it.
No. They are very committed to their relationships. They're just afraid because they've seen marriages go wrong. I think, in their mind, it's just that when you get married, you change. I'm not saying they're right, just that they're afraid, not irresponsible.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by theresa51282: [QB]
quote:But even then, the unwillingness to codify the relationship on paper (especially with the easy availability of divorce these days) says 'I want to be able to walk away any time I like' or perhaps 'why buy the cow when I'm getting the milk for free?'
I completely disagree. I absolutely intend to marry the person I am with now. However, because of the need to finish schools in different states, we have decided to wait until next May when I finish graduate school and can move out to Maryland. It has nothing to do with wanting to be able to walk away at any time but wanting to be able to live in the same state when we get married.
What you describe isn't really 'unwillingness' but merely postponement due to logistical reasons; that wasn't really the situation I was talking about.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Or it says, "I'm secure enough in our relationship to not need a piece of paper to validate it."
Probably an empty cliche' that guys use to convince women that this arrangement is somehow sophisticated or perhaps even more "secure" than marriage.
Whoa! That is so sexist I can't even blink. So I'll just comment on the topic at hand before my eyes dry out.
I'm with Ketchup and Bok and Theresa. I think there is a difference between pre-marital sex and 'casual' sex.
Plus, don't Mormons differentiate between legal marriage and Temple marriage? I mean, depending on the authority that binds people together?
If the government ceases to exist, does that invalidate marriages codified under that authority?
It's not a stupid piece of paper that keeps me married to my beloved, it's the fact that nothing in my life is more sacred to me than the bond we share. The piece of paper is hardly an impediment to our marriage dissolving, legally anyway.
It does make things like survivorship and so forth much easier, but it doesn't mean that much to me.
This is coming from a lifelong monogamist, and a person who took some serious precautions to save herself for marriage. I find it highly insulting to say that a peice of paper is the most important thing about my marriage and my decisions.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Whoa. I was expecting someone to comment on this before now:
quote:I'm distrustful of virgins my age. I know that there reasons bound in faith, which I understand and respect, but for everyone else, I think that there is something self-abusive and unhealthy about it
I'm curious (and rather ignorant I suppose)...what other reasons have you seen besides faith for people to be virgins at your age (whatever age that may be)? I suppose there is complete ineptitude which was showcased so tastefully in "The 40-year old Virgin," but in that case, why would you be untrusting? Not every older single virgin (without religious reasons for being a virgin) is so because of some need to punish or 'abuse' themselves. I think some people just wait a little longer to be 'in love' or to find the right person because even though they may not have religious reasons to abstain from sex before marriage, it's still an important decision for them. (<---It's these kind of people whom I would categorize as 'socially responsible.') Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly:
quote:But if you're that deeply in love, why aren't you married?
Um, I'm assuming these two hypothetical people have every intention of getting married. Do you think they need to get married *right now*? Being engaged and not having sex is hard. I've done it. You have to be pretty highly motivated in order to overcome your natural desires in that way.
If they need to have sex right now, why not get married right now? See, this is the whole devaluation of marriage thing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:If they need to have sex right now, why not get married right now? See, this is the whole devaluation of marriage thing.
But not everyone shares your moral beliefs. Is it fair to judge them by them? And not everyone thinks marriage is about sex.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by theresa51282:
quote:But even then, the unwillingness to codify the relationship on paper (especially with the easy availability of divorce these days) says 'I want to be able to walk away any time I like' or perhaps 'why buy the cow when I'm getting the milk for free?'
I completely disagree. I absolutely intend to marry the person I am with now. However, because of the need to finish schools in different states, we have decided to wait until next May when I finish graduate school and can move out to Maryland. It has nothing to do with wanting to be able to walk away at any time but wanting to be able to live in the same state when we get married. This is a very common situation in my social circle. I have lots of friends who are dating someone they plan to marry but because of school and financial situations have choosen to wait.
So have you chosen to abstain from sex as well? I mean, if you can have sex while living in different states, I don't get why you can't be married in different states. I'm not judging you, honestly. I'm just not understanding the explanation.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
There are plenty of reasons to not get married *right now*. Those who are willing to restrain themselves will. Those not willing won't.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I also think OSC has a skewed sample of "everyone". I'm still relatively young, and I hang out with people from 20-30 years old. They all have similar upbringings and outlooks on pretty much everything. They are almost all products of strong, religious, two-parent households. And every one of them has had premarital sex. The majority of them with their girl/boyfriends, but some (mainly the younger ones), will sleep with anything that walks.
I think that is socially irresponsible behavior.
On the other hand, I have 4 close friends who knocked up their girlfriends, either in college or in the year since. They are all still with the girlfriends, and they're raising the children. 2 are now married, one is engaged, one is on the rocks.
The behavior pattern doesn't always correlate to anything. The exact same people with the exact same values can make totally contrary decisions without compromising who they are.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I would like to clarify something:
I do not believe in pre-marital sex. I will expect my children to abstain from it. I have never lived with someone before marrying them.
BUT, I don't think pre-marital sex necessarily equals social irresponsibility. I also don't think it's fair to judge people who don't have the same moral standards as me by my moral standards when mine are stricter than what appears to be the cultural norm. And I don't think it's right to condemn anyone for their sexual behavior, no matter what it is. Like, you know, what Fred Phelps does.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: If the government ceases to exist, does that invalidate marriages codified under that authority?
It's not a stupid piece of paper that keeps me married to my beloved, it's the fact that nothing in my life is more sacred to me than the bond we share. The piece of paper is hardly an impediment to our marriage dissolving, legally anyway.
It does make things like survivorship and so forth much easier, but it doesn't mean that much to me.
This is coming from a lifelong monogamist, and a person who took some serious precautions to save herself for marriage. I find it highly insulting to say that a peice of paper is the most important thing about my marriage and my decisions.
It's always an amazement to me how little regard is given to marriage by those lucky enough to be permitted to marry. I think that if you didn't have that option, you might value it somewhat higher.
The irony is overwhelming.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
(to KQ) Amen. Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
quote:So have you chosen to abstain from sex as well? I mean, if you can have sex while living in different states, I don't get why you can't be married in different states. I'm not judging you, honestly. I'm just not understanding the explanation.
I'm not sure its relevant but yes, I have slept with my fiance'. I personally choose to wait until I got engaged but I think the right choice is different for different people. I could get married now and live apart first. However, I don't think it is a good start to a marriage for ME to live apart for a year first. I think I would be even lonelier. I want to be able to move into a house together and start things together when we can see each other every day.
I would also suggest that financially having sex is a lot easier than getting married. I also know several people who are better off financially to wait to get married for awhile. I don't think it is because they want out or don't value marriage.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
starLisa - I don't understand how your comment is directed my post.
My marriage is the most important thing in my life. It's more than a peice of paper. I just find it insulting that other people seem to be implying that the paper is the most important part of that equation.
As I said, I'm with ketchup, wholeheartedly. I agree with her statement completely.
I just don't feel up to judging everyone else's beans by own half a bushel, is all.
[ September 01, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And personally, I find it a little offensive when the 'sanctity of marriage' crew starts looking down their noses at everyone. This isn't directed at anyone specifically, that's just something that really ticks me off.
Marriage is an option, it's not the only option. And just because you choose to have sex doesn't mean you don't value marriage or that you don't intend to ever get married.
I respect peoples' decision to get married, even when it seems apparent to me that they're a match made in hell. Why can't they respect my decision not to get married until I'm sure about it.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I have a number of friends in committed relationships who say that the reason that they will not get married is to show solidarity with gay couples they know who cannot get married. When marriage is equally available to all the marriage-minded couples they know, then they too will get married.
If having non-marital sex is socially irresponsible, then it's no wonder that non-marital sex goes hand in hand with social irresponsibility. Seems like it's the defining characteristic of social irresponsibility.
quote:Bad things do not always result, but they happen too often and are often too severe to justify calling premarital sex healthy. This can range from abotion, undesired pregnancy, broken families, and STDs on the extreme end, to relationship difficulty, skewed value systems, and more general problems on the more subtle end of the spectrum. I've observed many go through these sorts of problems, with little to show in return other than a temporary satisfaction of desires and some sort of vague sense of having fulfilled a social expectation.
And none of these things ever happen to married folks?
In my experience, the vast majority of no-sex-before-marriage people get married young. This seems to me to potentially lead to any number of problems-- having kids before you're financially able to support them, choosing a partner too quickly from a too-limitted pool, being married before you've had much if any experience being independant, and potentially not fully knowing one's spouse to name a few.
Each option has its plusses and minuses. And it seems to me that the individual person is the best one to guage which minuses they're most worried about.
It seems to me that although the non-marital sex crowd regards members of the wait-until-marriage crowd as a little weird, they're generally more tolerant of their opposite than the wait-until-marriage crowd is.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I think that pressure to get married can be really negative. It can push people into marriages they aren't ready for and lead to divorce. Marriage is not the only way to have a commitment to someone. Emotional, financial, logistical, and familial relations can all play a role in when someone is ready to get married. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be ready to deal with the consequences of sex but not be ready to or not want to be married at that point in time
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you have an alternate explanation for the simultaneous change in sexual morals, drop in the marriage rate and increase in single-mother households over the past 40 years, I'm listening.
If correlation is good enough for you, I think we should blame the prevalence of polyester blends. The percentage of the population clothed in polyester and other synthetic fabrics is inversely correlated to the percentage of successful (i.e. lifelong) marriages, right? Perhaps that Biblical warning about not wearing two different types of fabric meant something.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I would step in with my opinion here (which some of you may already know), but this place is too much of a hornets' nest at the moment. I'd prefer not to be stung just for offering my opinion.
EDIT: I may add comments regardless of possible stinging replies later when I have time and I don't have to go to class.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Perhaps that Biblical warning about not wearing two different types of fabric meant something.
*snicker*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I have a number of friends in committed relationships who say that the reason that they will not get married is to show solidarity with gay couples they know who cannot get married. When marriage is equally available to all the marriage-minded couples they know, then they too will get married.
I know this is just my opinion, but this is weirdest reasoning I have ever heard. It isn't accomplishing anything - it gives the desire for marriage less urgency, because the people who could get married don't think it is important enough to bother.
That may not be what they are saying, but that's the political statement being made. "I could, but I won't."
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Let me try clarifying something... Are there actually people in this thread who do NOT believe that promiscuous sexual (casual) intercourse is "socially irresponsible"?
Not talking about "pre-marital sex" which may or may not be related, but the mentallity that the act of sex between two people is equivalent to going to the movies, or holding hands or going out to dinner.
I honestly don't think anyone here is actually saying that are they?
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: If you have an alternate explanation for the simultaneous change in sexual morals, drop in the marriage rate and increase in single-mother households over the past 40 years, I'm listening.
If correlation is good enough for you, I think we should blame the prevalence of polyester blends. The percentage of the population clothed in polyester and other synthetic fabrics is inversely correlated to the percentage of successful (i.e. lifelong) marriages, right? Perhaps that Biblical warning about not wearing two different types of fabric meant something.
I take it you choose NOT to make any serious attempt at explaining it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
CStroman-Not me.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, or you could look at it as being so important that you refuse to participate in the "lame" (in the classical sense) form of marriage allowed now, as long as people who you believe are otherwise worthy are categorically disallowed.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But it doesn't look like that. It isn't affecting any political change. It's me boycotting coffee because of the working conditions of the harvesters. It isn't going to change anything because it looks like I'm boycotting it for other reasons. So it's an empty gesture.
If the people who are refusing to get married until other people actually writing letters and being activists as opposed to just not-getting-married, that might be different.
But it still sounds kind of lame. There are much more effective ways, so it makes me think they have other reasons for not wanting to get married.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hmm. But if men refused to vote because their wives couldn't, the 19th amendment woiuld never have floated... Meh, bad analogy.
So, like whites refusing to use the white-only restrooms? Or to eat at lunch counters wouldn't serve 'colored' people. That one makes sense because it has an impact on the restaurant.
Actually, on this I don't see any positive effect, other that a symbolic solidarity. It doesn't seem to have any 'legs'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think anyone here is arguing for rampant promiscuity, no, Chad. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Is it well thought out? I agree, probably not. But that doesn't mean they aren't earnest.
I know people (myself included) that do ill-thought, yet earnest, actions.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Undertaking or rejecting marriage for ill-thought-out reasons does seem...oh, don't make me say it. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Amazed that a signed contract automatically makes you socially responsible.
Are you committed to your lover? Do you keep to any and all agreements made with your lover? Are you willing to sacrifice your personal interests when necessary to strengthen or improve your relationship? Are you committed to raising your children, if any, to be strong, healthy, smart, kind, productive people? Do you work to help others, to strengthen the community? If you do not have a steady lover, are you scrupulously honest with any other temporary or occasional lovers you may have, especially regarding your history and your plans for the future? Are you careful not to have sex with anyone with whom you would not be willing to raise children, should that occur accidentally? Are you careful not to spread disease? Do you vote? Do you vote intelligently? Are you active in local politics/PTA/charities?
Frankly, the marriage contract does not, to me, confer respectability. Attention to any and all of the above does. And yes, CStrohman, I'm saying it. It is possible to treat sex as a friendly nonmarital recreation and still be socially responsible. It requires honesty and like-minded partners with the same goals and expectations. To say otherwise is to say that humans must either be monogamous or celibate to be socially responsible, and I don't believe in either/or situations where humans are involved.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
At this point in my life (a six year monogomous relationship) the reasons for getting married are getting fewer and fewer. At six years, your statistical odds of the relationship deteriorating are identical whether married or unmarried.
If you need a piece of paper to cement the trust not to cheat on each other, your trust relationship has a problem.
1) Children. We don't want children. If we did, we'd get married to simplify legalities. Even then I wouldn't change my name so the kids would still be scarred for life.
2)Health benefits for the partner in retirement... a long way off for either of us.
3)A big party to see friends. This would be a good reason to actually, because I know I'd get to see a bunch of friends then. However I don't want to see my family.
4)Religous reasons. Currently not an issue with either parties conscience.
So at this point, if we did get married, it would probably be most likely for (2) sorts of reasons, and we would do it extremely quietly. I likely wouldn't even tell anyone but my closest friends.
Biggest reason for not getting married: Getting married publically is a giant hassle and expense.
AJ
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It's only ill-thought out to us... If their thought processes weren't ill, then they probably would have realized it to begin with
You were searching for "un-Scott R", right?
-Bok
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Bok -I agree that they are earnest. I can appreciate that. I do and say pointless things all the time for noble reasons. I just found myself wanting to defend them for practical reasons and finding I couldn't.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Are there actually people in this thread who do NOT believe that promiscuous sexual (casual) intercourse is "socially irresponsible"?
*raises hand*
I don't think it is, inherently, though it certainly turns out that way a lot of the time.
Consenting adults, with regular testing and using the amount of protection they're willing to risk, are okay by me.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Ooo, watch out, Frisco. A statement like that could result in a LOT of dinner invitations. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Are you careful not to have sex with anyone with whom you would not be willing to raise children, should that occur accidentally?
and
quote: It is possible to treat sex as a friendly nonmarital recreation and still be socially responsible.
I think that in the vast majority of cases, these two statements are incompatible. I'm sure there's exceptions, but most people that I know in casual relationships wouldn't be willing to deal with any accidental babies.
I believe very strongly in the first statement. In fact, I wish that society as a whole would redefine sex to include sexual activity that can't produce a baby. Hopefully then, people wouldn't feel such a strong urge to "go all way" and could be content that they were at the height of physical intimacy without engaging in behavior for which they're not ready to accept the consequences.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
AJ, you and Steve are as committed to not being married as many people I know are committed to their marriages. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:And yes, CStrohman, I'm saying it. It is possible to treat sex as a friendly nonmarital recreation and still be socially responsible. It requires honesty and like-minded partners with the same goals and expectations. To say otherwise is to say that humans must either be monogamous or celibate to be socially responsible, and I don't believe in either/or situations where humans are involved.
So are the current fatherless child/single parent statistics in this country acceptable or unacceptable? What about Abortion Rates? Acceptable, unacceptable or non-issue? Aids rates? Acceptable? Unnacceptable? If they go higher, oh well? STD's of any kind? Acceptable?
So what are the negatives of premiscuous sex (casual) Mr. Bridges that you can see in this country at least right now? Or are there no negatives that can be associated with it.
I am honestly curious how you arrive at your morality on sexuality. I don't pretend to know your personal sexual lifestyle, etc. and don't really think it's my business unless you feel it is or write about it publicly.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I agree with Frisco.
And, I'm personally ok with a 99.99% contraceptive risk rate. But suggesting responsible use of contraceptives always seems to drive people even more up a wall.
Hmmm, maybe it's because a lot of people actually do have a consequence based moral system.
Hey Frisco, before birth control when sex had more certian baby production as a significant consequence, do you think that casual sex was less moral than it is today? Or that casual sex should have been treated more gravely then?
AJ
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
All of those listed problems are the result of people who are not responsible about their sex lives. I never said there were no negatives. I said that promiscuity was not automatically evidence of social irresponsibility.
I could easily whomp up all the ills of society produced by deadbeat dads, abusive spouses, adulterous couples, etc, but I don't present them as evidence that married couples are socially irresponsible.
A person who chooses to spend their life sleeping with a large number of people does not instantly, in my mind, get the label "irresponsible." How they go about it, and how responsible they are about the possible results, that does.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom, we're just Ornery I guess.
AJ
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think Chris and Frisco have a point. Just because sexual promiscuity is often irresponsible and can lead to many bad consequences, it doesn't mean that it is impossible to have multiple partners responsibly.
Not that I'm advocating anything.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If Teres and I have never married, just continued on with our pre-marital ways, and we still stayed together and raised our children and lived in our community the same way we have, would we then be socially irresponsible?
I'm really curious. Is it that cut and dried, that either/or?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also, in my own life, and relationship with Steve, the only time at which I actually wanted to get married, was the point at which I was insecure with *myself*. Marriage at that point would have done absolutely nothing to solve my insecurity issue, and quite possibly exacerbated it. I'm extremely glad that even then I didn't press the issue, and Steve concentrated on helping me straighten out my issues, rather than going "ok, you're insecure, let's get marrried!"
Maybe that is part of the visceral reaction that Steve and I both have. Marriage as a contract in many relationships often seems to be an "insecurity band-aid".
I know many marriages where it isn't. I'm not saying the "security band aid" is universal. But the healthy marriages, for the most part, to me, seem like they would have been healthy trustworthy relationships regardless of whether the legal contract existed or not.
AJ
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Hey Frisco, before birth control when sex had more certian baby production as a significant consequence, do you think that casual sex was less moral than it is today? Or that casual sex should have been treated more gravely then?
I think the morality is the same, but maybe the percentage of people going about it the right way was higher. Course we don't really have many statistics on how many people supported the children they conceived (and got married because of them) or how many abortions were performed, so it's hard to say.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Biggest reason for not getting married: Getting married publically is a giant hassle and expense.
Amen to that!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
It's only as big of a hassle and expense as you make it.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
You have a point, Jon Boy. Still, if you're of a mind to have a wedding that a substantial number of people attend (so that Aunt Mary won't get offended because you didn't invite her, for example), why not wait until you're at the point where you can afford that kind of wedding?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Wow, thanks Chris for being honest. And those who agreed.
I am a little stunned at the straight faced responses.
God help us if that mentallity becomes the "norm". Actually, God help us already... even though we don't deserve it.
See I tend to look at the ROOTS of those issues that I consider as "negative". Promiscuity is certainly one of those root causes. If you don't believe so, then I guess I'm talking to a brick wall as that mentallity is that Promiscuity is NOT the root cause of sexually transmitted diseases and/or unwanted pregnancies and that it doesn't lead to the moral degredation of a society and create excessive burdens on it's citizens.
Needless to say, I am stunned.
Wow.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You know... maybe that's part of the problem. Really. This whole idea that a wedding has to be some kind of lavish affair.
I have friends who, during the preparations for their weddings, kept muttering, "The wedding is for the parents; the marriage is for us. The wedding is for the parents; the marriage is for us."
It was the only way they could keep from going bonkers as their parents took over the whole thing.
Weddings are very often a total nightmare. I wonder how much of the anti-/non-marriage culture in the US is due to that.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
edit: i just reread your post, and see that you were saying promiscuity was the root of STD's, etc. Regardless, i think my point is a valid one, in that the reason those things happen in such shocking numbers is not because casual sex is such a bad thing, but because some of the people engaging in it are irresponsible and under-educated.
CStroman, do you really think "promiscuity" is one of the ROOT causes?
Promiscuity doesn't make those things happen, promiscuity...or I'd rather use the term "casual sex" is just something that can show evidence of deeper issues.
But the fact that someone has had multiple partners doesn't automatically make them callous, irresponsible, flighty, ignorant, or any of the myriad personality traits one thrusts on those of that leaning.
The truth of it is, those traits ALREADY EXISTED. Period! All "promiscuity" does, is give them another medium to shine. Kids are irresponsible with their pets. Does this mean that you shouldn't allow children to own pets? Of course not. SOME children shouldn't be given pets, of course, because they couldn't really handle what comes along with it. SOME children will get them anyway, because parents are lenient. So out there in the world, there are children who CAN take care of pets, and children who CAN'T. Should the children who CAN be penalized because their peers are too immature to handle the responsibility?
I don't think so.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Leonide take your arguement and apply it to NAMBLA. Or apply it to drinking/smoking and age limits.
Because your speaking of the MINORITY that can have multiple partners and not cause problems. EXTREME MINORITY. American Society has already proven that promiscuity is a proven root.
Stupidity doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancies/std's etc. It is a CAUSE of sexual promiscuity (which puts sexual promiscuous people in the same category as majority stupid people who are promiscuous because they are stupid). Believe me there are plenty of stupid people who do NOT have unwanted children. Why?
See there's this process called Sexual Intercourse that has to happen for a baby to be made. You can be as mentally challenged as possible, and unless you have SEX, you aren't going to get pregnant.
But hey, let's promote promiscuity as viable and acceptable. That's smart. As long as you foot the bill for any of it's effects and not me.
Healthy Society = Low/No promiscuity in my book.
The only place I think it doesn't is in Pornoland, which I guess is reality TV for some people.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Since a root cause is called for here, I'll provide you with one.
Purely and simply, all of the problems you have put forward are, at their root, due to selfishness.
A person who is promiscuous without being responsible about it is being selfish - he or she is not thinking about consequences, or plans to avoid them if they come up. He or she is thinking only of their own pleasure. A person who abuses his or her spouse is also being selfish. No thought is given to the other person's feelings or worth. All that matters is the abuser's side of things. A person who loots in times of disaster is being selfish. He or she is taking for themselves out of a mistaken sense of entitlement, or just because he or she feels that laws do not really apply to someone as special as him or her.
A person who sleeps with multiple partners, or engages in serial monogamy, but takes care to be open and honest about the relationships and to be responsible with any results, is not being selfish. Promiscuous, possibly, but in a way that honors the feelings and worth of others. A person who loves and cherishes his or her spouse does so not only because of the personal satisfaction, but out of a desire for the other person to be happy and for any offspring to be healthy and loved. A person who steps up in hazardous times to maintain order or help others at cost to him or herself is putting the well-being of others above his or her own.
If you are not selfish, you are likely to be socially responsible regardless of your marital status. If you are selfish, you are likely to be socially irresponsible whether you're married or not. I agree that for a certain percentage of the population, the weight society places on the marriage contract may act as a deterrant against irresponsible behavior, but I submit that such is not true for everyone.
I do not advocate promiscuity. I don't speak out against it, either. I do advocate pesonal responsibility. After that I don't really care what you do with your life, as long as you remain resposible about it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Purely and simply, all of the problems you have put forward are, at their root, due to selfishness.
So is promiscuity at it's root.
So are alot of things.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote: OK, but it's my impression that OSC's article was talking particularly about promiscuity more than monogamous relationships that merely lack a marriage license.
I disagree. I think OSC's religious beliefs are that all pre-marital sex is wrong. I respect him for that. I do think that his idea of what "most Americans" are doing before they get married is wrong. I think there are plenty of people who are having sex before marriage.
quote: I also think that there is a distinction between "casual sex" and premarital sex. All casual sex is premarital sex but not all premarital sex is casual sex.
I agree and this is not always a religious issue. I also agree that SOMETIMES casual sex and social irresposibility go hand in hand (you just can't say ALWAYS in these types of debates).
I speak from my own personal experience. I am now in my early 30's. While in my late teens and early 20's I had casual sex. I married at 21 and divorced at 23. I was socially irresponsible but more importantly, I was miserable. By the time I was in my late 20's I had grown up, found my way to God, and was much happier with my life. I met my now husband and we lived together and had sex (gasp!) before we got married. But this was serious, committed relationship. It certainly means something different (to me anyway) to have casual sex than to have monogamous pre-marital sex with someone you know you want to spend your life with (married or not). Does that make any sense?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
If I didn't have strong morals, I'd be all over Chris's argument:
"Honey, I'm just sharin' myself with other people sexually for the good of society. I'm bein' selfless. I really don't want to have sex with other people on a casual basis, but I'm willing to do it, for the good of AMERICA.
Yes UNCLE SAM, this sex act is for you!" :thumbs up:
Reminds me of a "Real men of Genius" commercial.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:But hey, let's promote promiscuity as viable and acceptable.
Let's promote responsible promiscuity as viable and acceptable.
That's what the people in this thread, at whom you're railing, have done.
quote:Stupidity doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancies/std's etc. It is a CAUSE of sexual promiscuity
I think it's more a combination of horomones and a distinctly different view of the world/morality than yours.
quote:See there's this process called Sexual Intercourse that has to happen for a baby to be made.
Not really.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, is being "selfish" a new invention since the 1950's? How about "stupidity"? People are dumber now?
See all of those things existed back then as well. But the rates for all the ills of our current society were MUCH, MUCH lower.
Trust me, there were lots of selfish people before our new "sexual freedom/anarchy" that you espouse, but the unwanted child rate was MUCH lower, STD's were MUCH lower oh and no one had decided to be promiscuous with a monkey (from what I understand) to bring AIDS into the picture.
Sorry Chris, Promiscuity is a problem and should be taught as such and discouraged as such for the benefit of our society.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It all boils down to "seatbelt" law mentallity, and I believe in Seatbelt laws.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Purely and simply, all of the problems you have put forward are, at their root, due to selfishness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is promiscuity at it's root.
Then you're doing it wrong.
quote:If I didn't have strong morals, I'd be all over Chris's argument:
Your morals are no stronger than Chris's or mine, merely different. And more complex and in number. But don't get that confused with strength.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But the rates for all the ills of our current society were MUCH, MUCH lower.
All the ills? You want to play "count the ills" with me, Chad? I think you'd be surprised by the numbers.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
so much for the Victory Girls...
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Let's promote responsible promiscuity as viable and acceptable.
What benefit does that provide to society over not being promiscuous at all?
Your idea is already a horrible, horrible failure since it's inception in the 1960's as a temperment of "free love".
But let's keep stabbing ourselves as a society hoping for a different outcome other than killing ourselves.
I heard the saying you can rationalize yourself all the way to hell. I thought it only applied to religious folks like myself. Well were there socially speaking, and some people are still rationalizing and trying to misdirect blame.
Sad, this wheels never gonna get fixed as long as people think that it should remain square.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Your idea is already a horrible, horrible failure since it's inception in the 1960's as a temperment of "free love".
Chad, again, I think you're speaking with an assumption -- that things today are much worse than they were in the '50s -- that doesn't actually have much basis in reality.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Trust me, there were lots of selfish people before our new "sexual freedom/anarchy"
I'd just like to point out that serial monogamy, casual sex, and sex with multiple partners can hardly be called "new".
quote:oh and no one had decided to be promiscuous with a monkey (from what I understand) to bring AIDS into the picture.
Hahaha. If you're gonna use hot interspecies sex as evidence for increased promiscuity, you could do better that perpetuate that crazy theory.
[ September 01, 2005, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Your idea is already a horrible, horrible failure since it's inception in the 1960's as a temperment of "free love".
A: "Free love" was never advertised as responsible...indeed, condoms weren't insisted upon and abortion was never discouraged.
B: I've gotten no diseases, spread no diseases, and fathered no unwanted children. What you call a horrible failure I call "A whole lotta headboard-banging fun". To each his own.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:"Honey, I'm just sharin' myself with other people sexually for the good of society. I'm bein' selfless. I really don't want to have sex with other people on a casual basis, but I'm willing to do it, for the good of AMERICA.
Yes UNCLE SAM, this sex act is for you!" :thumbs up:
How is this not an example of selfishness and stupidity?
I spent a time-period with four boyfriends. It was nice. They all knew about each other. Two of them were best friends. No babies were made over the course of this experiment. No one got AIDS. There was not even much jealousy or hard feelings. One moved on to other things. One got a new girlfriend who he's absolutely absorbed with and with whom he's wildly in love. I'm happy for him because they're considerably more compatible than he and I would ever have been, and it seems like it's been really good for him. Another one remains one of my best friends. The last is my current and only boyfriend.
No, I don't think casual sexual relationships are harmful to society. I don't think it's for everyone.
But I made a choice with which I'm fairly happy, and a choice that did not lead to the downfall of society as we know it.
I respect the choices of those of you who wait until marriage. I don't understand those choices and could never do it myself, but I can respect that you're doing what you think is right.
All I want is the same respect for my choices, for my honesty and for my honesty with my boyfriends then.
To me, deception is one of the most abhorent things. Far more abhorent than someone enjoying the company of another in a naked-type situation.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
quote:Originally posted by CStroman: Also, is being "selfish" a new invention since the 1950's? How about "stupidity"? People are dumber now?
See all of those things existed back then as well. But the rates for all the ills of our current society were MUCH, MUCH lower.
Trust me, there were lots of selfish people before our new "sexual freedom/anarchy" that you espouse, but the unwanted child rate was MUCH lower, STD's were MUCH lower oh and no one had decided to be promiscuous with a monkey (from what I understand) to bring AIDS into the picture.
Sorry Chris, Promiscuity is a problem and should be taught as such and discouraged as such for the benefit of our society.
This post is just filled with a lot of inaccuracies. Few if any reputable scientist support the theory that AIDS started because of sex with a monkey. Second, who are these people who are promoting sex with monkeys. I don't see them on this thread and I haven't encountered them in my life either.
Second, teen pregnancy rates are falling, abortion rates are falling. It is hardly the skyrocketing to hell that you speak of.
Third, I don't think anyone advocated we should teach promiscuity. The argument was that people shouldn't place their morals on others. Further, I don't even think anyone was talking about teens having sex but instead about adults having sex. Why on earth is it your responsibility to teach them anything? I don't think there are many who don't know the possible consequences of there actions.
Finally, STD rates are on the rise at an alarming rate among MARRIED women. So, it seems that premarital sex is not the only thing to blame for the rising STD rates.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Your morals are no stronger than Chris's or mine, merely different. And more complex and in number. But don't get that confused with strength.
Uh there are differences. In regards to morallity, mine are proven to greatly reduce the ills I mentioned above. In some cases the exterminate almost entirely the risks.
Yours have been in play for decades and the problems have worsened and worsened.
I'm not saying my whole moral code is better than anyone elses.
But when it comes to sexual promiscuity, mine have been proven to lower unwanted pregnancy rates to more manageable sizes, reduced the spread of STD's including sexually transmitted HIV to miniscule, manageable proportions and reduces a whole lotta other problems not mentioned in this thread.
However the "free but responsible love" has been in play for decades and has failed to provide a single positive result. Unwanted pregnancy has skyrocketed. Abortion continues to climb and STD's are spread like wildfire (even good ads on TV for herpes treatments now) HIV is an epidemic thanks to those morals in reality.
And it's a mathematical fact that sex 1 on 1 ONLY vs. Sex 1 on 10 or 30 or 100 or however many partners you have increases your risk for STD's and AIDS.
Anyone wanna take a gander at how AIDS was introduced to this country? It's not a mystery, and it's not suprising either.
HINT: It was flown in.
On what level has your permisive promiscuity had success on the whole of society vs. it's all but complete and utter failure?
Honestly.
Tom: I'm speaking specifically about Promiscuity, not other problems that existed in the past. Which yes existed, but we've decided we need more problems so let's loosen the morals, open pandora's box and then find ways to try and shift blame when things start falling apart.
Sorry guys.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
You know, no matter how much you keep saying your morals are better than theirs, no matter how much you believe that, it's just plain not gonna fly. You need to come up with some linkable, citable statistics before you make any more claims.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Trust me, there were lots of selfish people before our new "sexual freedom/anarchy" that you espouse, but the unwanted child rate was MUCH lower..
By which record? Although it is true that babies and children died much more often, and families needed more workers, and, oh yeah, there were less people.
...STD's were MUCH lower...
Because back in the good old days, no one died of gonnorhea or syphilis.
...oh and no one had decided to be promiscuous with a monkey (from what I understand) to bring AIDS into the picture.
No clue where to start here.
The 60's, as was pointed out, were a perfect example of a lack of responsibility and not at all what I'm talking about. I have never, in any conversation, in any post on this or any other forum, espoused anarchy. I have never urged sexual relationships without responsibility.
For the first five years og my relationship with my wife we were unwed and sexually active. We got married mostly so we could file jointly. There was little other change in our lives. By the definitions given in this thread we were flagrantly irresponsible the first five years, and respectably responsible the other 20, and I can't for the life of me understand why this is so.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Right -- the ONLY thing that changed for Chris was some legal shmegal money issues. That's IT. It's just plain ignorant to call all "pre-marital/extramarital" dangerous and/or degrading to society, when you have evidence that for a LOT of people (i'll add Strider and I to that list) for whom any legal marriage contract would change virtually NOTHING between us, nor strengthen our relationship.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Almost found the statistic I was looking for. I am sure there is probably at least a small percentage of people who have only one sex partner but engaged in premarital sex. I think that pretty soundly questions OSC's thesis about what most American's are like.
According to the University of Chicago [quote]A total of 19 percent of American men reported having had only one sex partner during their lifetimes, as compared with 21 percent of Britons. Among women, 32 percent of American women reported having only one sex partner, while 40 percent of British women reported having had only one sex partner.[quote]
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
This article actually does a good job refuting a lot of CStroman's claims.
I'm still of a mind that whoever thinks of sex when the word marriage is brought up, probably hasn't had much of either one.
We can bang the drum all day long for abstinence, but we can't be in the back seat of every Buick on Lover's Lane. Or be in every dorm room or summer camp lodge. It is just human ... no make that more specifically, just nature. "The birds do it, the bees do it...~~~"
Respect for oneself and others trumps abstinence. And respect is the cornerstone of a marriage.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The problem with this argument, I think, is that on CStroman's side there is either married, monogamous sex, or slutty, anything-you-want sex, and absolutely nothing, nothing in between. Of course, junder those strict, no-gray-area restrictions, anyone arguing for slutty sex is being naive and selfish and I don't blame him for being amazed that anyone would.
Openness about sex has caused a great deal of harm -- although not as much as, say, no-fault divorce -- but it has in fact done a great deal of good. People can say "pregnant" in public now. More people are willing to come forward about rape and child abuse and harassment, because being a rape victim doesn't get you ostracized the way it used to back in the good old days. And reliable birth control has freed up young couples to enjoy sex while waiting for more financially stable times to have children.
Promiscuity didn't cause the AIDS epidemic across Africa. That was the method, but what caused it was ignorance and selfishness. African men refused to wear condoms, even when told the dangers. Many even specifically targeted virgins because of a persistent belief that they could cure themselves that way.
Compare sex to driving. The posession of a drivers license in no way affects the quality of my driving. What affects my driving is my knowledge of my car and the inherent dangers, my attention to conditions, and my consideration of others. I could, in fact, drive my whole life and be considered a safe and responsible driver even if I never got a license, while there are plenty of people who possess licenses and still drive like idiots.
This isn't a perfect analogy to marriage for two reasons. One, it is actually illegal to drive without a license. And before you can get a drivers license, you have to pass a test showing you know what to do. But handing me a drivers license does not confer magical driving abilities, and handing me a marriage certificate made little different in how we lived our lives.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think the point some people are trying to make is that having a strong cultural focus on chastity before marriage and fidelity thereafter encourages responsibility among people who would otherwise be irresponsible.
Sure, there are lots of people who can manage their love and sex lives like adults without any outside impetus "forcing" them to do so.
The problem is that when the responsible people abandon societal constructs that are designed to encourage responsibility "because WE don't NEED a piece of paper", then the irresponsible people abandon them, TOO. And THOSE people get into all kinds of trouble with their unsupported children, venereal diseases, broken hearts, etc ...
It's a sacrifice, but I feel like it's the responsibility of the people who are already responsible to set a clear standard for those who are not.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Geoff, you just said very well what I haven't been saying this entire thread. Thanks.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well said, although I have doubts that that's what others here have been trying to say.
Your answer recognizes and addresses gray areas and real world situations, where others here have flatly denied such areas exist. It is those people who see the world in stark black and white that I live to pester.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I believe that people who engage in extra-marital sex *do* have a responsibility. A responsibility to act maturely within their own relationships, and to encourage others to do the same. Beyond that, I don't think I'm obligated to give up what I do in the hopes that someone will stop abusing it.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Every relationship is different. While it's very easy to say what we'd do if we were in the other person's shoes I don't think it's something that needs to be judged upon. Nobody is imposing the view of having sex before marriage on anyone so I don't exactly see the point of impossing the opposite view on someone else.
Marriage is a contract between two people who love each other. The fact that it also has legal ramifications means nothing to the people who actually value it's intended purpose. What does it matter if someone has sex or not before they get married so long as they're careful and the decision is mutual?
It's nice to have a moral code, but you can't really expect to be able to impose your own code on others. Would anyone else here like it if people imposed their code on them?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
the beauty of Hatrack is that people get really into these discussions. A bad part of Hatrack is that people get really into these discussions
I used to think we all needed to come to an agreement, or that people were trying to convert me, but now i just enjoy the discourse for the discourse.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Rico, we impose codes on people ALL THE TIME. It's only certain specific parts of certain codes that are starting to come into question as our culture shifts. But the idea of developing a code of behavior and expecting everyone to live by it is NOT a bad thing. I wish we did more of it.
And not in a legal sense — I'm not talking about cops busting down your door and forcing you to marry your lover or something. I'm saying that it really is okay for people to expect a certain standard of behavior of other people. We should be able to expect kindness, honesty, honor, respect, fidelity, etc, and enforce it not through the law, but through public opinion. If you know that cheating on your spouse will result in all your friends thinking you're a worthless lowlife, then you're less likely to cheat on your spouse.
This sense that we should never judge a person's behavior or apply our moral standards to them closes off an important tool that civilizations use to maintain themselves. Certainly, we need to be understanding of a person's motivations, background, and beliefs when we are evaluating them as a person. We need to try to understand one another. But at the same time, we shouldn't be bound and gagged, prevented from speaking up when we feel that someone's behavior is causing a problem.
Leonide, I tend to look up to people who accept more "obligations" than they are forced to accept. Sure, it's not your responsibility to stop and help when you see someone broken down on the side of the road. You're not "obligated" to do it. But isn't the world a better place when you do?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Whenever people say "you can't apply your moral standards to other people", somehow I get a picture of an inarticulate whorish girl on Jerry Springer pointing her ex-boyfriend and shouting, "You can't judge ME!" followed by a crazy round of applause
Again, when responsible folks use the excuses, it's the irresponsible people who end up living the worst-case scenarios of those excuses.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Of course the world is a better place when i stop and help someone broken down on the side of the road.
But i don't have to go ahead and crash my car next to them in order to help them.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Uh there are differences. In regards to morallity, mine are proven to greatly reduce the ills I mentioned above. In some cases the exterminate almost entirely the risks.
Yours have been in play for decades and the problems have worsened and worsened.
I'm not saying my whole moral code is better than anyone elses.
You are essentially saying that you believe your moral code is better. Don't deny it. Everyone considers their moral code "better" or they wouldn't follow it. If everyone thought everything was interchangeable why would they pick one religion or one "moral code"? Why not switch back and forth?
I believe my moral code is right, and therefore, I live by it. You may not believe it, and I'm going to disagree but unless you're going to do anything I percieve as harmful, I'm not going to beat you over the head with it or make laws or rules against you.
Only a major shift in public thought will take sex out of film and books. I find this very unlikely. Many people don't give a second thought to pre- and extra-marital sex.
Cigarettes, which are not a natural part of human life, will remain in film and books for as long as people smoke them. Sex will remain in films for as long as people have it, and I have a feeling it's not going to be dying out very soon. Hollywood puts pre-marital sex into its movies partially because it sells but partially because it probably partakes in it. As I said, many people don't give a second thought to pre-marital sex because, where they grew up, on in the world around them, it's perfectly normal. It's not irresponsible, it's just the way it is.
I had something else to say but I've forgotten what it is.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Puppy:
I agree with your views on judgement and morals and believe me when I say I am the farthest thing from a relativist when it comes to ethics and morals. I simply believe that the point in question has nothing for me to judge upon unless it actually affects me. How is engaging in premarital sex, with the same partner, in the hopes of marrying later, worse than having sex once they're married? Does marriage suddenly put a positive spin on sex? Why?
quote:kindness, honesty, honor, respect, fidelity
Are all of these qualities lost once a couple who loves each other engages in sexual activity before marriage? My point is that their actions as a couple do not negatively affect the world around them if they're careful. Judging based on the merits of each individual relationship makes more sense to me than judging people using blanket statements and definitions.
You can't just group the relationships according to premarital and marital sex. These conditions in as of themselves are amoral, the only things that factor here are the merits of the couple.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually i didn't see Puppy's statements as moralistic at all, but coldly pragmatic. Much the way a parent would tell a child not to play with a knife even when that child is more than mature enough to handle it carefully. While the parent has no fear for that child, the other child, the one known to be not so careful, would be watching and taking it as permission to do the same...
And were that the only outcome, that people who didn't need restrictions to avoid harm must honor them anyway so that people who did wouldn't try to emulate what for them would be risky behavior, I'd sigh and go along with it.
But the people raised on "this is bad" who fail to see the root causes as to exactly why "this" is bad tend to extrapolate from those simplistic lessons into needlessly overgeneralized Truths. They may begin to fear knives, and want to ban them entirely or ostracize those who said idly that knives could be fun. Many of them vote.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It is entirely possible to have a responsible sexual relationship outside of the bond of marriage. It is also entirely possible to be completely irresponsible within the bounds of the marriage relationship.
Looking backwards fondly on a supposedly more responsible decade in our history is not very useful, it seems to me. The return to those days would also likely involve a return to other things about society that we wouldn't necessarily view as positive.
Are we better off if we never talk about sex?
Are women better off if they are expected to fill certain specified roles and no others?
Are we better off if the "races" don't mix?
Are we better off if homosexuals have to hide their sexuality and "fit in?"
Those were also the standards of responsible sexual behavior before the sexual revolution of the 1960's. Or so some would have us believe.
There was more to the sexual revolution than "free love." And not everyone went along with that "movement" either. What happened in the 1960's was a lot deeper than just a few people deciding that they didn't have to turn into their parents. Even those parents decided that they'd been too much bound to authority. It was a time when our government engaged in some collosally stupid blunders and it culminated in the resignation of a President. That didn't happen because of free love. It happened because the government was corrupt and people stopped trusting their leaders as a consequence.
That's a pretty liberating thing too.
America has never been the same since.
It was the liars and the cheaters and the folks who were willing to send 18 year olds to their death to defend an ideology that they were undermining in back rooms... And it was because people were more educated than ever before in our history.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom: I'm speaking specifically about Promiscuity, not other problems that existed in the past.
I'm also speaking specifically about promiscuity. What makes you think that our society is, historically speaking, any more or less promiscuous than those of our ancestors?
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Frisco said -
quote:B: I've gotten no diseases, spread no diseases, and fathered no unwanted children. What you call a horrible failure I call "A whole lotta headboard-banging fun". To each his own.
Me too baby! Except I've mothered no unwanted children. The more I see you the more I like you Frisco. I don't think my boyfriend will ever get married, he is much too libertarian and thinks the government does not belong in marriage. I guess I see his point, though I really rather would get married eventually. Hey, if he doesn't come around you want to do some headboard banging with me? Treason made a joke. Nobody jump down her throat for it! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why joke? Frisco's hawt. Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Oh, Tom! You must be thinking about yourself again. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Tom just called Frisco hawt.
Is it warm in here, or is it just me?
On a completely unrelated note, I just found out I'm a sodomite. O_O *giggle*
*skips through the thread, handing out flavored condoms and love beads*
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
lmao
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Aren't well, Livvy, aren't we all?
Tom is hawt. Frisco is hawt. Livvy is hawt.
Hooray for hawtness! Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*dons pvc hip boots and does the dance of hawtness*
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Awesome.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You know, I don't think it makes much difference whether you are formally married or just married in practice. The piece of paper is just symbolic. What really matters is the commitment, because it is the commitment to maintain that bond through thick and thin that dissolves most of the big problems with premarital sex. So as far as I'm concerned, if you are committed in the way married people are, it doesn't matter if you are joined de jure or de facto. It's only really premarital sex if that commitment is not there.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Well, if you believe that paper isn't necessary, than it's not "premarital" it's "extra-marital" but, you know. i'm being a nitpicker :0p
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
OK, Frisco shouldn't be allowed to talk about his sex life, especially with the phrase "A whole lotta headboard-banging fun".
It's 1 AM here and now I gotta take a cold shower before bed. Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
"Aren't well, Livvy, aren't we all?
Tom is hawt. Frisco is hawt. Livvy is hawt.
Hooray for hawtness! "
Aren't I hawt too? sniff..didn't y'all see my rack in the favourite character trait thread? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:When you know that cheating on your spouse will result in all your friends thinking you're a worthless lowlife, then you're less likely to cheat on your spouse.
The problem I have with this whole line of thinking is that this is not actually true. Oh, in the isolated, individual case when a person is directly weighing the costs and benefits, yeah it weighs against cheating on your wife. However, in a wider, developemental sense, looking at morality this way makes you more, rather than less likely to cheat on your wife. It's just that when you do, you try not to get caught.
External reward/punishment versions of morality don't work that great in terms of preventing the things they set out to prevent. Generally, they just foster repression, which leads to unresolved, buidling pressure that can't be addressed consciously. Besides this, they hinder moral maturation such that people get stuck in the reward/punsihment mode, which focuses morality on getting caught.
[ September 02, 2005, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
So ... how would you deal with the repression of an urge that you actually believe shouldn't be acted upon? Like the desires of a child molester or a wife-beater? Is it unhealthy for them to repress their desires, and is it unhealthy for society to exert social pressure for such people to rein themselves in, even in the absence of legal punishments like jail time? Are such people simply lost causes because apparently, nothing can stop them from doing what they want to do without making them "unhealthy"?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
"Unhealthy" = the new "Evil"
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I'm just wondering if Frisco has fathered any wanted children.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Why joke? Frisco's hawt.
Tom, that's like the Hatrack Sex Thread version of Godwin's Law.
Also, you made me blush like a little boy.
quote:The more I see you the more I like you Frisco.
That's usually how it goes with me. Oh, wait, you didn't say the more you see of me...
quote:Aren't I hawt too? sniff..didn't y'all see my rack in the favourite character trait thread?
All I gathered from that picture was that you're not a professional photographer.
quote:On a completely unrelated note, I just found out I'm a sodomite.
That seems like something you would notice happening to you.
quote:It's 1 AM here and now I gotta take a cold shower before bed.
Sorry Karl...I can put my nude pics back in my Foobonic album if it'll help.
quote:I'm just wondering if Frisco has fathered any wanted children.
Like I'd tell anyone as obsessed with having my children as you are if I did.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
After having read the majority of these posts, I've had to sit and seriously think about how I feel about the link between pre-marital sex / living together before getting married and social irresponsibility.
I dated a great girl for about six months, and we were falling deeper and deeper in love with each other. We talked about marriage, because we were both considering the other as a serious candidate for the position of life partner. But we both decided that it would be wise to wait until we had an opportunity to live together before we committed to anything, even an engagement.
Eventually, we moved in together, because we felt we were ready - with the firm intent of getting engaged and, eventually, married. Remember that we were very deeply in love with each other. We discovered, however, that despite our amazing chemistry as people, we just couldn't live together. Things that we had written off as minor differences ended up being too serious to ignore. I'm a very neat person by nature; she's fairly messy, but neither of us thought unlivably so. She's a rapid-fire channel changer and I like watching one thing at a time, but previously this was something that we could laugh and tease about. She's an "under" toilet paper person; I'm an "over." The list of little differences goes on since we are, after all, two different people.
After six months, neither of us wanted this to continue. We recognized that too many of our little habits were incompatible for a marriage to work - we would have constantly been annoyed with the other person for something or other. I don't think there was any way for us to discover the extent of these differences or how deeply they would affect us without living together.
I should mention that we did engage in pre-marital sex, but it was a non-issue: we were very, very well protected (pill + latex), the sex was good, and it wasn't the central focus of our relationship.
Wasn't what we did the socially responsible thing to do? Isn't it better that we discovered these incompatabilities before we went into a marriage?
I agree that promiscuous pre-marital sex is generally socially irresponsible, but I don't see why living with someone - and sleeping with them - prior to getting married is such an issue, if you've thought it out beforehand.
It's like how I feel about pre-nuptial agreements: a lot of people think that if you need to be thinking about what will happen if your marriage ends, then you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. While I can certainly see this being true, I will never get married without a pre-nup, because unforseeable things happen. People make mistakes. My ex and I made one in thinking we were potential life partners. Does that make us irresponsible people? Or does that make us more responsible than people who don't consider these possibilities beforehand?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> I will never get married without a pre-nup, because unforseeable things happen.
@ irony.
[ramble] I'm happy that everyone who engages in pre-marital sexual relations doesn't wind up with unwanted children. I'm grateful that they use protection to keep from getting diseases, and I think that sexual education should be taught in publically funded schools, at appropriate ages, so that if kids decide to be sexually active, they know how to protect themselves (at least physically).
The terrible thing about this topic is that very few people can look at it objectively. Witness the "I'm sexually active and single, and responsible," lines given by just about everyone who's posted who disagrees with my POV.
I certainly am not objective-- I've taken care of too many babies with no fathers to be objective. I've seen too many single moms run themselves into the ground trying to work to support a baby in a society that has no mercy for child-rearers, married or not.
At this point, objectivity is out the window, along with the idea of responsible sex before marriage-- they flew the coop together.
If everyone who decided to have sex before marriage had a relationship with their partner like AJ reports to have with hers, my secular worries would be significantly eased. I still think it's irresponsible, but that may be prejudice and obstinance, not logical thinking. The problem is, I don't see much of that type of relationship. What I see is people using other people's bodies, and running away quickly when their souls start to get involved. . . or, Heaven forbid, a baby gets involved.
[/ramble]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Or just email me a copy
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Geoff,
The problem with societal pressure is that it doesn't actually work very well. Sure, it works for those who wish to be fully integrated into that society -- be part of a church for example -- but for those who just want the trappings of society, all they have to do is wear a beard.
You put a lot of pressure on people to conform and the ones who don't want to conform just take on the outward appearance. And, yes, I'll use the unhealthy word. I don't think it equates to "evil." What it equates to is a lot of people living double lives and bowing to an authority they fear rather than one they actually believe in.
It doesn't last.
It's not healthy or stable.
Eventually people throw off the yoke of any repressive external controls that they don't actually believe in.
And that's why it hasn't worked in the past (without things like absolute economic control being vested in the "morality police"). We aren't really talking a change in the overall sum of good and evil here. What I think we're talking about is whether or not the world can be made inoffensive externally to those who don't want to see this "bad behavior" in their environment.
It won't stop it. It'll just make it so you can't see it.
Would it maybe not lead to less of it because there's less enticing "advertising" around? Sure. But what are we really talking about? Do you really think that people won't find ways to go against the approved standards if they could figure out a way to avoid exposure?
And we'll all be horribly shocked and shun the people who do it...right?
Nah.
It's not gonna happen.
And the reason it's not going to happen is because the only way that sort of thing works is if people willingly take on the restrictions they live under. And that's the part that isn't going to occur. Even when it looked like it was the way things worked, it wasn't. How likely would such a move be now when people have experienced the ability to live the life they want to out in the open?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Besides, of course, there's absolutely no solution to the problem of people disagreeing fundamentally over what the societally-approved standards of behavior ought to be.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Eventually, we moved in together, because we felt we were ready - with the firm intent of getting engaged and, eventually, married. Remember that we were very deeply in love with each other. We discovered, however, that despite our amazing chemistry as people, we just couldn't live together. Things that we had written off as minor differences ended up being too serious to ignore. I'm a very neat person by nature; she's fairly messy, but neither of us thought unlivably so. She's a rapid-fire channel changer and I like watching one thing at a time, but previously this was something that we could laugh and tease about. She's an "under" toilet paper person; I'm an "over." The list of little differences goes on since we are, after all, two different people.
There is some wisdom in this post - and yes, it sounds good when people say "Well, it's better to live together to make sure we really, REALLY like each other enough, and that way avoid a divorce."
It makes sense, it really does. So I'm having a hard time articulating why I find it so distressing.
I think it's because it feels to me, like it's saying "Gee, I know marriage is supposed to be about making a lifetime commitment, but see, I want to try you out first, and make sure that living with you is going to bring me all the satisfaction I want before I make the real commitment." It takes the focus of what should be two people coming together to make a life together and instead saying "it's all about ME, and about what I want from this relationship so I'm going to make sure you can fulfill my desires first before I make a commitment that's harder to break."
I'm not saying everyone who lived together before marriage feels that way, or is thinking that way. But that is why I have a problem with that attitude, I feel like it's taking the true focus away and putting it on selfish needs. It sounds to me like it's painting marriage in a light of something that is supposed to bring this person selfish satisfaction. To go back to the cow thing, this is not buying the cow or even wanting to get milk for free, but wanting to keep the cow for a while with the ability to still return if it you find out later that you don't like the cow as much as you thought you would.
And I'm a hypocrite here - folks, because my husband and I did live together after getting engaged but before marriage. I wish we had not, because with age and experience for me has come the ability to look back and say I made some wrong choices in my life. I believe this is one of them. Even though it turned out all right, even though we've been married for almost 14 years and even though we got no diseases or had no out-of-wedlock children, I still think it was a mistake, because I don't believe we were looking at marriage in the right way. I think both of us were looking at it in that selfish manner I described above. With time we've come to respect marriage more and deepen our commitment and we have what I think is a fantastic marriage.
Many people who live together before marriage have stories like ours, they have become wonderfully strong marriages and the people in those marriages benefit society greatly, I think. But many people have other stories, with serious consequences like women who are trying to raise children on their own. And men, too, incidentally, let's not forget there are men out there raising kids after women decided the whole marriage and motherhood gig wasn't for them and skipped out.
So it then goes back to what Chris and Geoff talked about on the other page. I'm a kid that was warned about the knife, picked it up anyway and didn't get hurt. Does that mean that no one should ever warn kids about knives again, because I turned out okay? Of course not. I do think there are disadvantages to living together before marriage, and I'll continue to say that and believe it and it's what I'll tell my children.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Besides, of course, there's absolutely no solution to the problem of people disagreeing fundamentally over what the societally-approved standards of behavior ought to be.
Yes there is - reason, free speech, and trial & error.
And if we are too impatient for that, there's always war.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:
quote:On a completely unrelated note, I just found out I'm a sodomite.
That seems like something you would notice happening to you.
That depends entirely on how many shots of Scotch were involved.
Seriously though, I looked up the definition after someone on another thread wondered if Fred Phelps even knew what it meant. I had thought it only applied to acts between same-sex partners (probably because of the uneven prosecution of most 'sodomy' laws, in practice).
*scampers off to buy "Pervert" t-shirt*
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Eventually, we moved in together, because we felt we were ready - with the firm intent of getting engaged and, eventually, married. Remember that we were very deeply in love with each other. We discovered, however, that despite our amazing chemistry as people, we just couldn't live together. Things that we had written off as minor differences ended up being too serious to ignore. I'm a very neat person by nature; she's fairly messy, but neither of us thought unlivably so. She's a rapid-fire channel changer and I like watching one thing at a time, but previously this was something that we could laugh and tease about. She's an "under" toilet paper person; I'm an "over." The list of little differences goes on since we are, after all, two different people.
Most of my friends lived with their girlfriends before they got married, so I certainly understand this line of thought. And I can't say I won't do the same, once I meet a girl I feel like talking to more than once.
But let's call this scenario A. Allow me to propose a similar, but different, scenario B:
You don't live with your girlfriend. You get married instead. Chemistry is great, and you're deeply in love. All the same problems crop up in the first year of marriage. But instead of letting them drive you both crazy, you know you have to work through them and give your marriage a real shot. You decide you don't care which way the TP rolls. She makes a conscious effort not to drive the remote like she's on a meth bender. You agree to pick up after her if she agrees to really try to keep her messes minimized.
In short, in a marriage, you take away the 'easy out' clause that exists in every relationship. So things that are deal breakers when you're single can be worked around when you're married, because marriage means something. It's this flying without a net aspect that makes people totally commit to each other when married.
I don't think your problems were all that unusual, and you might could have made it work.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:You don't live with your girlfriend. You get married instead. Chemistry is great, and you're deeply in love. All the same problems crop up in the first year of marriage. But instead of letting them drive you both crazy, you know you have to work through them and give your marriage a real shot. You decide you don't care which way the TP rolls. She makes a conscious effort not to drive the remote like she's on a meth bender. You agree to pick up after her if she agrees to really try to keep her messes minimized.
Amen. I am married to someone every bit as "different" a person as me, if not more so. But it is true, when you are married and committed to that marriage, you make it work. When you have no such committment, it is so much easier to decide it isn't worth it and go your separate ways.
Whether or not you think this is a bad thing depends on the person.
I really like what Belle said as well. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So how would you deal with the repression of an urge that you actually believe shouldn't be acted upon? Like the desires of a child molester or a wife-beater?
I think punishment of the actual harm is sufficient.
--------------
quote: We recognized that too many of our little habits were incompatible for a marriage to work - we would have constantly been annoyed with the other person for something or other.
Hm. On a related note, I submit that one of the advantages of marriage as a formal promise of committment is that it gives people a reason to say, "Okay, yeah, the toilet paper thing annoys me, but since I've already promised to spend my whole life with you, we're going to either work it out or get over it." Lacking that kind of formalized agreement, truly petty things like channel-changing frequency can be deal-killers, whereas -- ideally -- they wouldn't be if you had made more permanent promises to each other.
quote: My ex and I made one in thinking we were potential life partners. Does that make us irresponsible people?
IMO, without knowing any more about the situation than you laid out here, what makes you irresponsible is ditching someone you thought you loved well enough to spend your life with because they didn't hang toilet paper correctly. Couples gripe about that kind of thing, but they don't usually gripe about it seriously; actually basing your relationship decisions on that sort of pettiness is a sign of weak character.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, Tom... a bit harsh there, don't you think?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. No, I don't. If I had ditched Christy six months into living with her because she liked wallpaper borders and I didn't, I would have missed out on the best decision I ever made in my whole freakin' life.
That's not to say that there may not have been more serious reasons behind their breakup, and those might've been good reasons to end it, but the two cited -- channel-changing and toilet paper hanging -- are pretty pathetic.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I see your point, but it could be accurate while still being harsh.
I mean, I still get upset when people remind me of mistakes I recognize that I made during previous relationships. Those sort of "what if" situations are pretty upsetting.
Posted by Thantos_2000 (Member # 8285) on :
I just read the most recent review by OCS. This always strikes me strange how he keeps saying that people are portraying sex completely wrong. He keeps saying that people don’t just jump into bed with each other with out getting married. It seems that this is exactly how it act. It leads to loads of unwed mothers and fatherless children. I work in management with over 600 people and it’s such a norm for people to have children out of wed lock. I just assume that if a young lady is under 25 and has a child it’s out of wed lock.
I know that’s not what us conservatives want, but still to say this is not an accurate portrayal of life in our time is a mistake. It would be more appropriate to say this type of portrayal of life is what leads to heartache. It’s that heartache that never seems to get the attention it deserves. Or to say it glorifies the action and never really shows the consequences of those actions. I don’t like the fact that this is how life is but I also don’t hide my eyes from it’s reality.
why not say it's reality and the reality is cripling society?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't think he was being deliberately wrong, though. I think he just moves in different circles than many of us. Focus determines reality, as they say.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I think he just moves in different circles than many of us.
Yeah, guess I should stay away from Greensboro, NC.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yup to Olivet. The majority of my friends, for example, waited until marriage to have sex. They also don't drink or do drugs. In my family, however, there have been prostitutes and children born outside of wedlock (the two not necessarily related), plus there are substance abusers.
Two totally different circles, two totally different sets of behaviors. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Now where are these circles? They sound like nice places to be to me.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Which one? The no-sex abstaining ones? Or the prostituting substance abusers? Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well since I make threads about no-sex abstaining, it's obviously the prostituting substance abusers ones I want. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think they are largely Mormon circles, though most of the people I knew growing up believed in waiting for marriage. Or said they did. Not sure how that worked out for most of them in practical terms.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
pfresh, yeah, I should have put the two together.
Yeah, my circles of no-sex friends are primarily LDS. Not to say that it works out for everyone - for some, I'm sure it doesn't. After all, LDS people are no more perfect than the rest of the population.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I think all of OSCs criticizers need to remember that OSC has two strikes against him in writing about American culture: He is older than just about everyone on this board and he is a member of a very conservative subculture. When you add those things up you see that the world OSC lives in may be very different than the one many of you live in- kind of like a time machine.
In the world Orson lives in, one needs to be married in order to be considered a mature adult. That is because for a long time it was a societal responsibility to raise children up as best you could and to support others who were doing the same thing. There are things which parents learn which are simply not available for your average single person to know otherwise, hence the prejudice.
That same bit of cultural understanding carries through in sexual relations too. Why was it common for a long time to have chaperones and limit contact between the sexes etc.? Because they knew exactly how hard it is to control one's sexual urges, especially when one is young and foolish. If the business of people was to develop strong communities and civilized children then all of these things make perfect sense.
However, at some point the business of people started to change into something else. It became more about doing what you like than taking responsibility. Then it became all about doing what you like and avoiding responsibility like the plague, and blaming everyone and everything else for any shortcoming or misfortune you might have.
And that is the world that many of us live in, and from there OSC's world is truly bizarro.
But really, most of us recognize that maybe the world of pure selfishness isn't really very good for us, and so we challenge its values in one area or another, and we live lives which are a sort of odd hybrid of the old way and the new way. But the new way seems to make greater inroads all o fthe time, and many of those who can still see the old way don't think that this is such a great thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: However, at some point the business of people started to change into something else. It became more about doing what you like than taking responsibility. Then it became all about doing what you like and avoiding responsibility like the plague, and blaming everyone and everything else for any shortcoming or misfortune you might have.
And that is the world that many of us live in.
Speak for yourself, will you? The world you just described doesn't look even slightly like the world I'm living in.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Tom, cut him some slack. It's like you and me trying to imagine what life is like on Mars, when we've been indoctrinated to believe that there is no life on Mars. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Speak for yourself, will you? The world you just described doesn't look even slightly like the world I'm living in.
Oh. Then you must be living in some bizarro world unrecognizable to any of the rest of us normal human beings.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
See, I thought that Jacare made a lot of sense in that post.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think some of us object to being lumped in with "Then it became all about doing what you like and avoiding responsibility like the plague, and blaming everyone and everything else for any shortcoming or misfortune you might have" even though we do see that it society at large.
I thought he expressed himself well, as well. But the "my way is like this" and "everyone else is like THIS" is a bit annoying.
Generalizations are often wrong in the specifics.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:I think punishment of the actual harm is sufficient.
So prevention isn't a priority for you, then? Bob makes a point that if you apply social pressure to a person who already wants to do things a certain way, you can easily fail. But if someone grows up in a certain society with certain priorities and rules and expectations that are ingrained in them throughout their youth, they are (in my experience) more likely to adhere to such standards that someone who merely looks on them from the outside, or has them foisted upon them unwillingly later on.
I know a great many young LDS people who have made responsible choices during trying times in their lives, where in another culture, there would have been no reason for those same kids not to drink and sleep around — not because they are particularly irresponsible and self-destructive, but because that behavior is "just what kids do" in some other segments of our society, and that decision is treated as irrelevant to their character.
They made the choices they made because they valued having grown up in this society that expects a certain standard of behavior from them. So even when they themselves were temporarily shortsighted or irresponsible, our culture was a bit of a safety net, encouraging mature, responsible choices, even when they weren't necessarily being made for the "rightest" of reasons. Later, these same folks looked at some of their friends who made different choices, and were grateful they had been encouraged make the more difficult, but responsible decisions.
Of course, there are always people who don't live up to the expectations, or who disagree with them and leave. This happens more often the wider the gap becomes between our subculture and the larger, surrounding culture.
But I've seen this work. That's why I believe in it. I think that if you leave young people completely free, without some kind of structure, guidance, positive expectations, and consequences for early decisions, sure ... they'll like you more, and they'll feel more free. But down the road, you won't have any coming back to you and thanking you for having been tough with them when they needed it most.
Marriage, as an institution, is valuable to me within my subculture, because it says, "When you want to mate with someone, you don't just screw around. You bond yourself to them forever, support them through hardship, and stick around to take care of the children. If you don't want to do this, you're not ready to mate." It doesn't give people, including myself, excuses to be irresponsible.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I thought he expressed himself well, as well. But the "my way is like this" and "everyone else is like THIS" is a bit annoying.
Generalizations are often wrong in the specifics.
Maybe you missed where I said "But really, most of us recognize that maybe the world of pure selfishness isn't really very good for us, and so we challenge its values in one area or another, and we live lives which are a sort of odd hybrid of the old way and the new way. But the new way seems to make greater inroads all o fthe time, and many of those who can still see the old way don't think that this is such a great thing.
The pure selfishness, as I view it, is really sort of an abstract "meme" going about trying to infect people. Essentially everyone buys into it to one extent or another. After all, most of us would agree that it isn't a bad thing to want to live a comfortable life. What changes is the definition of "comfortable" and the lengths we are willing to go to in order to secure it. For example, would you be willing to sue a fast food company because you abdicated all responsibility for your child's nutrition and as a result he is obese? Our society has gotten to a point where this scenario is very realistic.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Oh, yeah, Olivet, I understand what you're saying completely, but I don't think Jacare's statement is an all-or-nothing situation. I do think that it is, in some ways, a pretty fair description for some trends. How accurate is it for the population as a whole? Less than all and more than none. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So prevention isn't a priority for you, then?
Only in the same way that the prevention of murder is a priority for me. Saying "we believe this behavior causes clear, direct harm to a human being, and is therefore bad and should be discouraged" is considerably unlike saying "we believe this behavior might inspire other behaviors which in turn might produce other behaviors which could lead to doing something harmful to someone else, and therefore should be discouraged."
-----
quote: But really, most of us recognize that maybe the world of pure selfishness isn't really very good for us, and so we challenge its values in one area or another, and we live lives which are a sort of odd hybrid of the old way and the new way
What I disagree with, Jacare, is your definition of "the new way." I don't think you understand what that "new way" is at all. In fact, I think selfishness isn't an inherent component of either way, but that it's present in both ways to an equal degree.
[ September 02, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I hate to say it, because it's cliche. But from the outside of the LDS faith, many people's gut level reaction to things like Jacare and Puppy are saying is, (and I know I'm generalizing and the culture is different from the religion etc etc)
"Yeah... I know that's how your sub-culture works... But it can't be "healthy" over the long term... for crying out loud why does Utah have the highest rate of anti-depressant use in the country?... if anything it's laughable."
I understand that is the broadest cliche, but I *have* heard it many times in non-LDS circles, as almost a party joke. And yes, correlation is not cause... but at the same time, it is a verifiable fact that Utah does have the highest anti-depressant use in the country. It appears those closest to the spiritual seat of their religion aren't exactly necessarily "healthy" about it.
You could call it a PR problem. But only on Hatrack have I actually seen the dichotomy drawn, between the LDS religion and the LDS culture. It's possible that this board simply attracts more of the sort of statistical outliers that live outside the culture to one degree or another and are forced to make the dichotomy in order to have intellectual consistency in their own lives. The recent General Authorities writings that I've read, do not seem to draw the same distinction in any emphatic matter.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, MY only problem with the whole thing is this line of thought:
1) The "New Way" is all about being selfish. 2) Sleeping with people without being married to them is part of the "New Way." 3) Sleeping with people without being married to them is inherently "selfish." 4) While we're at it, other components of the "New Way" can be similarly assumed to be selfish, too.
Every single one of those points is of course full of fallacy, not least of which is the idea that promiscuity is somehow more common today than it was in the 1800s. But to varying degrees, I've seen all of them expressed or assumed on this thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I understand that is the broadest cliche, but I *have* heard it many times in non-LDS circles, as almost a party joke. And yes, correlation is not cause... but at the same time, it is a verifiable fact that Utah does have the highest anti-depressant use in the country. It appears those closest to the spiritual seat of their religion aren't exactly necessarily "healthy" about it.
This isn't even speculation - I have no opinion about what the true reason is, nor do I actually care much.
But it is certainly possible that the increased use of anti-depressants represents increased use among non-LDS who see a tight-knit community all around them but cannot belong to it.
Again, I'm not saying this is true. But it's at least one plausible hypothesis for the data point "Utah has higher per-capita anti-depressant use than any other state."
Of course, this could be dismissed easily with a study that looked at the rates of anti-depressant use by religion and found no difference between LDS and non-LDS use in Utah (or greater LDS use). I have no idea if such studies have been done already or not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think talking about promiscuity in the past is pretty dead end for either party.
No one kept records. . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But it is certainly possible that the increased use of anti-depressants represents increased use among non-LDS who see a tight-knit community all around them but cannot belong to it.
Heck, it might just be a consequence of wanting to drown one's sorrows in something other than decaf soda. j/k
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
That's actually what I'm wondering Tom. Did the advent of birth control *actually* increase promiscuity or not?
Did it actually perhaps equalize between the sexes? Prostitution in other times and places was/is a reputable profession. So you had some women who were highly promiscuious and others much, much less, but I'm guessing that the rate among males was basically even across the board.
It's possible it averaged out exactly the same as today, it's just birth control probably brought the extremes on the female side closer together.
AJ
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: What I disagree with, Jacare, is your definition of "the new way." I don't think you understand what that "new way" is at all. In fact, I think selfishness isn't an inherent component of either way, but that it's present of both ways to an equal degree.
Well, I guess we are even then because I don't think that you understand what the new way is either.
Here is a bit more depth into what I think has happened. From the foundation of this nation we enshrined the ideas of "freedom" and "liberty" into our national culture. Most people understand that such ideas can only be meaningful when the ideas of responsibility, consequence and restraint are equally present. The problem is that the latter ideas cannot be legislated- they must be inculcated through culture.
In the United States two related trends have occurred in recent decades have served to undermine the necessary emphasis on responsibility. These are: the greater acceptance of diversity and the greater emphasis on individual freedom. Most people would likely agree that these two concepts are good things. However, here is what the result has been: acceptance of greater diversity means that cultural values are seen as individual choice. This includes values such as the previously dominant Christian morality. Most cultures have a set of social expectations similar to Christian morality, so this greater diversity in itself changes little; however, when coupled with the idea of greater individual freedom things do change. It started out as things like the civil rights movement and movement for equality for women. Then it moved on to things which directly contradicted many previous moral codes like abortion, and now homosexual marriage. But in order to achieve "freedom" in, for example, abortion, a fundamental change in how we view responsibility is required. Abortion for reasons other than rape or health reasons is a fundamentally selfish choice- people having sex seek to evade the natural consequence, and in completely unregulated abortion this decision can come even at the expense of killing an all-but-independent baby.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Dagonee it is possible, and that had crossed my mind. However, I wasn't looking at it as "hard science" I was looking at it as a meme. If the latter is actually true, it's still a PR problem on the part of the LDS community.
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:No one kept records. . .
You obviously never met my grandmother.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. So to you, all societal changes are representative of "the new way," which you're defining as a product of '60s leftist activism?
Yeah, I don't see that at all.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, I have a funny story about that, Noemon. . .
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Scott R
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: It started out as things like the civil rights movement and movement for equality for women. Then it moved on to things which directly contradicted many previous moral codes like abortion, and now homosexual marriage. But in order to achieve "freedom" in, for example, abortion, a fundamental change in how we view responsibility is required. Abortion for reasons other than rape or health reasons is a fundamentally selfish choice- people having sex seek to evade the natural consequence, and in completely unregulated abortion this decision can come even at the expense of killing an all-but-independent baby.
I'm a little taken aback that you lump civil rights for women in with things you obviously consider negatives, like abortion and gay marriage. Without getting into arguments based on these things, do you really hold the belief that it would be better for women not to have equal rights as men? Do you apply that to all gains made by various civil rights movements (one of the big sources of the push for diversity that you seem to disapprove of)?
[ September 02, 2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, I think he's saying that a consequence of revisiting certain standards was ultimately the revisiting of ALL standards, and that he doesn't believe that the right choice was made in the case of each standard.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As a side comment, I've always thought it funny how, even if a "decline in societal responsibility" and an "increase in premarital sex" have a correlation that is causal in nature, people always seem to assume that the increase in premarital sex causes the decline in societal responsibility, instead of the decline in societal responsibility (likely from a number of complex causes) leading to the increase in premarital sex.
Because, y'know, it doesn't exactly make sense to me that there are these people believing in societal responsibility, who start having premarital sex, and then experience a decline in their social responsibility.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
To actually find the studies on LDS/utah and depression, one has to google through tons and tons of pro LDS/ anti LDS stuff that's out there on the web. Since I haven't actually gotten *to* the studies yet, this illustrates my point that regardless of the facts, the meme is more powerful.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe the reason for the higher than normal use of antidepressants in Utah is because there is less self medication with other things. Many fewer alcoholics = more peope on whateverdrugitis.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
200.
I have spawned a new page. Witness me in all my fecund glory.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:No, I think he's saying that a consequence of revisiting certain standards was ultimately the revisiting of ALL standards, and that he doesn't believe that the right choice was made in the case of each standard.
Ok; I guess I can see that in his post, although it seems a little...gray to me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: 200.
I have spawned a new page. Witness me in all my fecund glory.
But were you married when you did it?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Every single one of those points is of course full of fallacy, not least of which is the idea that promiscuity is somehow more common today than it was in the 1800s. But to varying degrees, I've seen all of them expressed or assumed on this thread.
I think that promiscuity rates are actually irrelevant. It is the societal reaction to and view of promiscuity which is important. I think that you would agree that today sleeping together without being married is much more acceptable than at any other time in American history.
quote:Ah. So to you, all societal changes are representative of "the new way," which you're defining as a product of '60s leftist activism?
What I am calling the "new way" is the radical departure from previous views of morality. And no, I do not see this as a product of 60's activism. I see it as a product of several trends of which 60's activism is an illustration.
quote: I'm a little taken aback that you lump civil rights for women in with things you obviously consider negatives, like abortion and gay marriage. Without getting into arguments based on these things, do you really hold the believe that it would be better for women not to have equal rights as men? Do you apply that to all gains made by various civil rights movements (one of the big sources of the push for diversity that you seem to disapprove of)?
As a matter of fact I think that your response is a very good indication of what I am talking about here. I see civil rights, woman's lib, homosexual marriage, abortion etc. all as an extension of the same trend towards individual freedom. In part this is because advocates of each of these movements have deliberately done their best to portray the movements in this light.
The difference that I see in whether these things are good or bad is in their effects on individual responsibility. Woman's lib and Civil rights were about more, not less personal responsibility while, as I have said I view abortion as a direct attack against the idea of personal responsibility. Homosexual marriage is a more complex issue and I don't want to explode this thread with that particular debate.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Premarital spawning: they don't make salmon like they ust'er.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>But were you married when you did it?
Quite. My wife says labor was a cinch.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, you piker.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Katie, it's quite possible. It's also possible there are genetic issues involved. I'm not *agreeing* with the meme because the hard data is clearly difficult to come by.
What I am saying, that the cultural meme *exists* and it's powerful. And I don't think many LDS, because they are, often more focused on their own lives within the LDS framework, realize how strong it is, external to that framework. (Actually you are probably one of the exceptions, but that's a different discussion)
It isn't anti-lds in particularly vindictive lynch-mob way, it's more of, if anything, a condescending (and insulting), "look at those stupid repressed people, no wonder they are miserable" kind of way.
I did see reports of a recent LDS generated study saying "happiness" was ranked higher in LDS women, than the national average. However being unable to find much reference to raw data, I'm skeptical until I can find out how rigorously the variables were measured and treated. It also doesn't report whether the women were medicated or unmedicated either.
AJ
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Banna- As Dagonee said, the greater use of anti-depressants in Utah can be explained by many other factors which have nothing to do with religion. Some of the most obvious:
Occurrence of clinical depression in women may be linked to hormonal changes such as those which occur during pregnancy. Utah has a higher birth rate than most of the rest of the nation.
Clinical depression is at least partly genetic. Perhaps utah simply has more family lines which carry the genes for depression. The high birthrate would tend to propagate these lines.
Most likely the reasons are a result of many interacting complex factors.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Incidentally, here in the East, most of the LDS I know are averse to using anti-depressants. Kind of a knee-jerk, "I don't need no drugs," attitude.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(Jaccare, see my above response) However, I would say perceptions, can and often do become their own realities, without any sort of rigorous logical treatment at all.
And I think it has happened in both the LDS and non-LDS sectors on this subject.
AJ
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Ron once dreamed that the Mormon Missionaries visiting us were ostriches. In the dream, he opened the door and there were ostritches, wearing name tags, pecking at the screen.
He thought it was amusing, but when he told them about the dream, they never came came back.
I submit this story as evidence that Mormons are unreasonably ostritch-phobic.
( )
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Olivet- who wouldn't be afraid of turning into an ostrich? All of those feather duster manufacturers after your tail feathers...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It makes me very uncomfortable to have so many people talking about pre-marital and extra-marital sex like there's something desperately wrong with it. It's just so alien to me...
Reproduction is a major part of animal life; however, marriage is a thing invented by people to add some sort of stability to the reproductive cycle. Marriage is not a “beautiful thing”. It had little to do with love for years and years, and was merely useful economically and socially. Marriage was abusive; if not in the obvious way but in the way that it made people follow and fit into a pattern that was very, very difficult to break: A man had to marry a woman and keep her in check or risk being ridiculed. A woman had to marry a man and keep her head down or out of sight or risk shame and stigma. Why is this considered “good”?
In the sixties, a time I consider held extremely important and good changes, this idea was challenged. What had marriage ever done for the generations before this? They rejected marriage not because they were irresponsible or immoral but because until then, marriage had not been this mythical fairy-tale thing. They wanted to focus on love. The sexual revolution, I guess, though I don't know if I'm using that term correctly.
We are now in the sexual counterrevolution. We must be. People are starting to talk of taboos and the sacred beautiful institution of marriage. What sacred institution of marriage? It doesn't exist! Marriage exists; a partnership of humans to seal love as forever. But is every marriage forever? Is every marriage bringing out the best in both people? Perfect marriage is largely a myth.
But everyone knows that. Some marriages are going to fail; end in tears, violence, abuse or even death. So how, in reality, can we expect people in this day and age who know all they know about history and oppression, who can see in the world around them they good things the sixties brought, to treat marriage like something perfect, something good enough to wait for, however long it takes? So many people have had children out of wedlock and survived and been very happy. So many people have had their children in wedlock and had it end in a bitter and destructive war. Marriage is not going to do away with social irresponsibility, and I think everyone knows it. Nothing will ever do that.
We need to find a way, instead of holding up marriage like the Holy Grail, to help people who do not want marriage or do not fit the you-and-me mentality. We need to stop treating single or unmarried people like the devil incarnate. Instead of sending the mother to a nunnery and her child to a orphanage workhouse, we could actually treat these people like normal, real, responsible adults who, like the people who have made a decision to marry, have made a decision not to, or worse, have not made a decision at all! They are not lepers! They are not scum to have their lives driven by "more responsible adults"!
I think it is assumed that marriage is the answer or the best choice for everyone, and that every other choice; single life, divorced life, extended family life, is inferior. Think of the “miser” (always a single man sitting in a dark house counting his coins again and again) or the “spinster”- words that imply something bad or strange. Why should that be? Not everyone wants to be a scientist. Not everyone believes in God. Why should everyone fit into and thrive in the artificial institution of marriage?
Because our society has so long used marriage as a tool, I think marriage has perhaps become more of a part of society than it should be. Perhaps, in reality, marriage would work for 60% of the population- perhaps more, perhaps less. Perhaps there are people who would prefer to live alone or with friends rather than in a marriage.
People on nature films are always saying things like "ducks, like humans, mate for life". But humans don't mate for life. We aren't like these animals that mate for life. Our closest living relatives, Orangutans, do not mate for life. Neither do any other monkey species I could research. If we two, monkeys and humans, are so close, why is it at all likely that we humans should always attempt to mate for life either?
You may say that we are Great And Wonderful Humans, that we can overcome the more animal sides of our nature, that we can seal ourselves to a pure and eternal partnership. But look at the evidence; no human society has managed to get rid of extra-marital relationships, even on pain of death. Nothing points to endless monogamous relationships as any better than any other way of living.
There is something beautiful in the Cinderella story, that’s for sure: two come together to make one, the pure number. Duality has long since been symbolically evil and impure. Perhaps it’s time to change that. Why is a man and a woman together forever so great and fabulous? Why is any other adult responsible way of living so disgusting?
I want to get married, but if I do not think marriage is ever going to work for me, I won’t do it. If that's the case, I'm not going to abstain from sex all my life, goodness. If I have a kid, then great, I love children and know I want some. I'll be a single mother. If anyone calls me socially irresponsible then, I'll squash him or her.
I think it’s time we payed attention and stopped trying to fit everyone into the same square little boxes in the name of justice, responsibility, purity and security. We don’t all fit. There is nothing perfect about marriage except in the imaginations of the people. There is nothing wrong about living a single sexually active life. There is nothing wrong with extra-marital sex, because, in a real un-boxed world, sex has nothing to do with this thing called marriage whatsoever.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Teshi- your post is rife with unfounded assumptions which many people don't share. To be sure, much of what any of us belive is based on unfounded assumptions, but how humans should behave is perhaps the area least subject to objective evidence.
With that said, I truly hope that you don't ever become a single mother. Raising children is a devilishly difficult task. To do it alone has got to quadruple the difficulties involved.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Teshi, I don't agree with you. People are certainly free to do what they like with their lives, but I don't agree with your final paragraph. I'm sorry.
quote:I want to get married, but if I do not think marriage is ever going to work for me, I won’t do it. If that's the case, I'm not going to abstain from sex all my life, goodness.
Why not? Why is it such an unthinkable concept? If you can't bear to be part of all of someone's life, why is it impossible to refrain from being part of only the most intimate part?
quote:You may say that we are Great And Wonderful Humans, that we can overcome the more animal sides of our nature, that we can seal ourselves to a pure and eternal partnership. But look at the evidence; no human society has managed to get rid of extra-marital relationships, even on pain of death. Nothing points to endless monogamous relationships as any better than any other way of living.
Not nothing. You don't agree with what has been pointed out, but that doesn't mean there is nothing.
I don't understand why no marriage and no family is perfectly conceivable for you, but no sex is unthinkable.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Teshi: Just as it makes you uncomfortable to see so many people talking about the evils of premarital sex, it makes me uncomfortable to see so many people talking about the goods of premarital sex. And it hurts me even more to see the idea of marriage thrown down and trampled underfoot.
Yes, perfect marriage is a myth, but so are perfect people. That doesn't mean there's no reason to try. Just because we have bad tendencies that can be hard to overcome doesn't mean we shouldn't try to overcome them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: why is it impossible to refrain from being part of only the most intimate part
Do you really believe that sex is the most intimate part of marriage? *blink*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, but I do think sex and the accompanying physical aspects are a very intimate part of a person. Sharing that part of them while refusing to share the rest seems really tacky.
Are you going to list your hierarchy of intimacy now?
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, but I do think sex and the accompanying physical aspects are a very intimate part of a person. Sharing that part of them while refusing to share the rest seems really tacky.
I really don't get what part of another person I am refusing to share if I am not married. I can do all of the same behaviors outside of marriage as I can inside of marriage. What is the difference? Marriages end all the time so the commitment is not set in stone forever. A relationship that does not result in marriage could very well last just as long as that same relationship if the people were married.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> If I have a kid, then great, I love children and know I want some. I'll be a single mother. If anyone calls me socially irresponsible then, I'll squash him or her.
Okay. I've called this attitude socially irresponsible, and I stick by it. Come and squash me.
Look at the data-- single moms have a tough life. Statistically, their children are more prone to every type of bad thing in the world, physical and social. Lots of moms and kids beat the rap; lots of 'em don't. Why in the world would you think that it's an okay thing?
To me, it's like saying, "I'm so tough, I can stand outside naked in the snow! WITH MY BABY! WOOO-HOOO!"
quote: It had little to do with love for years and years, and was merely useful economically and socially. Marriage was abusive; if not in the obvious way but in the way that it made people follow and fit into a pattern that was very, very difficult to break: A man had to marry a woman and keep her in check or risk being ridiculed. A woman had to marry a man and keep her head down or out of sight or risk shame and stigma. Why is this considered “good”?
Can you prove this attitude with writings from POPULAR culture (diaries and such)? I think that you'll discover, if you look into it, that people loved their families in much the same way that we love our families today. Specifically, look at the letters from civil war soldiers (either side) to their sweethearts and wives. You can find similar tender sentiments with soldiers in the American revolution, and I imagine, on the other side of the ocean.
It's true that the upper classes married for economic/social reasons. But where is the evidence that the lower classes (who had no property) did the same? I believe in 'Life in a Medieval Castle,' the author shows that peasantry often married after a child was conceived-- disproving the idea of matchmaking for reasons of wealth/status.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I dunno, Scott. My great-grandmother was regularly raped and beaten by her husband. I know this because my mother witnessed it as a child. In the rigid social structure that has been eloquently eulogized here, she had no recourse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree that happily planning on being a single mother is socially irresponsible.
My great-grandparents were divorced, around the first world war. It wasn't impossible.
In fact, on my mother's side, the past four generations have all been divorced. My mother's response was like KQ's - she ran from that, joined the church, and got sealed in the temple.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>In the rigid social structure that has been eloquently eulogized here, she had no recourse.
I certainly am not qualified to argue the point in her case.
BUT-- do you believe that every husband of the same era beat and raped his wife systematically?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
This was piss poor Appalachia. Her family was dead, other than her children, and it simply wasn't DONE. She had no education. The nearest lawyer was 50 miles away, which she would have had to walk if she'd known where to go.
Was it possible for other people at the time? I'm sure it was. Was it possible fer her, with her limited knowledge and resources? She could have left him and become a vagrant whore, I suppose, but that hardly seems better.
Now, possibly, if the Klan had gotten wind that she was being beaten by him, they would have taken him out for a talk (and a breating of his own), but rape... well, you couldn't, legally speaking, rape your wife.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I believe it was more common than you do, Scott, but maybe that's because my people were ina different social strata than yours.
Even if every plantation didn't beat or abuse its slaves, that isn't going to make anyone want to bring back slavery.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Olivet- under any possible social structure there will be those who suffer due to the structure.
With that said, I think that divorce because of abuse is completely justified, but I also think that the old stigmas associated with divorce were also justified. I think it true that every divorce is the result of bad behavior on the part of at least one and most often both partners. I think it right that society stigmatize such bad behavior. I also think that in the case of abuse, society should stigmatize the abuser doubly and sympathize with the abused.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, I don't think you got what I was saying. I'm not talking about morality or what's right or wrong. I am saying that what you are describing doesn't work, as in it isn't effective, as in it doesn't achieve the goals that it sets out to do, as in people and cultures who focus on external reward/punishment scenarios to discourage cheating on one's spouse do not actually discourage cheating on one's spouse.
We've already talked about how the divorce statistics don't support the idea that religious people value marriage more than other people. That goes for your culture too, which you're touting as being very focused on marriage.
Repression doesn't equal not doing something. In fact, it rarely equals not doing something and in most of those cases results in some generally unhealthy displacement behavior. People don't not do things because although they feel a strong urge to, they will get punished if they act on it or they turn that urge as something sick and nasty and wrong. The urge is still there and they don't actually have a meaningful, coherent strategy for why they, themselves, don't want to do it. Of course, now it's driven into the subconscious, which works to arrange situations where the urge can be fulfilled.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: Olivet- under any possible social structure there will be those who suffer due to the structure.
I agree. I just think that the best of all societies should have some recourse for those who are victimized, which is what we are striving for in America. Thoughtless marriages and divorces are a price I am willing to pay to supply those choices to people who formerly had none. The price of freedom is that some will abuse it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I want to marry. I want to have children in the way that is traditional. I even would like to have time to stay home with my children.
But I also want to challenge this rigidness that has taken America in particular by storm. I want to ask the uncomfortable questions like why is marriage so insisted upon? I know it makes you uncomfortable. You should be uncomfortable... if i am facing one thing that worries me, then naturally, you should be facing something that worries you. That will be the way of the world forever.
quote:Look at the data-- single moms have a tough life. Statistically, their children are more prone to every type of bad thing in the world, physical and social. Lots of moms and kids beat the rap; lots of 'em don't. Why in the world would you think that it's an okay thing?
Much of the reason single Mums and Dads have a hard life is because they are seen to have failed. Who's fault is it if single parents are social outcasts? What if I want a child but I can't seem to find a partner? What then? Raising any child is devilishly difficult, even in a couple. My point is not that it's okay but that it should be okay. It should be possible to raise a child reasonably well with only one parent. It has to be, because not only is it the irresponsible people who had a child out of wedlock dealing with it but also those people who's partner has died. If it's not, and it is not, then that's a problem that needs fixing.
Katharina, if I don't plan on getting married... if I discover that it's not what I want (which is not actually the case) I do not plan on sleeping around. I plan on falling in love. I plan on trying to make it work. And that, for me, will include sex.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I also think that the old stigmas associated with divorce were also justified. I think it true that every divorce is the result of bad behavior on the part of at least one and most often both partners. I think it right that society stigmatize such bad behavior.
But that's the problem with stigmatizing divorce. You're not actually stigmatizing the bad behavior. You're stigmatizing the result of the bad behavior (often the results pushed for by the victim). Abusive spouses don't push for divorce. It's the one's who get abused.
And stigmatizing divorce does not lead to healthy marriages. Focusing on the factors that make or interfere with happy marriages do. The "bad behavior" that many divorces seem to result out of is people getting married to the wrong person or when they are not prepared for it. Likewise, our society puts it's emphasis on the economic mode leading to a devaluation of others and burdening individuals and couples both with stresses that they are not prepared to deal with. You want to make marriage better, these are some of the issues you set out to tackle. Prohibiting or fostering social disapproval of divorce is attacking the results of problems that have already occured.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It should be possible to raise a child reasonably well with only one parent.
While it's confounded by the fact that a majority of single parents tends towards having characteristics that would make them bad parents anyway, the literature shows that children in single parent households suffer distinct disadvantages in physical and mental health, even when you control for the effects of social disapproval. I don't think that it's okay to plan to have a child like this. It seems to me like putting your needs ahead of those of your child.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Much of the reason single Mums and Dads have a hard life is because they are seen to have failed.
Do you have anything to back this up?
Single parents have less time, less money, and more stress than families with two parents. It is because one person must both serve the outside world enough to support the family and serve all the needs of the family.
This is not because of any stigma - this is because of numbers. The number of adults have been halved but the amount of responsibilities have not.
quote:Katharina, if I don't plan on getting married... if I discover that it's not what I want (which is not actually the case) I do not plan on sleeping around. I plan on falling in love. I plan on trying to make it work. And that, for me, will include sex.
In what scenario would falling in love, staying together, and making it work be possible but getting married would be impossible?
quote:I know it makes you uncomfortable. You should be uncomfortable... if i am facing one thing that worries me, then naturally, you should be facing something that worries you. That will be the way of the world forever.
Why? Because everyone must share in uncomfortableness equally? Because no one can be happy unless everyone is happy. I'm not actually taking issue with the idea of an issue is controversial because there are differing opinions, but this concept of communal uncomfortableness. Communism of emotion.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: But I also want to challenge this rigidness that has taken America in particular by storm. I want to ask the uncomfortable questions like why is marriage so insisted upon? I know it makes you uncomfortable. You should be uncomfortable... if i am facing one thing that worries me, then naturally, you should be facing something that worries you. That will be the way of the world forever.
Taken America by storm? It's not like marriage is some sort of recent craze.
Marriage should be insisted on because it provides a stable, long-term environment in which to raise children. Unmarried couples may be very committed, but I think there's something about marriage that solidifies that commitment. It's a way of telling society that you want to make something permanent, that you're in it for the long haul.
Of course, divorce is a very big problem that weakens the statement that marriage makes. Now marriage is something to abandon as soon as it stops being beneficial for you. But it shouldn't be a simple matter of "what's in it for me?" That's not a real commitment. When that's what marriage becomes, it stops strengthening society and simply becomes something that makes people ask things like "Why the insistence on marriage?"
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:But that's the problem with stigmatizing divorce. You're not actually stigmatizing the bad behavior. You're stigmatizing the result of the bad behavior (often the results pushed for by the victim). Abusive spouses don't push for divorce. It's the one's who get abused.
True enough.
quote: Focusing on the factors that make or interfere with happy marriages do. The "bad behavior" that many divorces seem to result out of is people getting married to the wrong person or when they are not prepared for it. Likewise, our society puts it's emphasis on the economic mode leading to a devaluation of others and burdening individuals and couples both with stresses that they are not prepared to deal with. You want to make marriage better, these are some of the issues you set out to tackle. Prohibiting or fostering social disapproval of divorce is attacking the results of problems that have already occured.
Also a good point. However, stigmatizing divorce also gives impetus to working problems out rather than jumping ship. There is clearly a sliding scale here- at one end you have no cultural pressure for marriage at all. At the other everyone is virtually forced to remain in their marriage by cultural pressure. Clearly reality requires a middle road. I think that loosening up negative cultural attitudes towards divorce and premarital sex encourage bad behaviors. Tightening those attitudes can allow other bad behaviors like stigmatizing abused spouses. Finding a compromise position seems possible.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Squicky, is the literature uniform on the subject of children in single parent households across socioeconomic strata? (you did say they were convoluted by other facts that probably led to less than desireable parenting characteristics in single homes)
I believe the statistics are skewed towards the majority of "single parents" being "poor single mothers" Is it good we have poor single mothers? Heck no. However I think a wealthier single mother *could* provide without at least a drop-off in physical health.
There's also a distinction in 'single parent from the beginning' because the other parent doesn't acknowledge the child for whatever reason and 'single parent as a result of divorce' that make a difference in the mental health state of the child.
I have no doubt that, if I was completely on my own and I wanted to acquire a child, by either adoption or AI. I would probably be a darn good single parent, and the kid wouldn't suffer physically for sure. But I'm also an engineer, pulling down an income far higher than average, which makes a *huge* difference.
Having said that, raising a child is a lot of work and it would undoubtedly be easier with two parents so that you had someone to trade off with at least some of the time. And I'm not a parent because at this point of my life, even though I *could* do it with or with out a partner, I just plain don't want to have the extra work, even if there are intangible rewards from parenting.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:However, stigmatizing divorce also gives impetus to working problems out rather than jumping ship. There is clearly a sliding scale here- at one end you have no cultural pressure for marriage at all. At the other everyone is virtually forced to remain in their marriage by cultural pressure.
I agree with this to a certain extent, but I think that a much more effective strategy would be to build up an understanding of why, exactly, marriages are a great thing when done right and providing people with training in, among other things, conflict resolution.
From what I can see, most of what you do when you make divorce hard to acheive is trap people in marriages that aren't working. There are some on the edges that are maybe helped by having their impuslivity limited and some social reinforcement. I don't see a preponderance of bad marriages as being a much healthier than having a lot of divorce. A much better way, in my opinion, is to acutally try to foster healthy, working marriages. Which concentrating on divorce, or pre-maritial sex for that matter, does not do.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Grin, Squick, I think your description is probably exactly the reason as Tom put it, that Steve and I are committed to Not Getting Married. We have the healthy relationship benefits, and marriage has been too often used as a crutch for prolonging unhealthy relationships, rather than an aid for healthy ones.
AJ
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: There are some on the edges that are maybe helped by having their impuslivity limited and some social reinforcement. I don't see a preponderance of bad marriages as being a much healthier than having a lot of divorce. A much better way, in my opinion, is to acutally try to foster healthy, working marriages. Which concentrating on divorce, or pre-maritial sex for that matter, does not do.
I agree with you that fostering healthy marriages is a better way. The actual problem in everything that we are discussing is, of course, the fact that there is very little that any of us can do about anything as massive as "culture" outside of deciding how to live our own lives and how to raise our children.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Unmarried couples may be very committed, but I think there's something about marriage that solidifies that commitment. It's a way of telling society that you want to make something permanent, that you're in it for the long haul.
Absolutely. Marriage is a social institution, and society should hold us to it. I think it is one of the reasons why we have a big, public ceremony with family and friends. We have witnesses to our commitment. We aren't just making a promise to each other, we are making a promise to society. Why is this? In part because marriages so often *do* mean children.
Children deserve to be raised in stable homes. When there is an abusive relationship, separating the marriage partners may be what is best for the child. But when the parents can work through it and acheive a stable relationship, staying together is far better for the children. I believe that marriage helps people to work harder at staying together--in spite of all the divorce we see.
I find the lack of divorce among the older generations (who could divorce *now* as easily as us young'uns can) is very telling. It seems indicative of a changing perspective about the permanence of marriage and how "worth it" it is to work through difficulties in order to stay together.
Some say that marriage was usually about economic or political advantage throughout history. I disagree with this (though there are elements of it, to be sure). I think it was far more about a stable environment for the next generation. Of all creatures in this world, humans are the most dependent on their parents for the longest time. The family is a crucial structure to support this extreme need. Two parents are better than one, and far better than multiple constantly shuffling parents.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: There is some wisdom in this post - and yes, it sounds good when people say "Well, it's better to live together to make sure we really, REALLY like each other enough, and that way avoid a divorce."
It makes sense, it really does. So I'm having a hard time articulating why I find it so distressing.
I think it's because it feels to me, like it's saying "Gee, I know marriage is supposed to be about making a lifetime commitment, but see, I want to try you out first, and make sure that living with you is going to bring me all the satisfaction I want before I make the real commitment." It takes the focus of what should be two people coming together to make a life together and instead saying "it's all about ME, and about what I want from this relationship so I'm going to make sure you can fulfill my desires first before I make a commitment that's harder to break."
Belle: I've never been married, and as a result I feel like my opinion is slightly underqualified in the face of those who have had that experience, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway.
You claim that in my situation, I was thinking it was all about ME, but I have to ask: in a marriage where you do not live together first, who is it all about instead? Frankly, I think what we did was far more unselfish than leaping into a marriage: sure, it was about me and my needs, but it was also about her and her needs, not to mention doing our best to ensure that if and when we did decide to get married, it would develop into a relationship our neighbors, children and society could be proud of.
We probably just have to agree to disagree. I feel we did the responsible thing, you feel we did the selfish thing, and our reasoning is completely alien to each other.
quote:You don't live with your girlfriend. You get married instead. Chemistry is great, and you're deeply in love. All the same problems crop up in the first year of marriage. But instead of letting them drive you both crazy, you know you have to work through them and give your marriage a real shot. You decide you don't care which way the TP rolls. She makes a conscious effort not to drive the remote like she's on a meth bender. You agree to pick up after her if she agrees to really try to keep her messes minimized.
In short, in a marriage, you take away the 'easy out' clause that exists in every relationship. So things that are deal breakers when you're single can be worked around when you're married, because marriage means something. It's this flying without a net aspect that makes people totally commit to each other when married.
The marvelous fairy tale situation you described must be nice when it succeeds, but I've seen way, way too many children of divorce from relationships where people thought they could "make it work." People use the same rationale you're using to have children in a flawed relationship: "This takes away the easy way out, this will help make us stronger." Sure, it might, but in my mind, leaping into something you know is flawed and trying to rationalize it after the fact is by far the more irresponsible route.
Your line of thinking rationalizes our current administration's spending tons of money on disaster relief, while cutting the budget on disaster prevention.
quote:Hm. On a related note, I submit that one of the advantages of marriage as a formal promise of committment is that it gives people a reason to say, "Okay, yeah, the toilet paper thing annoys me, but since I've already promised to spend my whole life with you, we're going to either work it out or get over it." Lacking that kind of formalized agreement, truly petty things like channel-changing frequency can be deal-killers, whereas -- ideally -- they wouldn't be if you had made more permanent promises to each other.
IMO, without knowing any more about the situation than you laid out here, what makes you irresponsible is ditching someone you thought you loved well enough to spend your life with because they didn't hang toilet paper correctly. Couples gripe about that kind of thing, but they don't usually gripe about it seriously; actually basing your relationship decisions on that sort of pettiness is a sign of weak character.
Look. I'm not proposing (proposing, get it?) that marriage should be easy: I don't know even one married couple that says marriage is always easy.
I think the problem - and one that will never, ever go away - with this entire debate is a fundamental difference in perception. See, your formula seems to be:
1) Great relationship with person, fall in love, decide to get married. 2) Get married, move in together, discover tons of compatability problems. 3) You've made a committment: stick to it.
Again, while I'm happy for you if you manage to work this out, it works out for a surprisingly small number of couples. Divorce rates in America speak for themselves. How commonplace is spousal abuse, seeking relationship therapy, other signs that a marriage is NOT WORKING?
People that think like this are what salespeople like myself refer to as "fish." You've done your product research, you've seen pictures, you've read the reviews, so you'll buy the car without test driving it first. Who cares if it turns out that the seat doesn't quite adjust far back enough for your legs, that the roof in the backseat is uncomfortably low for your passengers? The mechanic you had planned to use for the lifetime of the car dies six months after you bought the car, and the next nearest is sixty miles away, but that doesn't matter, you've made a committment.
My formula looks like this: 1) Great relationship with person, fall in love, consider marriage. 2) Move in together, discover tons of compatability problems. 3) Decide whether or not this is the person you truly want to spend the rest of your life with.
There are obviously disadvantages to this situation, too: the opportunity for serial monogomy is compounded when the committment you make to each other isn't a legal one, but I personally think that's more healthy than getting tied into a relationship you aren't completely satisfied with.
Maybe I'm just an idealist, and my conception of what a marriage can and should be is simply too rare to be a standard.
Regarding the reasons why we broke up: The list of problems with the relationship was quite a bit longer than I'd listed, but it amounted to many things that you just wouldn't know about without living with a person. These things ended up being the sort of things neither of us wanted to deal with for a lifetime. Do you know how frustrating it is to be faced with someone that you love, whose personality meshes so well with yours in so many facets, but be totally unable to rationalize marriage to her because of too many incompatabilities? To take a walk in frustration because here is the woman you love, but you've discovered so many things that bother you that you feel like hitting something?
I'm sure you do. I'm sure your wife frustrates you to the point of wanting to pull your hair out from time to time: if she doesn't, it'll be the first time I've heard about it.
I have to say again that maybe our conceptions of what's attainable in a relationship are just too different. Maybe my standards are too high.
But I don't think what we did was socially irresponsible.
and Tom: the toilet paper was supposed to be a humorous reference to OSC's latest column, not a serious complaint. I honestly don't even remember which way she liked the toilet paper, if I even noticed in the first place.
[Edit] Sorry, not his latest column, the one about toilet paper.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Banna, I don't know about comparisions across SES, but I know that within SES children from two parent homes fare significantly better than children from single parent ones.
The physical health issue is somewhat complicated because there are obviously many factors at work. However, besides the explicit abuse and poor nutrition and medical care issues, there is a component of less tangible factors such as parental attention and child's psychological state.
I'm sure than many people can do a good job raising kids as signle parents, especially when they have an extensive support structure. However, I'm reasonably sure that in a large majority of these cases, these children are going to be significantly better off if there is anoter parent around.
I find the attitude that "Well, what if I don't find a partner to have a child with?" to be a disturbing one as I think it betrays a selfish focus. In raising a child, I think that the child's well-being must be the primary concern and I find the argument that "Well, what if I can't raise them without them being at a significant disadvantage?" to be suggestive that this isn't the case.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:marriage has been too often used as a crutch for prolonging unhealthy relationships, rather than an aid for healthy ones.
IMO, this perspective is part of the problem.
With work and effort on both sides, unhealthy relationships can become healthy ones. As I said before, in generations past, there was more importance placed on making what you have work than finding something different--and I think that attitude is better for children.
The big problem is when one of the partners won't put in that effort. But I firmly believe if more people were committed to making marriages work, far more marriages *would* work.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I haven't been married, but I have made committments and seen others do so, and I've discovered something.
You grow by making and keeping committments.
I actually think this particular system blows, because how do you know if you want it before you do it? But you cannot succesfully make any committment with your fingers crossed.
You can't try out a new life, or a new religion, or a new morality system, and see how it works before you give it your all, because they will work ONLY if you give it your all. You have to throw the dice and bet the farm and go from there, and there's no way to do that with one foot out the door. The results obtained then are not the results that would have been obtained if the committment was done completely and sincerely.
I think this sucks, because I'm impulsive in small things and cautious in large things, so it's the exact opposite of the way I'd like things to be. But this is how human nature/the universe works.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I think the problem - and one that will never, ever go away - with this entire debate is a fundamental difference in perception. See, your formula seems to be:
1) Great relationship with person, fall in love, decide to get married. 2) Get married, move in together, discover tons of compatability problems. 3) You've made a committment: stick to it.
Personally, I prefer the scenario where you don't decide to get married because you are in love, you decide to get married because you are compatable. Being in love is important too, but it isn't *as* important, IMO.
I think if more people used this (IMO) wiser approach, more marriages would work.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I haven't been married, but I have made committments and seen others do so, and I've discovered something.
You grow by making and keeping committments.
I actually think this particular system blows, because how do you know if you want it before you do it? But you cannot succesfully make any committment with your fingers crossed.
You can't try out a new life, or a new religion, or a new morality system, and see how it works before you give it your all, because they will work ONLY if you give it your all. You have to throw the dice and bet the farm and go from there, and there's no way to do that with one foot out the door. The results obtained then are not the results that would have been obtained if the committment was done completely and sincerely.
I think this sucks, because I'm impulsive in small things and cautious in large things, so it's the exact opposite of the way I'd like things to be. But this is how human nature/the universe works.
Maybe this is my problem. I'm interested to see how the nay-sayers to premarital relations tie this in to "social responsibility."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I prefer the scenario where you don't decide to get married because you are in love, you decide to get married because you are compatable.
I refuse to believe that not everyone deserves to be in love with the person they marry. That the "love, honor, and cherish" must needs be for some only a nice idea, as they enter into a legal arrangement.
That's so offensive to me. It's been suggested several times to me (including once by my idiot brother), and I always want to ask the person offering it as a solution if they were in love with their spouse when they got married. As far as I can tell, it is a solution always suggested for other people.
So, bev, were you in love with Porter when you got married?
---
I am one of the naysayers to premarital relations. And I mean it, when I say bet the house. You're in, all the way, and short of abuse or complete disaster, you're committed. So be very careful about who you pick.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Personally, I prefer the scenario where you don't decide to get married because you are in love, you decide to get married because you are compatable. Being in love is important too, but it isn't *as* important, IMO.
I think if more people used this (IMO) wiser approach, more marriages would work.
This is an interesting blend of two viewpoints: see, I think my way is ensuring compatability, and Tom's is ignoring it entirely. Mine is also most definitely prioritizing love, although I have no idea how Tom feels about love being a key to successful marriage.
This might be an entirely different ball game: how important IS love to the success of a marriage? I've never attempted to have a serious relationship in which I didn't love the person, and I'm not inclined to try: maybe that's my problem?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I refuse to believe that not everyone deserves to be in love with the person they marry. That the "love, honor, and cherish" must needs be for some only a nice idea, as they enter into a legal arrangement.
I didn't imply anything of the sort, Kat, I only said that a person should pay more attention to the compatability than the romantic feelings. There are plenty of people I can be romantic with, many of which would *not* be good marriage partners. I should pick the person I am compatable with as well as romantic with.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I've never attempted to have a serious relationship in which I didn't love the person
I actually have. Like I said, what beverly is espousing is something that I've heard many times, and I'm not immune to the dispassionate practicality of it.
From personal experience, it sucked. It was all of the work with none of the payoff. I had friends, financial stability, and a life of my own that I loved, and all relationships involve sacrifices. When you are sacrificing a life you love for someone you don't because someone else says that you're irresponsible or selfish otherwise, it is absolute hell. I don't recommend it.
---
You are saying there should be both, then, and not just one. That is different.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:So, bev, were you in love with Porter when you got married?
Let me just say that I have been more in love before. I do not particularly trust romance, it has so often led me wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh. I didn't know that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This might be an entirely different ball game: how important IS love to the success of a marriage?
Depends on what you mean by love. If you mean love as a feeling, then I'm not sure it's completely necessary.
If you mean love as an action performed by each spouse that underlies all interaction between them, then I think it's essential.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As I said before, in generations past, there was more importance placed on making what you have work than finding something different
I don't necessarily think that this is an accurate description. In the past there was less freedom of choice and I think that this did directly affect people's attitudes towards looking around for something new. But there's plenty of evidence that marriage was not really in any sort of good shape regarding the "making what you have work" angle, but often was more in a "resign yourself to the situation because you can't expect any better" one.
There's this conception of the 50s as this Golden Age for American marriage, but the reality is much, much different. If you look at the evidence, you find that this is a view of America the way we never were. The focus on "restoring" American families to their former glory is a fool's quest as is working aginst the perceived factors that caused us to fall from this exalted state. Many of the factors that make marriage bad now were actively making marriage bad then social context and power inequalities masked them better and the film of nostalgia lets many people ignore them.
I'm a strong proponent for fixing marriage, but I don't find much out there that I believe would actually do all that much towards fixing marriage.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'd like to point out that our definitions of "in love" may differ.
I am referring more to infatuation. I don't trust those feelings, and I think far to many people get married because of them and don't take enough time to find out if they are compatable. They decide they can't live without person X and to heck with compatability because "love will prevail" and get them through.
Then the incompatability kills the "in love" feelings, and what are they left with?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If you mean love as an action performed by each spouse that underlies all interaction between them, then I think it's essential.
I would call that commitment, not love.
I would also say that it is the most important element in a marriage.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Let me just say that I have been more in love before. I do not particularly trust romance, it has so often led me wrong.
quote:Depends on what you mean by love? If you mean love as a feeling, then I'm not sure it's completely necessary.
If you mean love as an action performed by each spouse that underlies all interaction between them, then I think it's essential.
My definition of love includes a measure of compatability. I don't consider myself in love with someone unless there is a very real potential for a serious committment, including marriage.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'd like to point out that our definitions of "in love" may differ.
I am referring more to infatuation. I don't trust those feelings, and I think far to many people get married because of them and don't take enough time to find out if they are compatable. They decide they can't live without person X and to heck with compatability because "love will prevail" and get them through.
Then the incompatability kills the "in love" feelings, and what are they left with?
Bev, I'm confused: whose side are you on? :-)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:In the past there was less freedom of choice and I think that this did directly affect people's attitudes towards looking around for something new.
Or their attitudes towards commitment effected the lesser freedom of choice.
quote:But there's plenty of evidence that marriage was not really in any sort of good shape regarding the "making what you have work" angle, but often was more in a "resign yourself to the situation because you can't expect any better" one.
Then why don't we see more of the older generation getting divorced now? Especially now that children are out of the house? Why is divorce *so* much more common among the younger generations?
Their stronger value of "sticktoitiveness" seems the most logical answer to me.
I think part of the reason for many of marriage problems in the past was the inequality of the sexes--how acceptable the emotional abuse of women was. As the attitudes of men towards women have improved, the problems caused fade. Then why aren't marriages more stable than ever?
I point the finger of blame at attitudes towards commitment.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Bev, I'm confused: whose side are you on? :-)
Um, my own? What are the sides?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oh, and Porter:
I love you far more than I have loved any man.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Then why don't we see more of the older generation getting divorced now? Especially now that children are out of the house?
They are.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:My definition of love includes a measure of compatability. I don't consider myself in love with someone unless there is a very real potential for a serious committment, including marriage.
You are wise. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Awww. You two are sweet, and I think it's great to see devotion like that carry on well past the honeymoon stage. [/sappy moment]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Um, :pirate:?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Jon Boy:
Kat: Not according to the statistics I've seen.
*goes to find them*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Um, :pirate:?
Good answer.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* Lots of people get divorced once the kids leave, especially if they were staying together only for the kids. For example, my stepmother.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I know, Kat, of course it happens. That wasn't my point. I will tell you what I saw in the statistics I speak of (not having found them yet--still looking). I saw that the percentage of those divorced was higher in progressively younger age groups as compared to old.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's like the rate of antidepressant use in Utah - whatever the statistics, the reasons we attach to them tell more about ourselves than the numbers.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
checked percentages of the 2nd and third marriages in the older generation or those already divorced once?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'd be interested to see those statistics, once you find them. I'd also be interested to see how many older people don't divorce out of relationships they don't like because
a) They're used to it, b) They don't want to try to find someone new this late in the game, c) They still don't think it'd be healthy for their families, d) All/None of the above?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Or their attitudes towards commitment effected the lesser freedom of choice.
The freedom of choice was limited by external economic, social, and logistical factors. There are not subject to people's attitudes (well, except in very indirect ways).
quote:Then why don't we see more of the older generation getting divorced now?
Are you asking why 80 somethings aren't getting divorced? If so, I'd say that there are a host of factors, many of them centering around there's no way it would make their lives better and many of them centering around they have learned, as I said, to resign themselves to their situation.
I've been making the argument that being or not being divorced is not a good indication of the quality of people's marriages. I don't find the argument that "They must have a good marriage and they learned to work on their problems because they're not getting divorced." to be a particularly convincing one.
In America, divorce rates are lowest in the Northeast and they are currently dropping inside Northeastern cities. These are the places where divorce and the premarital sex and everything are not as strongly socially sanctioned (unlike the worst area in the country for marriage, the South). I don't know if this is true, but I like to think that this is occuring in part because people in these areas are finally learning the real reasons why being married and staying committed are good ideas, instead of having their conception of why to stay marriage twisted by external forces.
In America, those cultures and regions that seem most vocal these issues (marriage and pre-marital sex) and most involved in sanctioning them generally have the highest rates of divorce. I'm not sure that their model is one we should be emulating.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Found it!
Be sure to page down. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bev, people do divorce once the kids are gone. I'm not sure what you are hoping the statistics will prove.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:a) They're used to it, b) They don't want to try to find someone new this late in the game, c) They still don't think it'd be healthy for their families, d) All/None of the above?
Here is why I think the "sticktuitiveness attitude" explaination makes more sense: a) "They are used to it" may be an extention of the "sticktuitiveness attitude".
b) If you are in a truly unhappy marriage, wouldn't you rather be out of it whether or not you can find someone new?
c) This also seems to be an extention of older attitudes that staying together is important and better than divorce.
Just my opinion, but what you've said here seems to support it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, I don't think those statistics are saying what you think they are. For one thing, a large section of that population are widows/widowers.
I agree with your assertion however that it's much less common among the older generation. I just don't think that this supports your point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If you are in a truly unhappy marriage, wouldn't you rather be out of it whether or not you can find someone new?
Not necessarily. Many, many people would rather be in a dull or negative situation rather than be alone. Especially if they are old.
You haven't given anything in support of your opinion of what the statistics mean.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Here is why I think the "sticktuitiveness attitude" explaination makes more sense: a) "They are used to it" may be an extention of the "sticktuitiveness attitude".
b) If you are in a truly unhappy marriage, wouldn't you rather be out of it whether or not you can find someone new?
c) This also seems to be an extention of older attitudes that staying together is important and better than divorce.
Just my opinion, but what you've said here seems to support it.
I agree that all of those seem to be a condition of "sticktoitiveness" - and I feel it's more evidence that the "leap in and use your sticktoitiveness" argument is wrong, and improperly motivated.
But, again, I think this will continue coming back to that fundamental difference in perception.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I'm not sure what you are hoping the statistics will prove.
I am using it as evidence that attitudes towards commitment in marriage have changed over time, and that younger generations do not value commitment in marriage as much. It isn't the ease of divorce or the opportunity that explains it. If it were, these older people would be divorced in the same percentage, if not more so, since there was an even greater gap between the sexes in generations past with the attitudes men tended to have towards women.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are placing that meaning on the numbers. There could be many explanations for it.
They don't necessarily mean what you think they mean.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, It looks like now you're combining your "keep working at problems" with my "resign yourself to your situation" into sticktoitness. If so, I don't disagree with you, but I think this goes directly against your initial argument, that people learned that they needed to keep working at things.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:bev, I don't think those statistics are saying what you think they are. For one thing, a large section of that population are widows/widowers.
So? The statistic addresses if they have *ever* been divorced. Divorce has been *easy* for quite some time now, you know.
quote:I agree with your assertion however that it's much less common among the older generation. I just don't think that this supports your point.
Why not? What do you think the reasons are? Of course, none of us can prove anything, we can only discuss what we think is most likely and why.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:They don't necessarily mean what you think they mean.
Sure. What do you think they mean? I figured this was an interesting topic for discussion. Maybe I should start a thread though....
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Sure. What do you think they mean? I figured this was an interesting topic for discussion. Maybe I should start a thread though....
Come on, come on, let's get back to the SEX part of this discussion, already!
<fidgets>
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In America, divorce rates are lowest in the Northeast and they are currently dropping inside Northeastern cities. These are the places where divorce and the premarital sex and everything are not as strongly socially sanctioned (unlike the worst area in the country for marriage, the South). I don't know if this is true, but I like to think that this is occuring in part because people in these areas are finally learning the real reasons why being married and staying committed are good ideas, instead of having their conception of why to stay marriage twisted by external forces.
Nah, it's the long winters
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:You know that statistics always have other factors and in no way support your assertation, scientific studies are special interest driven, arguments are flawed, reasons aren't good enough, and you're biased to boot.
So? Discuss what those factors might be. I am providing evidence. I am not going for solid proof, it's not possible. My stats are better than your nothing.
What does it matter that I am biased? So are we all. Pit your bias against mine. That is what discussion is for.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
erosomniac, there may be valid reasons for choosing to live together before marriage, but reducing the chance of divorce is not one of them. Statistically speaking, people who live together for 1-4 years prior to marriage are more likely to get divorced than couples who don’t live together. After 3 years living together the gap starts to narrow, and after 5 years or so there isn’t any difference in divorce rates. But at NO point are the divorce rates lower for people who lived together prior to marriage.
(Speculation ahead )One reason might be that most couples living together aren’t really in a “trial marriage.” For example – one of the top areas of marital conflict is finances, and many (most?) couples living together don’t combine their finances. They share expenses, but they still each have their own income, their own bank accounts, and decide how their own money is spent.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:erosomniac, there may be valid reasons for choosing to live together before marriage, but reducing the chance of divorce is not one of them. Statistically speaking, people who live together for 1-4 years prior to marriage are more likely to get divorced than couples who don’t live together. After 3 years living together the gap starts to narrow, and after 5 years or so there isn’t any difference in divorce rates. But at NO point are the divorce rates lower for people who lived together prior to marriage.
First: I'd like to see the statistics in question - please post a source.
Second: Even if the statistics are as you say they are, I have not, at any point, suggested that living together before marriage is for everyone. I've simply suggested that it is a viable option for many people, and that labelling the lifestyle as "socially irresponsible" is as blanket a statement as saying that everyone who goes into a marriage WITHOUT living together first is doomed to misery because they didn't spend enough time figuring out if they have compatible living habits beforehand.
There's no way we're ever going to know which system is "better," because there are too many mitigating factors that influence how people live their lives, how they choose their life partners, and what a marriage means to them. There will never be one person that can truly provide a definitive answer to this question, because once you've elected one option, you've effectively ruled out the possibility of exploring the other.
quote:(Speculation ahead )One reason might be that most couples living together aren’t really in a “trial marriage.” For example – one of the top areas of marital conflict is finances, and many (most?) couples living together don’t combine their finances. They share expenses, but they still each have their own income, their own bank accounts, and decide how their own money is spent.
I think you're partially correct, in that there are several financial decisions that a married couple makes that a couple living together in preparation for engagement/marriage typically doesn't (like financing the education of a child, or purchasing a house).
But in my living-together relationship(s), we looked at everything as a matter of joint expense. Major purchases on the part of either person were well discussed beforehand, and that discussion included the impact it would have on the other person. There has to be an understanding of give and take, obviously, but that's another one of those compatability issues you need to understand before a marriage (and one I don't think requires living together beforehand).
Further, many (most?) married couples I know don't combine their finances, either - at least, not to the extent of mixing capital. In the majority of marriages I can think of, the participants maintain seperate bank accounts, seperate retirement funds, and seperate investments. They also decide how their own money is spent: even in major decisions like purchasing a family car, financing a house or saving money for the future of a child, the issue is well discussed so there won't be any misunderstandings about what each person is expected to contribute.
[Edit] To clarify, when I talk about people living together, I'm still talking about people who are living together in preparation for or in anticipation of engagement/marriage, not people who do not intend to get married, or people who are unable to for legal reasons.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: In the majority of marriages I can think of, the participants maintain seperate bank accounts, seperate retirement funds, and seperate investments.
Seriously? I don't know any, in either my parents' or my own generation, that do not mix their finances.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Seriously? I don't know any, in either my parents' or my own generation, that do not mix their finances.
Seriously. I think all other things being equal, this is a matter of choice. All other things NOT being equal, you could call it a measure of safety or insecurity, depending on which side of that fence you want to fling dung from .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's a horrible idea. Why not mix finances? You can keep cards in different names in order to make sure both people have credit, but why the separate financial lives?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I think it's a horrible idea. Why not mix finances? You can keep cards in different names in order to make sure both people have credit, but why the separate financial lives?
...why a horrible idea? To take up the dung flinger, this is one of the hugest problems when it comes to divorces: the seperation of combined finances.
I'm also drawing a blank as to the benefits of combining your finances. I can't think of anything you can accomplish with a joint bank account that you can't with seperate ones.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For one thing, you don't keep track of who is paying for what. Everything goes into the same pot. You can discuss who pays what bill, or you can put everything in the same pot, pay the bills, and then discuss how to spend the extra. That sounds like a much more pleasant conversation.
I can think it is a horrible idea without you comparing me to what you compared me to. Please.
I also think it is a bad idea to live your married life in a way designed to make your divorce easier. Talk about jinxing.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I tend to agree with the "once married, finances together" crowd. I have a couple of married friends who keep their finances separate, and it seems like she (the student of the pair) is always "borrowing money" from him. I can't think of a worse way to encourage inequity in a relationship than to have to borrow money from your spouse.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Family account, for bills, household expenses, savings, etc. All regular income dough gets dumped there.
Separate accounts for spouses, if desired, where individual monies can be stored for specific purposes. Money I make from my writing or money I get for presents or other other-than-work-paycheck money goes into my personal bank account, and that pays for my toys and books and movies and surprise, let's-eat-out dinners, that sort of thing. This way I have some cash I don't have to account to anyone for and I don't have to siphon off family money for personal items.
Of course, then I have to actually earn it somehow, but that's a different thing...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:...why a horrible idea? To take up the dung flinger, this is one of the hugest problems when it comes to divorces: the separation of combined finances.
Keeping "separate finances" doesn't help with financial settlements in most divorce cases in many states. Any money you earn during marriage is counted as a marital asset, whether you are keeping "separate finances" or not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Separate accounts for spouses, if desired, where individual monies can be stored for specific purposes. Money I make from my writing or money I get for presents or other other-than-work-paycheck money goes into my personal bank account, and that pays for my toys and books and movies and surprise, let's-eat-out dinners, that sort of thing. This way I have some cash I don't have to account to anyone for and I don't have to siphon off family money for personal items.
That's workable, but it's not separate finances. It can even be done simply by allocating a certain amount each month to "whatever spouse A wants" and "whatever spouse B wants."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I can think it is a horrible idea without you comparing me to what you compared me to. Please.
...huh? I didn't compare you to anything. If you're thinking I called you a dung flinger, I was speaking of a "dung flinger" as an object I would use to fling dung. Hence "taking up the dung flinger" was a comment directed at myself, not at you. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
quote:I also think it is a bad idea to live your married life in a way designed to make your divorce easier. Talk about jinxing.
quote:1) Why plan your marriage around what would happen with divorce in mind?
This is why I said this:
"All other things NOT being equal, you could call it a measure of safety or insecurity, depending on which side of that fence you want to fling dung from ."
Like I said, fling the dung if you want - people who think like me call it a measure of safety, people like you call it a sign of insecurity, or a sign that you shouldn't be getting married in the first place, or whatever you want to say about it. It's the same reasoning that applies to the original question: I feel like living with someone before getting engaged is essential for me, and you feel differently.
quote:2) Maybe you're drawing a blank is that the accomplishment is insubstational. Two bank accounts: Mine and hers. One bank account: ours. Seems inconsequential, yet I think its often all the little things that add up to make a marriage work.
We just have to agree to disagree. There are certainly things that I will purchase with my life partner that will give me that warm fuzzy "this is ours" feeling, but I don't feel sharing a bank account is necessary.
quote:I tend to agree with the "once married, finances together" crowd. I have a couple of married friends who keep their finances separate, and it seems like she (the student of the pair) is always "borrowing money" from him. I can't think of a worse way to encourage inequity in a relationship than to have to borrow money from your spouse.
I can see that being a problem, but I would never marry someone still in school, because I think part of being ready to get married is being financially independent.
I don't mean to imply that there is anything wrong, demeaning or ignoble about being a full-time housewife or otherwise contributing less to the family finances, but if/when I get married, I want to be equally involved in the rearing of our child and the managing of household tasks.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Keeping "separate finances" doesn't help with financial settlements in most divorce cases in many states. Any money you earn during marriage is counted as a marital asset, whether you are keeping "separate finances" or not.
Not if you sign the right pre-nup, but again, another place we'll have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:I can see that being a problem, but I would never marry someone still in school, because I think part of being ready to get married is being financially independent.
Wait until you're about to embark on 8ish years of grad school. That'll put a whole new perspective on things.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Wait until you're about to embark on 8ish years of grad school. That'll put a whole new perspective on things.
I can imagine it would, and if I should ever find myself in a relationship developing to that point with someone who plans on being in school that long, my views may change.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So if someone marries you, I guess they better not want to ever go back to school, huh?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:So if someone marries you, I guess they better not want to ever go back to school, huh?
<rolls eyes>
If I married someone who, after we were married, wanted to go back to school, the situation would be completely different than going into a marriage in a financially unstable situation.
I'd also ideally like to get into a marriage situation where we're both secure in what we want to be doing.
Now obviously, things can change - things like what you want out of life, how happy you are in your job, how happy you are in your marriage, or (gasp) even your opinions!
Not wanting to get into a marriage with someone financially unstable is a preventive measure. Haven't we been discussing, through this entire thread, what makes a marriage work? Hasn't it been said over and over again that regardless of what happens before the marriage, a huge part of marriage is adjusting to and dealing with problems that arise?
Everything I've said thusfar is preventive: wanting to live together before getting engaged is a preventive measure, a security precaution, trying to ascertain that we are compatible people before we make the enormous decision of getting married. Similarly, not wanting to marry someone who isn't financially independent is another one of those things. I don't want to get into a marriage where there's a huge imbalance of any kind: financial, romantic, sexual or otherwise.
But once I'm in the marriage, I've obviously chosen to commit to that person. At that point, there'd have to be some long talks about what they wanted to go back to school for. I certainly wouldn't approve of my spouse going back to school just because they felt like it - that's irresponsible and selfish. It would be equally irresponsible and selfish of me to deny her the right to go back to school if she's serious about it.
[Edited for silly spelling mistake]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I married someone who, after we were married, wanted to go back to school, the situation would be completely different than going into a marriage in a financially unstable situation.
I was speaking of someone who knows now that they want to go back to school at some point in the future.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I was speaking of someone who knows now that they want to go back to school at some point in the future.
In that case, my opinion doesn't change. If you plan on making yourself financially unstable, I don't intend to raise a family with you anytime soon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You have a very different definition of both "financially unstable" and what it means for spouses to support each other than I do.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You have a very different definition of both "financially unstable" and what it means for spouses to support each other than I do.
We have a different definition of most of the things central to this thread, which is what I've been trying to say .
Dag, to further explain where I'm coming from on this, I'm in precisely the situation you're describing: I have a good job, but I never finished my college degree, and I fully intend to go back sometime in the future, because what I'm doing now isn't what I intend to be doing for the rest of my life.
I wouldn't want to marry me right now.
Simply put, my future is too uncertain to do any long-range planning around. I'm totally unwilling to let someone provide for me to that level, and hopefully the person I marry feels similarly (because that particular attitude manifests itself in many other ways that would lead to the kind of compatability I want in a life partner).
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I understand your yearning for stability, and desire for a guarantee. I say that not to be patronizing, I know that you know there are no guarantees, but all the same everyone wants one. But i don't know that anything you just listed has a proven track record of marriage together down the road. Speaking personally, having struggled financially while I was a student during our first few years of marriage has strengthened it, rather than hurt it.
I'm happy for you (and I say THAT not to be patronizing, too)!
There are several reasons, though, why I want that sort of stability.
1) The "good job" I speak of right now is running my own business. We do moderately well, but the startup period was one of the worst periods of my life, because of the financial instability. I was eligible for food stamps for almost a year (but too proud to take them, "thank you" japanese upbringing!). My credit is STILL trying to recover. What I've learned from this is that financial stability is absolutely VITAL to my happiness/sanity - which would obviously affect any relationship I'm in. It also makes me wary of these qualities in others, because I know how it affected me.
2) One of the most important people in my life got married when she was deeply in love, and in school. Their relationship ended in a year because of financial instability.
It's a bias and, like all biases, will probably stop me from having a few relationships that might otherwise be successful, but isn't that how all biases work anyway?
[Edit] What I'm still really trying to say here is that we all have different standards and ideas about what makes a successful marriage. I recognize and respect that for many people, not cohabitating before marriage works, and working out the kinks during the marriage is part of what makes it work. But I don't think that means my way of doing it is "socially irresponsible."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Single parents have less time, less money, and more stress than families with two parents. It is because one person must both serve the outside world enough to support the family and serve all the needs of the family.
This is not because of any stigma - this is because of numbers. The number of adults have been halved but the amount of responsibilities have not.
I agree 100% with this (and I should know).
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If you mean love as an action performed by each spouse that underlies all interaction between them, then I think it's essential.
I would call that commitment, not love.
I would also say that it is the most important element in a marriage.
I agree with this too.
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: I prefer the scenario where you don't decide to get married because you are in love, you decide to get married because you are compatible.
I refuse to believe that not everyone deserves to be in love with the person they marry. That the "love, honor, and cherish" must needs be for some only a nice idea, as they enter into a legal arrangement.
That's so offensive to me. It's been suggested several times to me (including once by my idiot brother), and I always want to ask the person offering it as a solution if they were in love with their spouse when they got married. As far as I can tell, it is a solution always suggested for other people.
IMO, it's not a question of "deserve" at all. And I've done the "getting married because we're so in love" thing. And while I do hope to find love again, I don't expect to be in love with my spouse until AFTER they are my spouse. I would actually be very hesitant to marry someone I was strongly in love with; I already know that sort of emotional state compromises my ability to judge compatibility.
So much for a solution suggested for other people. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: I would actually be very hesitant to marry someone I was strongly in love with; I already know that sort of emotional state compromises my ability to judge compatibility.
So your ideal situation would be to become friends with someone and establish compatibility, and then fall in love with them? It could happen. I hope it will. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't expect to be in love with my spouse until AFTER they are my spouse.
You know, I actually find this kind of sad.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That's workable, but it's not separate finances.
Wasn't really suggesting it was, it's really no different than keeping extra cash for myself in a drawer somewhere. I understand the desire for control of at least a little of your own finances, and this is a wrokable way to address that feeling. But I agree that combined finances are best unless you both are uncommonly honest and communicative. Totally separate finances, to me, suggest that you're still thinking of your relationship as "me and her/him" as opposed to thinking of yourselves as "us." This is rarely a good sign for a lasting relationship.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Totally separate finances, to me, suggest that you're still thinking of your relationship as "me and her/him" as opposed to thinking of yourselves as "us." This is rarely a good sign for a lasting relationship.
The key words there are "to me." What will it take to disabuse people of the notion that there's one right way to look at what works in creating and maintaining a marriage?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
(That's why I always use qualifers like that. The worst words in the English language: "is," "am," "are." They encourage people to think in absolutes.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:It could happen. [Kiss] I hope it will. [Smile]
And Hatrack's not a bad setting for it.
:whistles innocently:
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I would just point out that I, in all my social conservative wisdom, do not see the past as any sort of golden era of marriage.
Especially the era in which the expansion of women's rights were NOT met by a cultural call to bring males further into the family life. We had an era of peace and prosperity, and what did we ask men to do? We were encouraged to carry on as normal, and worse, buy into materialism and luxury.
Rita the Riveter changed the face of the workforce-- but G.I. Joe never learned to take care of Junior.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I would just point out that I, in all my social conservative wisdom
Err...oxymoron?
I'm kidding! I'm kidding!
<goes and stands near a fire hydrant>
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
As the representative of long term non-married heterosexual monogamous relationships on the board, I'm wondering if we fall into the "uncomonly honest and communicative" category. I think Steve is actually betting on my childhood protestant guilt complex to keep me honest.
I'm the main finance manager, mainly because I'm the more anal retentive of the two of us. We have two checking accounts and mine goes to one bank and his goes into another. I actually have more access to "his" money, than he does to "mine". It's all tracked in one Quicken account on my computer. However, his car loan is through my bank, and the housepayment comes out of his account.
Most of the reasons for separate accounts are practical, and our finances are probably almost as merged as a married couple. As the child of a military officer, I'm allowed to belong to USAA savings bank which is somewhat of a glorified crdit Union though it provides a bunch of other services including insurance. Since we aren't married, I can't actually add him to the checking account, even though his name is on the insurance policy. But USAA isn't actually "local", and so Steve's account is with a common national chain, for those times when local is better. I'm fully on his account, though he is the primary, since I'm the one who normally writes the check for the bills. Timing also plays into whose checking account pays what billsm because Steve gets paid twice a month, while I get paid bi-weekly. So the house payment comes out of his account because I know exactly on what day of the month the money will be there, and my own paycheck jumps around too much.
AJ
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
i think its cool that AJ's my representative. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You’re uncommonly something, all right. Honestly though, I think your and Steve’s relationship is different from the “we want to get married but we’re going to live together for a few years first” type.
And remember, I said people may have good reasons for living together, just that reducing the chance of divorce isn’t a statistically valid one.
I based my speculation on conversations I’ve had in pre-marital counseling (lots more young couples in my new appointment). Goes something like this: “We’ve been living together for 18 months and we already consider ourselves married, but now we want to make it official.” “I see. Do you have a joint checking account yet?” “Um, no.” “Do you intend to have one after you’re married?” “Of course!” “How do you think that might affect your relationship?” *panicked look* Eventually one of them brings up their different attitudes toward credit or saving vs spending or whatever their particular issue is.
Does it mean that there aren’t couples who discuss finances and come to a workable agreement on their own, or who basically agree and for whom finances aren’t a conflict point? Of course not! But it does give me fuel for speculation on why living together first does not decrease the rate of divorce. (And, incidentally, why pre-marital counseling does reduce it.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If you mean love as an action performed by each spouse that underlies all interaction between them, then I think it's essential.
I would call that commitment, not love.
I would also say that it is the most important element in a marriage.
I agree with this too.
Here's why I don't think what I described is accurately called "commitment."
Commitment is the dedication to having love underly all interactions between spouses every day, for the rest of your lives.
This is love not as a feeling, but rather something one can choose to do.
But it's hard. Very hard. And commitment is what helps one to do it.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Here you can find some statistics on lots of these questions. Here are a couple of relevant ones -- attitude on pre-marital sex. In 1972 27% of the US population considered it OK -- in 1996 44% considered it OK. That still leaves 56% who consider it wrong -- when 56% of the country agrees with you, you don't live in Bizzaro World.
As for extramarital sex -- the tolerance for that has actually declined -- from 4% to 2%.
And the number of people who actually DO live together without marriage is much smaller that the popular entertainment culture would have you believe (which is one of the problems I think.) In 1972 only .02% of couples living together were not married. In 1998 7.1% of couples living together were not married. Yep, it's an increase. But NOT anywhere near a norm as popular entertainment cultural would have you believe. You've been lied to and you believe the lie. Who's living in Bizarro World now Tom??? I think it's you.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Unfortunately, the percentage of couples currently living together unmarried vs married really tells us nothing about how many of them lived together before marriage. I mean, if every couple lived together for 2 years prior to marriage, and then got married and lived together for 40 years before one spouse died, the percentage of living together couples who were unmarried at any one time would be just under 5%.
And the 56% who consider pre-marital sex wrong include all the people who are already married and have been for years. I suspect that a study of people currently dating would show a much lower percentage. Note – I don’t think this is a good thing.
I wish there were more characters in fiction who got married before moving in together – that would reflect my experience as well as the way I would prefer the world to be. However, I don’t think the demographics back it up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets see, it went from 27% to 44% in 24 years, a change of a little over .708 % per year. Assuming (fallaciously, but this is just a simple thought exercise) the rate of change remains constant, since 1996 (nine years), 6.375% more have converted, that would make slightly over 50% now saying pre-marital sex is okay.
Plus, there's a remarkable bias on those surveys among some in America -- I can think of several people I know who would answer that premarital sex is wrong . . . but also have lots of it.
Not only did about 60% say premarital sex was okay in 2001, over 50% said living together before marriage was.
Saying the majority agree that premarital sex is wrong is not living in present reality.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I don't think the statistics tell the whole story. First of all, the characters being referenced were young. My Grandparents generation certianly does disapprove of premarital sex and cohabitation. But that does not reflect the reality for a younger generation that is being portrayed.
Second, even if 56% disapprove of premarital sex, 80% have premarital sex anyways. I take it in the vein of my mom disapproves of swearing but has been known to do so herself. This number also suffers from the generation gap. It tells us nothing of what people who are in their 20s believe.
Finally, the couples currently living together does not reflect the percentage who at one point cohabitated. At the point that a large portion of the population is already married or too young to be in a serious relationship that leaves a very small percentage even available to cohabitate even if ALL of those people choose that option.
In sum, I think that while a book that shows all generations having tons of premarital sex and cohabitating together is probably misrepresenting society. I don't think it is at all a misrepresentation of the generation shown in the novel or most commonly in the movies.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Plus, there's a remarkable bias on those surveys among some in America -- I can think of several people I know who would answer that premarital sex is wrong . . . but also have lots of it.
A) That's not bias. B) Just because you do something doesn't mean you can't think it's wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Just because you do something doesn't mean you can't think it's wrong.
It just means you don't think it's wrong enough to stop. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Or you don't care enough that it's wrong to stop.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
These people I know do not act as if it is wrong, they pay it lip service as part of their self image. From what I read, this is pretty common.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kacard, The content of your link does not support your assertions and also has relevant information that I can't understand how you could responsibly leave out. People were not repsonding to whether premarital sex was ok, but rather “Sex before marriage is not wrong at all”. Also, you neglected to mention that support of “Sex before marriage is always wrong” in 1996 was at 24% of people surveyed, which, as I said, I don't see how you could think that not mentioning was responsible.
[ September 03, 2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
When someone puts up a link it's so you can go there and see for yourself. I put up the info that interested me. And gave you the opportunity to read it for yourself. Irresponsible??? Please. What's irresponsible is touting your assumptions as if they are truth.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You didn't include information in that link that specifically contradicted what you were claiming that it said. This wasn't additional information. Unless you're using a defintion of "interests me" that means "confirms what I'd like to believe", this was information that interested you, just it disagreed with what you wanted to claim. It is directly relevant to the claim you made about both the contents of the link and the wider issue of how premarital sex is seen in society. But you didn't include it and your claim only works if this information didn't exist. For me, that's irresponsible. But then, I expect that when people link things, the links don't explicitly contradict what they claim (edit: through selectively choosing what parts of the linked content they include) they say.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What's clear, though, is that the "Bizarro world" comment was unsubstantiated and basically wrong unless one considers 24% of the people to be "bizarro."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, No it's not. OSC's claim wasn't that some people don't approve of premarital sex, but
quote:I wish Lee Nichols would do the anthropological research to find out how most Americans live and toss us an occasional novel set in our world, where people wait for marriage and don't find it acceptable when other people move in with each other without benefit of wedlock -- not because we're religious fanatics but because we know that this is what civilization in general and our children in particular require of us.
This statement doesn't conform to reality (which is another, gentler way of saying that it only works in Bizarro World). Just about everyone on this thread has acknowledged that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I think 24% is indeed a small enough minority to consider "Bizarro," at least when you're under the illusion that you're speaking for the majority.
Would you agree that someone who firmly believes that a majority of Americans are non-Christian is a little deluded, Dag? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
24% are those who consider it always wrong.
There's lots of room between that and not thinking that "promiscuous sex is harmless to consenting adults."
Regardless, Tom, is it too much to ask for a little graciousness to our host. You and Squick seem to take great delight in being quite insulting to him fairly often.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, OSC often writes articles which are quite openly -- and sometimes deliberately -- insulting to me, my friends, and fully half of the American population. *shrug* He gets what he pays for in that regard, especially if he's not careful enough to do his research.
He doesn't speak for the majority of Americans, and yet behaves as though it's self-evident that he does. He should probably get over that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, Then let me point it out to you (edit: responding ro your now deleted post about how OSC isn't saying that he's speaking for most people):
quote:I wish Lee Nichols would do the anthropological research to find out how most Americans live and toss us an occasional novel set in our world
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know how I missed that. Thanks.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag, OSC isn't saying that people don't think that "promiscuous sex is harmless to consenting adults", but, as quoted, that in most peoples' America "people wait for marriage and don't find it acceptable when other people move in with each other without benefit of wedlock", which seems to be soundly refuted by the evidence, in both cases.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I quoted him fugu. So did Squick until he edited his post.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, OSC says many things that are insulting, awful, and untrue. If you mean by being gracious that I shouldn't point out that these things are awful, insulting, and untrue, than I do think that this is too much to ask.
The way I see it, there are certain standards that we try to uphold at Hatrack. Oftentimes OSC's writings or his behavior on Hatrack do not conform to those standards. It's entirely possible that Hatrack could be a place where a person can get away with things because of who they are, but I wouldn't want to belong to such a place.
I also don't think that what I see as some people bending over backwards to show how OSC isn't doing and saying things we should disapprove of is responsible, but then again, apologetics is often in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you mean by being gracious that I shouldn't point out that these things are awful, insulting, and untrue, than I do think that this is too much to ask.
No, I mean that these things should be pointed out in a manner that isn't as insulting as both you and Tom do fairly often.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sorry, missed the quoting, but its not OSC's opinions on sex and marriage that are getting the bizarro world comments, but his opinions on most people in America agreeing with him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And it's still f*&^ing rude.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
OSC did say that. However, that wasn't the part that we were talking about here (which is why I immediately edited it out of my post). We can certainly dispute whether or not that bit is divergent with reality, but whether or not it is does not in any way effect the Bizarro World aspect of his statement about "most Americans".
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't view the bizarro world comment itself as particularly rude, but that may be in large part because I view it as a legitimate literary allusion, and a somewhat amusing one at that. Its also an effective way of encapsulating a situation. Some of the other comments have definitely been rude, though, and I would be unlikely to use the bizarro world allusion independently, instead saying just that he's wrong, that his being wrong often undermines his arguments significantly, and demonstrating how I know he's wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: Posted before fugu's previous post.
If you people can't get what I'm saying, reread the first post. A perfectly respectful disagreement with what OSC is saying.
Lots of other people managed to disagree with what was asserted without being that insulting.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I don't view the bizarro world comment itself as particularly rude, but that may be in large part because I view it as a legitimate literary allusion, and a somewhat amusing one at that.
A legitimate literary allusion to Superman. Rock rock on. Although I agree that it would probably be better recieved in a place that's not here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It was hardly meant as a deadly insult, Dags. And I think, quite frankly, that OSC himself would readily admit, if pressed, that "his world" is hardly the majority culture; after all, being "worldly" is practically a Mormon insult, which it hardly would be if most of the world were seen as silent but "virtuous."
But he rarely does so admit, because no one likes to argue from the position of a radical fringe group when they can make it seem like their opposition is the radical fringe group.
The simple fact, though, is that OSC is in a fairly radical minority, something that was driven home to me particularly emphatically by Mack Street's marital hang-up in Magic Street -- in which a decision that would make sense to almost no other American is presented as being forthright and staggeringly moral.
Now, I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to belong to a moral minority; of course he does. And of course he's entitled to wish that he were in a silent majority of right-thinking people who're being oppressed by a soulless media and often-corrupt government. But, by and large, this is not the actual world in which we live, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out -- when he makes sweeping generalizations about the world in which he believes himself to live -- that the two are probably not the same place.
The alternative, quite frankly, is to assume that his poison pen is often aimed directly at me and others like me -- and that would be intolerably rude. So I prefer to imagine that he's writing about a hypothetical world full of wacky and nearly human people, kind of that guy in the "B.C." comic who sets his tablets adrift "overseas."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Treason made a joke. Nobody jump down her throat for it!![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Aren't I hawt too? sniff..didn't y'all see my rack in the favourite character trait thread? ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Less than all and more than none. ![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)