So, I just made a marriage pact with someone. If both of us aren't married by the time we're 30, we're getting hitched.
We even made a few wedding plans. We'd get married in Tokyo and he'd have to propose in a creative way.
Now, I don't know much about married life or how these pacts work but I'm sure it depends on the parties involved. However, what do you guys think about marriage pacts in general? Are they good or bad?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I often wonder how often they actually come to pass. It seems like it'd be rare. I don't think I have any active marriage pacts right now. I don't think much of them one way or the other. I mean I like backup plans and all, but marriage is complicated and I wonder if the people these pacts are made with would be suited for marriage together. I guess it all depends on the person.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I think its sad people think they have to get married by the time they're 30.
I'm 21 (22 next month) and it seems like everyday someone I know is getting married or engaged. It blows my mind. What's the rush?
I'd hate to make a pact, hit 30, marry the guy/girl, and then meet the love of my life a year later.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Not only do they not work, you'll probably forget about it before you're 23.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Well, I'd ask that "love of my life" what took him so long.
I personally want to have enough time to plan for a family. We may get married before or after the mark, it's not set on stone.
EDIT: I knew someone who had one and the mark was 28. She was 27 and had made the pact when she was 20.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think they're dumb. If you think your friend would make a good spouse, then marry them. And if you don't think they're who you should marry, why would turning a certain age change that?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
What ElJay said. I've know I've made dozens of these pacts--most of them "seriously," and most of them for 30--and I can't recall even a handful of them.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hussy.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Rivka, it's not that I don't think he's the one I should marry, it's that since we're so young we don't want to make the stupid mistake of marrying at this age when we know little of the world. By the time we are 30, we'll be wiser and hopefully sure of what we're doing.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: What ElJay said. I've know I've made dozens of these pacts--most of them "seriously," and most of them for 30--and I can't recall even a handful of them.
I like to think that I take marriage more seriously than that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you're not ready to get married, then you're not ready to get married. That's fine.
I don't see how the pact helps with that, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: Well, I'd ask that "love of my life" what took him so long.
...
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Huh. I have to say I was only vaguely familiar with this idea before you posted this. I know I've heard the term before, but if you'd asked me to define it I probably could not have answered.
So obviously, I don't know anyone for whom the pact "worked." Of course, there's several kinds of "not working" -- either the parties forget, or someone's been married, or they call it off.
I have to ask, what happens if one or both persons is in a relationship upon reaching the designated age?
--j_k
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i regret the pact i made. i would like to revoke it, but revoking a pact makes me feel flighty and disloyal.
marriage pacts are pretty much a bad idea. it's amazing what life can do to change your mind - and it is impossible to forecast how you will feel about life, love, and marriage in several years. especially if those several years fall between 21 and 31.
make a secret pact in your mind, allowing yourself to be honest about how you really feel about the would-be-pactee. Then, if your would-be deadline comes around and you feel the same way, present the idea.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Then the wedding is off.
The thing is that both parties have to be available. If you're both single and without significant others, then a marriage takes place.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree with everything Rivka's said in this thread.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: i regret the pact i made. i would like to revoke it, but revoking a pact makes me feel flighty and disloyal.
marriage pacts are pretty much a bad idea. it's amazing what life can do to change your mind - and it is impossible to forecast how you will feel about life, love, and marriage in several years. especially if those several years fall between 21 and 31.
make a secret pact in your mind, allowing yourself to be honest about how you really feel about the would-be-pactee. Then, if your would-be deadline comes around and you feel the same way, present the idea.
I won't forget to do that either. If I don't feel the same way by the time that comes around I'll let him know. After all, I wouldn't want to be in a marriage that I am not comfortable with.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
I also think that if fertility is not your main concern, then it is a silly idea all together. otherwise why would you feel so strongly about being married at thirty no matter what?
And if fertility IS the issue, then thirty is pushing it with a woman's reproducive health on the balance.
How about 24? HA! That would have been terrible. I love my best friends, but I would have been such a tragic wife... stricken with secret longing, and those forehead lines that come from wide eyed martyrdom.
(edited for gray-mare.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: If I don't feel the same way by the time that comes around I'll let him know. After all, I wouldn't want to be in a marriage that I am not comfortable with.
That's good.
Now, what did having the pact achieve again, exactly?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Plenty of people start families after thirty. I see no reason why thirty should be a magic family number.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll be honest, when I saw the thread title, my first thought was, "That's a question?"
Edit: What I mean to say is that I've heard of marriage pacts, but thought them primarily relegated to sitcoms and movies, not something anyone would actually make and expect to be bound by decades down the road.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
I am not saying that 30 is not a reasonable age to start a family. I am saying that biologically, if a woman wants to birth children it is safer for her own health to start having them at a younger age. Having (first born) children later in life increases complications for the child and the mother. There is also an increase risk of developing cervical cancer. I have a book about this somewhere, but I think it is out on loan. Can a med. person corroborate this for me?
If you aren't particular about birthing your own babies, then, hey, go ahead; but if having that family is so important to you, then why not just marry your friend now and start planning?
Shortly after making a marriage pact with one of my best friends, I realized that I had opened up the door for him to seriously consider me as the mother to his children, forcing the issue a lot faster than I had really intended. I guess I assumed that once I was older I would care less for sparks, romance, spontaneity, sexual excitment, and mystery.
I was short-sighted, to say the least. For some reason girls tend to plan and forecast their life in numbers. It is a bad habit, but in a way inevitable. A few of my friends and I shared all of our "do this by this age" timelines and all but the youngest of us had already passed the "married by" number and were pushing the "two kids by" number. You just can't plan these things. Well, you can, but I'm not much for forcing major life events. Prodding a little bit, sure, but push too hard and it tends to blow up in your face.
Nothing stings worse than destiny shot up the nostrils.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Edit: What I mean to say is that I've heard of marriage pacts, but thought them primarily relegated to sitcoms and movies, not something anyone would actually make and expect to be bound by decades down the road.
Exactly. I plan on taking marriage very seriously, but I'm incapable of taking a marriage pact seriously. I can't conceive of how it makes any sense to take them seriously.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Have you even SEEN "My Best Friend's Wedding"?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
(post 30 family initiation--->) I also feel that it is a little careless to start a family when both parents are past a certain age. It is hard to have elderly parents when you are still an adolescent.
but Abraham was old as mess, so what do I know?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd call that an exception to the rule.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Yes, I have seen it. Lyrhawn. But like I said before, if he's already found someone else, then I'll let him be.
I think it's more of a fertility issue, here because I want to have someone to raise a family with at least by that time.
The age is not set in stone, either. It's just a more or less plan of what we'd like to do.
And we both know that we're young, dumb and ugly now, but in 10 years we may be smarter and more sure of what we want.
It's not like I'm signing a deal with the devil or anything.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: (post 30 family initiation--->) I also feel that it is a little careless to start a family when both parents are past a certain age. It is hard to have elderly parents when you are still an adolescent.
but Abraham was old as mess, so what do I know?
I don't see how it's careless. My mom did it just fine and she was 34 when I was born. A good parent is a good parent. Besides, I don't think I agree with your definition of elderly...
My mom's not even a senior citizen yet...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: (post 30 family initiation--->) I also feel that it is a little careless to start a family when both parents are past a certain age. It is hard to have elderly parents when you are still an adolescent.
*amused* But continuing having kids past age 30 is ok? So it's ok with you if I should manage to get remarried and have more kids, despite being 33?
Just to be clear, I really am amused, not insulted. I hardly think having kids in your 30s -- or even your 40s -- means you will be "elderly" when they are teenagers.
My parents are 60 and 61, and hardly elderly! (My youngest sib is almost-21.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think it's more of a fertility issue, here because I want to have someone to raise a family with at least by that time.
I've tried thinking of a less harsh way of saying this, but I'm coming up with nothing, so here goes: I believe you owe any children you might have two parents who love each other for themselves, and didn't just come together to procreate.
Seriously. Heaven knows you could adopt, but arbitrarily tying yourself to a total stranger* just for the sake of getting together to start a family seems pretty selfish to me.
*I believe that if you take even your closest friend, fast-forward the clock a decade or so, what you've got when you release the FF button is a total stranger. Sure, you might get lucky, that person might be what you could have predicted, but it's a crapshoot.
Of course, the more I think about this, the more I wonder why I'm posting this at all...the chances of this pact ever actually being enforced are essentially nil.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mid-30's is okay to have kids I think. Really, any age you want them, so long as you aren't on your deathbed and concievably be alive until they get out of high school is fair game I think.
Medical issues crop up though. It's much harder for women past like 28 or 29 to have children, and it's much less safe for both the mother and the child.
But I don't think it's irresponsible.
Edit to add: Second what Rakeesh said.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and to clarify: when I say 'owe' I'm using that term strictly in the sense that this is a situation being planned for. Sometimes, of course, through the happenings of life, families get started without this little specification of mine being met, and that doesn't mean that that family is in some way deficient. It's a strictly case-by-case basis thing.
But with a decision as gigantic and important as starting a family, I believe that the potential children are owed some genuinely good planning, not an arbitrary deadline.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
34 is not very late to have children, especially if you've had others.
45, to me, is considerably late to start.
My mom had her last child two weeks before her fortieth birthday. I think that's fine, but there is also something to be said for having older siblings to help you out where older parents might not be as active anymore.
But all that aside, I don't see much point in a "pact" that is easily brushed aside based on so many potential factors. It's not really a pact, then, is it? Just more of an possbility that's been mutually expressed?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:*amused* But continuing having kids past age 30 is ok? So it's ok with you if I should manage to get remarried and have more kids, despite being 33?
I am not expressing my thoughts on this fully or accurately. I do not think any age between 30 or 40 is too old to start a family.
Lryhawn is right, ANY age is okay, but there ARE factors and increased risks to consider as you age. First there are simply biological factors such as increased risk during childbirth to the child and the mother.
The other factor to consider is who do you have as backup? What I mean by that is go ahead and have children at whatever age possible, but who is a support structure in your life if something goes wrong? It's an equation to take into account. Older parent + young child - second parent - older siblings + increased chance at illness - quick recovery = bad times for your progeny.
THAT being said, let me state for the record that I think families are great, and if you're committed, I don't care how old you are. I'm 26 and have never had children. I like having the option to have children, but seeing as I don't want children outside of a marriage and am not even dating currently, I realize I could be waiting a long time. When I was fourteen I thought I would be an awesome married prima ballerina with a degree in marine biology and one kid by now. So far I'm nothing but awesome.
I was only using the number 30 because it was mentioned in the initial marriage pact post, and 30 is not technically the prime age for fertility factors.
/shrug.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks for the clarification. Now that I understand what you meant, I think I mostly agree with you.
BTW, you're pretty awesome. "Nothing" is not a correct modifier.
Remember, I've seen you on stage. Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Thanks, Rivka.
I'm at this weird point in my life where I've finally split into different people - meaning Little Sara is now her own entity and Future Sara is someone I don't really know yet. I don't know why this happend but it suddenly happend some time a couple years ago. I used to think of my childhood and see it through my own mind's eye, which I know I'm still technically doing, but it actually feels like I'm watching someone else. I've become a little disconnected from the past and the future. Maybe it's an existential crisis of sorts, but not the same kind of existential crisis I have when I take a nap in the afternoon and wake up crying over every pet I've ever had. Seriously, that happend.
ANYWAY, my whole point of even bringing that up is that I don't know 30 year old Sara yet. Sara3.0 may not _want_ to be married, or just not to this particular guy, so why should I betrothe her without her consent?
My friend The Flying Dracula Hair called me SaraBeta once when he was being cheeky, but he has a point. We're all Beta and we shouldn't be buying software years in advance that may not be compatible with our as of yet unforseen upgrades.
The sentiments have value, but in reality a marriage pact is a bit of a disservice to yourself, and your friend. But I repeat that what you made doesn't even sound like a pact based on your lengthy list of variables that would result in termination.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: (post 30 family initiation--->) I also feel that it is a little careless to start a family when both parents are past a certain age. It is hard to have elderly parents when you are still an adolescent.
*amused* But continuing having kids past age 30 is ok? So it's ok with you if I should manage to get remarried and have more kids, despite being 33?
Just to be clear, I really am amused, not insulted. I hardly think having kids in your 30s -- or even your 40s -- means you will be "elderly" when they are teenagers.
My parents are 60 and 61, and hardly elderly! (My youngest sib is almost-21.)
My parents are 59 and 69. My mother had her first child (yours truly) at 37.
Back to the pact thing, I don't see how a pact is a good idea even if you are concerned about a family. I mean, do you really want to marry somebody just so that you can have kids, even if there might be someone else out there who'd be better for you?
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: ANYWAY, my whole point of even bringing that up is that I don't know 30 year old Sara yet. Sara3.0 may not _want_ to be married, or just not to this particular guy, so why should I betrothe her without her consent?
Of course, one can make this argument about any lifetime commitment, including marriage. However, I agree that until and unless one is actually ready to MAKE that lifetime commitment, committing to make that commitment seems like a bad idea.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Touché, and agreed.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
There's really no good reason to have a marriage pact.
If you'd like to get married, date people until you find your spouse. It's really not a difficult process. You get to go on a lot of dates, and eventually you find someone you want to keep, who wants to keep you.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I had a marriage pact in high school, and neither of us took it seriously. I mean, why would you?
Besides the children issue, I could also see someone simply not wanting to be "on the market" anymore at thirty. Dating and single life carry with them their own stresses that can wear people out. I certainly have no desire to ever return there now that I'm married.
Of course, part of that is the fact that I'm happily married, but still Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Oh yeah, and serious marriage pacts are dumb, because there are only three possible outcomes when the promise comes due:
1. Both of you want to get married, at which point, why did you need the pact?
2. ONE of you wants to hold the other to the pact, which is a recipe for a stalker.
3. Neither of you even remembers the pact, at which point, why did you bother?
I think the real cause underlying most marriage pacts is the fact that one of the "friends" involved actually has a giant crush he/she can't own up to, and wants a noncommittal way to discuss marriage with the object of his/her affection.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
As a long-time resident of Tokyo, I can confidently say that there are better places to get married.
Seriously.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Any good places in Japan? How about Okinawa? In remembrance of Karate Kid!
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Sure, though I wouldn't choose Okinawa personally. Depends on the venue though. There are more than enough resorts there to go around. And if you or the bridegroom get into trouble, there are well over 50,000 US servicepeople close by.
With weddings, I tend to think that a sense of romance is important, and few places in Tokyo really lend themselves to that sort of atmosphere, in my pompous opinion. But once again it depends on the venue; you could get married in the penthouse/upper floors of a nice hotel, where you can overlook the city. That's not a bad way to go.
My favourite city is Kyoto, but it's not my idea of the most romantic spot in Japan either. I would have to give this some thought. Until very recently I intended never to get married or to have children.
I'm doing that 'digression' thing again.
[ April 16, 2007, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think marriage pacts are cute and fine, and it has nothing to do with what you'll be doing at 30.
They relieve a present and real anxiety. We put off marriage now for education and general maturity reasons, and I think that's completely fine, but it means that we can spend at least a chunk of our adulthood on our own.
I think what a marriage pact is really saying is "You will not be alone forever. It isn't right for us to be together, but that humongous, scary void of the future stretching out in front of us? Let's put an easy chair in it about a mile away." I think marriage pacts make it easier to trek along now feeling secure that if no other oasis of love arrives, there will at least be an easy chair to sit in. That feeling of being a little more secure and loved has value.
They are great. It will not be relevant when you are 30, but it is relevant now and that is worth something.
[ April 16, 2007, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think Hakodate might be nice, either on top of the mountain or in the star fort (that's now a park filled with cherry trees).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Hehe, all you younguns who think 30 is OLD are so cute. Or that if you aren't married by 30 you're an old bag and you'll never find love.
You wacky kids! Here's a nickel, go buy yourself a new car or something nice. Maybe one of them new fangled internet machines. Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
One of you is going to be seriously disappointed. I'd feel pretty bad knowing that my spouse married me only because nothing better came along. "I wouldn't marry you *unless* you were the last person on earth", is not a declaration of love.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I think what a marriage pact is really saying is "You will not be alone forever. It isn't right for us to be together, but that humongous, scary void of the future stretching out in front of us? Let's put an easy chair in it about a mile away." I think marriage pacts make it easier to trek along now feeling secure that if you no other oasis of love arrives, there will at least be an easy chair to sit in. [Smile] That feeling of being a little more secure and loved has value.
I think you've got it dead on there. I also think Puppy's statement about crushes has merit. A couple of years ago, I made a marraige pact with somebody. Neither of us take it seriously, but even still, it's somewhat comforting.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Well, like I said my marriage pact isn't written on stone.
Katherina has basically laid it straight for me because that's exactly what it is to me.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead_Horse: One of you is going to be seriously disappointed. I'd feel pretty bad knowing that my spouse married me only because nothing better came along. "I wouldn't marry you *unless* you were the last person on earth", is not a declaration of love.
I wouldn't marry him because I didn't find anything better. It's because we're too young to get married and naturally immature so we want to make sure that we've had time to find the right person.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Oh yeah, and serious marriage pacts are dumb, because there are only three possible outcomes when the promise comes due:
1. Both of you want to get married, at which point, why did you need the pact?
2. ONE of you wants to hold the other to the pact, which is a recipe for a stalker.
3. Neither of you even remembers the pact, at which point, why did you bother?
I think the real cause underlying most marriage pacts is the fact that one of the "friends" involved actually has a giant crush he/she can't own up to, and wants a noncommittal way to discuss marriage with the object of his/her affection.
Puppy did an excellent job of summarizing my reaction, analysis, and [prior, not necessarily pertaining to this thread, of course -- this is not a commentary on those posting here] experiences of seeing this with others (fictional and non-fictional ).
Hey, thanks!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Neither of you even remembers the pact, at which point, why did you bother?
There are reasons to bother! It's like when best girl friends make plans to marry brothers and live right next door to each other and have babies at the same time and take them to the park together and dress them as Raggedy Ann and Andy for Halloween. Practically none of those plans come true, but it is still a very sweet and important thing for friends to do together.
It reinforces to both friends that the future is not an empty and scary place and that they are not shipwrecked sailors on a "whirling, fire-smitten, ice-locked, disease-stricken, space-lost bulb."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Stephen Crane! Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If making a marriage pact now will help someone get more action down the road, I say more power to 'em Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well, like I said my marriage pact isn't written on stone.
Then it's not really a pact, is it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure it is. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Puppy did an excellent job of summarizing my reaction, analysis, and [prior, not necessarily pertaining to this thread, of course -- this is not a commentary on those posting here] experiences of seeing this with others (fictional and non-fictional ).
He summed up my initial take on the subject pretty well, but what kat said made a lot of sense to me.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the kind of panic that drives you to marry before a certain set age might drive you to make a bad choice.
I can see a marriage pact working in two ways here:
The first, it formalizes a date-of-no-return and thus increases the chance of the people involved of making a rash decision in order to comply with this abitrary date.
The second, it actually alliviates the stress because you always know you have somebody waiting for you.
I personally think that the first is more likely and would be wary of setting a formal point-of-no-return date. I've known people as young as 24 who are terribly panicked about marriage. It really is a great stress in this society somehow, for many people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that if someone is smart and self-aware enough to not get into marriage unwisely age 20, they will be the same at 30.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote:Originally posted by Dead_Horse: One of you is going to be seriously disappointed. I'd feel pretty bad knowing that my spouse married me only because nothing better came along. "I wouldn't marry you *unless* you were the last person on earth", is not a declaration of love.
I wouldn't marry him because I didn't find anything better. It's because we're too young to get married and naturally immature so we want to make sure that we've had time to find the right person.
Then your pact isn't really to get married at 30; your pact is to reevaluate your relationship and consider marriage at 30.
The two are very, very different.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Sure it is.
How so?
You can't make an honest pact to do X while at the same time thinking that you haven't yet decided whether you want to do X or not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can see the value in a marriage pact as a placebo effect, with willfully suspended disbelief. I just think that, unfortunately, it's slapping a band-aid on a real problem: anxiety over not being married.
There are a variety of ways to resolve that anxiety, I just think the best way would be to examine one's feelings and decide why they're anxious about not being married, and deal with that, rather than slapping a coat of paint on it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's an agreement with the implied codicils - if it's right, it'll happen.
That's the overt pact. I think the subtext pact is even more real - "I will not forget you, and you do not have to be alone."
ETA: I don't think that being lonely and wanting to belong to someone should be considered a defect in need of being dealt with.
This is in part from experience. I have felt an extreme desire to get married before - at 22. He wanted to badly enough that he married someone else six months after I called it off, and they were divorced within a few years.
Anyway, I think self-awareness a little earlier on the part of either of us would have been a whole lot better than the dramarama that ensued instead. Whatever else you can say, I see no dearth of self-awareness from Alt and her friend. What's wrong with friends and their placebos?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It seems to me that the effectiveness of known placebos is not compatible with self-awareness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think you're missing the subtext. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Do they work?
No. For the reasons that Puppy said. It's silly to think otherwise.
Do they serve some useful function?
Yes. For the reasons that kat said.
I made a marriage pact with one of my good friends from high school (her idea), and even though we both knew then that we wouldn't actually get married it was a comfort to know that we were marriable. We're almost 30 now (and both single), and I guarantee you neither of us will be making that phone call to say, "Hey, should we start on wedding plans?"
So, if your definition of 'work' is that the pact ended in a marriage, then no, they don't work. But if it's to assure both parties that there's nothing about them that's fundamentally unmarriable, then yes, they work. The affirmation is nice, and I don't know anyone who takes them very seriously.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think you're missing the subtext.
The subtext that you've explained in this thread? I don't think I'm missing it -- I just think that it requires a certain amount self-unawareness or self-deception for it to work.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And as long as that is clear to both of you, it was a harmless and comfortable thing.
What would happen if one of you did make that phone call?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So, if your definition of 'work' is that the pact ended in a marriage, then no, they don't work. But if it's to assure both parties that there's nothing about them that's fundamentally unmarriable, then yes, they work. The affirmation is nice, and I don't know anyone who takes them very seriously.
MPH, JT explained it very well. That doesn't require self-deception - it requires believing in the spirit of it but not taking it literally. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That sure sounds like self-deception to me. Otherwise, why have with untrue literal pact at all?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:And as long as that is clear to both of you, it was a harmless and comfortable thing.
What would happen if one of you did make that phone call?
I wouldn't make that phone call.
If she did, I'd simply leave the country under an assumed name. Maybe open up a juice bar in the Virgin Islands.
'Course, after I'd been there a few weeks they'd just be called the Islands. *waggles eyebrow*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
following the spirit of a promise != self-deception
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Making a promise that you know you don't intend to keep, but making it anyway because it makes you feel better == self-deception.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:'Course, after I'd been there a few weeks they'd just be called the Islands. *waggles eyebrow*
I knew Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris kicked me in the face once. And you, sir, are no Chuck Norris.*
And Kat, I've been fascinated by your theories on this. My initial reaction was basically Puppy's, and it's still the one I'm most in sympathy with, but I can see where you're coming from.
*I don't really know Chuck Norris - this was merely a joke.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Making a promise that you know you don't intend to keep, but making it anyway because it makes you feel better == self-deception.
Nope. There's no deception there. Especially when you consider the outward words to be the form and the subtext to be the true promise.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Then answer my previous question -- if the intent isn't to self-deceive, what is the purpose of having the false outward words?
Why not have the outward form accurately reflect the "true" promise?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I feel like we are going in circles. Because it is to assure that the other is, in fact, marriagable. Also, because we use the concept of marriage as a shorthand for being loved and not alone. Because marriage can be a rite of passage, and that assurance of being marriagable is an assurance that the other will not be left behind. Basically, marriage is a word and a concept that carries so much with it that it is useful for describing being loved and belonging and being part of society. Subtext!
Do you have a different take if you consider it a metaphor? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree -- we are going in circles. I'm not sure this is resolvable.
It still seems to me that self-deception (or, I guess, dishonesty) is an inherent part of saying "I promise I will do X" when you don't intend to do so.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I am not a fan of subtext over actual words in relationships. I generally think it's a recipe for someone getting badly hurt. "Yes" means "yes", "no" means "no", "maybe" or "I'll think about it" means "maybe" or "I'll think about it" and "let's agree to get married" means "let's agree to get married."
I can see saying to a friend, "well if we're both still single at 30 we could always marry each other," having the friend replies "yes, we could" and feeling good about that. Is that what people are refering to as a "pact"? Because to me, "pact" is a much stronger word -- it implies a promise. I can't imagine calling something a pact that neither party had any intention of taking seriously.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's been my experience that, as Puppy observes, the vast majority of such "pacts" arise when one of the two people has an enormous -- and usually unrequited -- romantic crush on the other, and doesn't have any other prospects. As such, they're generally a bad idea, but -- like many bad ideas -- they can be a temporary balm.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Katherina, you're probably the only one in this thread who actually knows what I'm trying to say.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I wish I had written the post that dkw just posted, as it communicates very well my thoughts on the subject.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Basically, marriage is a word and a concept that carries so much with it that it is useful for describing being loved and belonging and being part of society.
BTW, I'm going to use this quote the next time someone asks me why same-sex marriage is so important.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
kat, what happens to the need to feel loved and marriagable when the people hit thirty, both are still single, and one of them is feeling unloved and unlovable, his or her biological clock is ticking, he or she calls in the pact and the other person says "no"?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hugs Alt* I think you're darling, Alt, and I wish I had been as self-aware and wise as you are being.
quote:kat, what happens to the need to feel loved and marriagable when the people hit thirty, both are still single, and one of them is feeling unloved and unlovable, his or her biological clock is ticking, he or she calls in the pact and the other person says "no"?
The same things that happen with any other kind of romantic rejection.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
As to the fertility issue - a woman's fertility starts decreasing around 30, with a big drop at 35. Of course, every woman's body is different, but this applies to a great majority. I, for example, will never be able to have children past 30, which is why we're trying for baby #2 so soon (we'd like to maybe have a 3rd one). Additionally, the health risks to both mother and child increase after age 35. There is also increasing evidence that autism is linked to advanced age in both parents.
While plenty of people have healthy children in their 30's and 40's, I can understand not wanting to wait.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The same things that happen with any other kind of romantic rejection.
Except in most other kinds of romantic rejections, you weren't previously promised that you wouldn't be rejected.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Brought my own durn easy chair with me. In my purse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Except in most other kinds of romantic rejections, you weren't previously promised that you wouldn't be rejected.
What? That's not true. Divorces, breakups of long-term relationships - every time someone has said "I'll love you forever" or "You're safe with me." and then didn't or they weren't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Basically, marriage is a word and a concept that carries so much with it that it is useful for describing being loved and belonging and being part of society. Subtext!
And, by the way, how wrong and mean and smug and hurtful is that! Lovely to know that I am unloved and have no place in society. Grand!
If it were true.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, please. I'm not married either. I didn't meant it that way at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Except in most other kinds of romantic rejections, you weren't previously promised that you wouldn't be rejected.
Except that most of these romantic "rejections" are rejections, not betrayals. When you divorce someone, you're not rejecting them; you're breaking a promise to them. Breaking this "pact" does the same thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Feel free to clarify.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom: It isn't either/or.
Kate: Do you really think I meant it like that? Do you really think that I - not married and with no immediate plans to become so - meant that everyone who isn't married is not part of society and is unloved?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Being not married at your age is different from being not married at my age.
I am not blaming you for this sentiment. I think you are describing a popular misconception - one that leads people to make pacts because the concept of being unmarried at 30 is unthinkable.
If you want to examine and explain what you did mean, that would be great.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm 30!
No examination necessary. You read the sentence wrong. I was not expressing my own opinion about the requirements for being part of society.
kate, since you feel fine about yourself, then it wouldn't matter what I thought anyway, even if I did mean what you thought I meant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm 30!
No examination necessary. You read the sentence wrong. I was not expressing my own opinion about the requirements for being part of society.
kate, since you feel fine about yourself, then it wouldn't matter what I thought anyway, even if I did mean what you thought I meant.
I didn't you were expressing your own opinion. I think, though, that you are echoing an opinion (whether you share it or not)that sees unmarried women (not so much men) as traveling through a humungous, scary void with no oasis of love in sight.
And you are right, it doesn't really matter what you think of me. It is annoying to have that particular stereotype encouraged, though.
And I am willing to accept that I read that sentance wrong. How should I have read it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Feel free to clarify.
When you marry, you promise to live with that person forever. When you ask someone to marry you and they say no, there has never been a promise; they simply didn't return the interest.
When you promise to marry someone at some indeterminate time in the future, you are engaging in an act closer to engagement than to asking someone on a date.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And I am willing to accept that I read that sentance wrong. How should I have read it?
Descriptively, not prescriptively.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, I am reading it descriptively. You are describing (somewhat sympathetically) a way of looking at being married vs being unmarried that I find wrong, mean, smug, and hurtful.
I didn't say that you are these things. I said that that way of thinking was.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Think of it as a description of the rhetorical weight the word "marriage" carries and how it is therefore useful as a shorthand for other things which are often harder to articulate. That's all it is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sigh. Right. And that it carries such weight is all those things I said it was.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If it wasn't that word, I think it would be a different word. It's a handy shorthand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It might be handy, but it is wrong...hurtful. Unless what you (or whoever is using that shorthand) want to equate being married with being loved, belonging, and having a place in society. In which case, it's just hurtful.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The word having that rhetorical weight does not eliminate other ways of being and doing the same.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Marriage itself is so emotionally loaded, it's really no wonder so many in the US fail. The idea that teens or early 20s NEED to be married by a certain time, and have to start making fall-back plans a decade or more before then is a good example. All the hubub over same-sex marriage is another. In reality, being married and being in a long-term, committed relationship can be nearly identical, but the wording trips everyone up.
I think marriage pacts are bad, because they reinforce the societal weight on the term marriage, and help make it somewhat pathological. Marriage pacts encourage young people to see marriage as some mythical event, which must come to pass by a certain time.
They also make an easy excuse to avoid intimacy and emotional growth, to avoid taking risks, meeting new people, trying to find love, because you have that imaginary pact to fall back on.
Rather than make a marriage pact, people would be much better off either asking the other person out now, thinking about why they don't feel like they can ask that person out, or just dating other people.
I'm not saying anyone is a bad person for making a marriage pact, but I do think they serve no good purpose, and can actually be to a person's disadvantage in the long run.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The word having that rhetorical weight does not eliminate other ways of being and doing the same.
Do you think that married=loved, belonging does not also imply unmarried=unloved, not belonging?
That is the trouble with using "shorthand". If it can carry implications that we like, it might also carry implications that we don't.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
kmb, I have no idea why you're reading kat's statements this way.
When someone is married, part of what they get out of the deal is long-term reassurance that they are loved and accepted. That doesn't mean that people who are not married are unloved and rejected. Giving a compliment to one person does not imply an insult to everyone else in the world.
What kat was saying is, if I tell my friend, "I would marry you," I'm telling them that I find them lovable and acceptable and a host of other awesome things, and that makes them feel good. In that sense, "marriage" is a shorthand for a bunch of nice stuff.
If I tell my friend, "I would marry you," one thing I am definitely NOT saying is, "Unmarried people are unlovable, worthless human beings." That just doesn't even make sense. Someone would have to be pretty hypersensitive to take it that way in context, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Puppy, I am not particularly offended by kat. Nobody has said anything about being a worthless human being, so I can't speak to being over sensitive. I am bothered by a mindset that seems to need a backup marriage plan as a comfort against a bleak future. That carries a certain rhetorical weight as well.
And what you say to someone you would marry is something between the two of you. For someone else it could mean, "you are better than dying alone" or "I think you will make a lot of money and provide a lifestyle that I want" - or any number of things.
My problem is with a society that sees being married as a passport to being included, certification that one is an adult, proof that one is loved.
I mean seriously, if I understand it correctly, LDS doctrine (to en extent) insists on marriage in order to achieve a certain level of something.
Again, I am not blaming kat for this mindset. I think she just tapped into a stereoptype that, to me at least, is an obnoxious one.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I don't think it's a bad thing to hold up marriage as an important life goal. If people altogether stop aspiring to get married and start stable families as an important part of their adult lives, then we're going to run into a serious shortage of those families when it comes time to raise the next generation.
I agree that we should take care, generally, to avoid turning public aspirations into absolute requirements that make people feel rejected if they "fall short" or simply go another way.
But at the same time, we shouldn't be so reactionary that we start ripping out important parts of our culture for fear that someone's feelings might be hurt if we insinuate that something they haven't done might be important and worth doing.
I don't know if you're necessarily doing the thing that I'm arguing against, but either way, I think it's worth saying. We can't eliminate disappointment from life. And we'd be especially foolish to try, if in the process, we also lost some of our positive aspirations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think marriage can be an important life goal for some people . Not for everyone. Nor should it be. I think for a long time it has been the only life goal for many women. The tendency to still think this way is a problem.
Thinking that something is important and worth doing for you, doesn't make it a goal for society.
Women who don't get married are not necessarily "disappointed".
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The ones who aren't disappointed don't need your advocacy. I'm assuming that you're reaching out to protect the ones who do believe they need to get married, and are disappointed, or feel judged, when their life doesn't go that way.
Either way, I think that if we diminish the value of marriage by saying that it's "only important for some people", we run the risk of losing an important piece of the substructure of our society, which promotes successful and stable child-rearing environments.
It's a balancing act, but I do think it's possible to simultaneously promote a public ideal without unfairly judging those who sidestep it.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Marriage is only important to those who find it important. It promotes one way to achieve a succesful child-rearing environmnet, it is not the only way. And I think it needs to be pointed out that marriages are not inherently conducive to raising children.
The stability looked for in parenting comes from the parent(s), not the marriage. Good parents will be good parents, married or not, and vice versa.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Despite my utterly liberal leanings, I am inclined to completely disagree with you, Avatar.
Marriage is an important factor to _everyone_ in our society, especially in concern to child-rearing. I'm going to class, but I'll elaborate further tonite. My main point goes along with a post I wrote years ago concerning sex in high school.
The biggest issue is that marriage, like it or not, is one of the only social structures we have in our society and environment that secure family units and hold people accountable for taking care of one another, regardless of their mood.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What kat was saying is, if I tell my friend, "I would marry you," I'm telling them that I find them lovable and acceptable and a host of other awesome things, and that makes them feel good.
Why would you ever tell them that and NOT date them?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Puppy, I'd be careful with that wording. I think it's possible for people to be called (either on a spiritual or non-spiritual level) to lead a single life. So in principle, marriage is not important to them. (this could also apply to couples who do not wish to have children).
Now saying that marriage is not necessary to those who are called to be in a relationship and raise children, that could be a more valid argument to have.
as for the importance or lack thereof to successful families and/or child rearing: I certainly agree that marriage is in no way a free ticket to being a good parent, though I have a hard time personally imagining that married parents are in some way less effective than non-married parents. it seems to me that some level of official commitment to the relationship (be it religious or not) is always going to be at least as good if not better (most likely) for the stability/functionality of a family. But I'm open to argument on that subject.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Thinking that something is important and worth doing for you, doesn't make it a goal for society.
I would say it just about opposite: Marriage may not be a goal for you, but I think it should be a goal for society in general, as stable homes and families are the bedrock of a civilization.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well said, Jenna. I agree.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I don't think it's a bad thing to hold up marriage as an important life goal.
I do. I think it's a TERRIBLE goal, and the current divorce rate is in part a reflection of the notion that "getting married" is a marvelous, magical thing.
I think that if more people had a goal of creating and maintaining a stable, loving marriage -- rather than expecting to get married and have the rest miraculously take care of itself -- we'd all be a lot better off.
I also agree with those who said that it is perfectly reasonable for people not to have any kind of marriage as a life goal. With the caveat that I believe that it is appropriate (to protect children) for society to expect (but NOT to legislate) that those who plan to have children be married.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you're entirely right rivka...but I rather think that Puppy was including a good, stable, mutually loving and committed marriage as an obvious part of 'marriage'. He didn't specify, but I'd be surprised if he didn't mean that when he said "marriage".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It is precisely the fact that too many people think those characteristics are obvious, without necessarily giving much thought to what each partner needs to do both before and during the marriage, that causes the problems I am talking about.
They are not "givens," they are not "obvious" -- they come from a lot of hard work, some of which should by done before the marriage, and probably before the couple even meets.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't see how having unrealistic expectations about marriage is a requirement for having marriage as a goal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree. I'm not sure if Puppy is guilty of that particular fault or not, but society in general certainly seems to be.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I would say it just about opposite: Marriage may not be a goal for you, but I think it should be a goal for society in general, as stable homes and families are the bedrock of a civilization.
I don't think that's a truism. Our society sees single-family, 2-opposite-sex parents as a bedrock for civilization. There is no inherent reason that a stable civilization could not be reached with group parenting, extended families, single-parents, same-sex parents, and many other configurations.
In fact, that is the reality the world over, and I don't know of any civilizations which are in the process of falling to ruin because many of the children are raised in these different family situations.
Some people have arbitrarily decided that a married couple is the perfect family group, but I don't think there is any strong evidence to support that. There is also ample evidence that a married couple can be horrible parents and raise damaged children, so I think it's all a bunch of bunk.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't see how having unrealistic expectations about marriage is a requirement for having marriage as a goal.
It's not. But having marriage -- with no qualifiers -- as a goal certainly has a very high correlation with unrealistic expectations of marriage. (IME and IMO, natch.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The fact that he didn't write out any qualifiers is no reason to assume that there aren't any.
If I say that I'm hungry and want to eat, it will usually be understood that I mean I want to eat food, even though I didn't explicitly say so.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The majority of that which is eaten when someone is hungry is food. The vast majority, even. Choosing an edible substance to eat is instinctive and requires little effort.
The majority of marriages are not stable and loving. The patterns and behaviors necessary to maintain good marriages are neither instinctive (they are often counter-instinctive) nor requiring of little effort.
Don't get me wrong. I am sure that Puppy meant good marriages. But I believe that the inherent assumptions so prevalent in our society -- and many posts of this thread -- of marriage somehow being a cure, a fix, a magical source of love, etc. are too dangerous and widespread to encourage. Even inadvertently.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good point, there.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Dang it. I say, "marriage is a good thing for society" and people jump down my throat, shouting, "Not all marriages are good! Lots of marriages suck! Marriage isn't a magical cure-all, stop being so naive!"
Where did you all get the impression that I thought all marriages were awesome, and that marriage was some magical thing that would cure all the world's ills?
Of course many marriages have serious problems. Even good ones have problems, because people have problems. Anything humans do has the potential to go horribly wrong, and often will.
But seriously, are you folks saying that the danger of encouraging marriage at the risk that some people will enter into bad marriages is worse than the danger inherent to encouraging the abandonment of marriage?
To me, it seems as though the best course is to try and teach young people to value and create good, stable marriages, rather than teaching them to dismiss them altogether.
Or maybe, while we're at it ... There are a lot of corrupt governments in the world, so it's a really bad idea to encourage nations to form governments, right? And there are a lot of really awful books out there, so people really shouldn't bother learning to write, because what's the point? It will probably only lead to bad reviews and humiliation.
Is it possible that maybe you're taking this too far? Do the existence of bad marriages really turn marriage itself into a blight that should not be promoted? Would you be happier in a society where marriage was unheard of?
[ April 17, 2007, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Marriage itself is not bad. Promoting the idea that people _need_ to get married by a certain age in order to be a productive member of society, or that the only goal of having a relationship with someone is to get married, or that you can't raise a family right if you're not in a Christian marriage: those types of ideas aren't helping anyone.
If you don't want to get married now, or in x number of years, or maybe at all, you shouldn't feel like you've failed at life, or that you're promoting the downfall of society. Those sort of attitudes certainly don't promote healthy marriages, nor do they benefit society.
Bad marriages don't make marriage a blight, but the over-promotion of marriage might be partly responsible for some of the bad ones occurring in the first place.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
That seems like a more reasonable way to make the same point that many above are probably already trying to make
I absolutely think that the promotion of marriage should be inextricably tied to the promotion of successful marriage, with all the realism and strategizing that we can muster, to give people an increasingly good shot at making it actually work.
But I still feel that what we need to do is improve the way we promote marriage in our culture — not stop promoting it altogether. Aspiring to marriage and successful family life, having those kinds of deeply-ingrained positive ideals, is a far more effective influence on tomorrow's parents than sex-ed scare stories about the horrors of single parenthood.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Puppy, of course good marriages are a good, perhaps even necessary thing for society. So are all sorts of things. Governments, as you said and writers. Doctors and police. But we don't seem to have this generalized anxiety among women about going through life without passing a law or writing a book. Specific women will worry about such things, women who have specifically chosen such things for themselves, but there isn't an expectation, but there isn't the widespread sense among women that they must do this or face some bleak uncertain future.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmboots, I am not hoodwinked or trapped into anything, and I'm a little offended that you are fine with judging that I am.
I think that people, in general, want to be loved and accepted and to belong. Not only do I not see anything wrong with that, I think it's foolish to deny it and downplay it. It isn't limited to women, either - I think it's been shown (sorry about the lame citation - too lazy to look it up) that single women are on the whole happier than single men, and, as a population, happier than married women as a whole.
I also think that being in bad marriage is among the worst things that can happen in one's life. Not only does life suck, but you're not free to find a life that doesn't suck. I think there is NOTHING so lonely as being trapped in an unhappy relationship.
What I have found to be most annoying is the condescending pity I occasionally get from people who have been married for my single state - I don't know for sure, but I always want to ask them how happy their own marriages are. I mean, if someone is married and unhappy in it, I can see it being unbearable to see someone who is single and happy about it. Of course, someone who is happy and thoughtless could do the same thing, mistaking their condescension for sympathy, so I guess I can't say.
Do I have to say it? All relationships are not equal, and marriage in general is no panacea. OF COURSE I believe this - I can't imagine that anyone looking at my life would think for a second I believe differently.
This is a simplified rundown for individuals as I see it (the ">" is a "greater than" sign and not an arrow) (and this is over a lifetime and not for any given moment in a life): Happily married > happily single > unhappily single > unhappily married
[ April 17, 2007, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I agree with kmbboots that the whole "marriage" thing is definitely a much greater source of anxiety with women than with men.
Where's Wedding GI Joe (with karate chop cake-cutting action)?
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know that it is a greater source of anxiety with women than men. In my family, there is my dad, my three brothers, and me. Between my dad and my brothers, I think they have they spent three years after being 21 being single. My dad remarried very quickly after my mother died because he hated being single so much. Not only am I an anomaly for not getting married before my 24th birthday, I am an inexplicable enigma that they sit around the kitchen table and try to come up with theories to explain.
Maybe it is just more okay for women to verbalize their anxiety.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Aspiring to marriage and successful family life, having those kinds of deeply-ingrained positive ideals, is a far more effective influence on tomorrow's parents than sex-ed scare stories about the horrors of single parenthood.
I know many people who are also choosing to opt out of parenthood. Perhaps we should encourage marriage as a prerequisite to parenthood, while recognizing that a life without children or partner is equally valuable?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: kmboots, I am not hoodwinked or trapped into anything, and I'm a little offended that you are fine with judging that I am.
I think that people, in general, want to be loved and accepted and to belong. Not only do I not see anything wrong with that, I think it's foolish to deny it and downplay it. It isn't limited to women, either - I think it's been shown (sorry about the lame citation - too lazy to look it up) that single women are on the whole happier than single men, and, as a population, happier than married women as a whole.
I also think that being in bad marriage is among the worst things that can happen in one's life. Not only does life suck, but you're not free to find a life that doesn't suck. I think there is NOTHING so lonely as being trapped in an unhappy relationship.
What I have found to be most annoying is the condescending pity I occasionally get from people who have been married for my single state - I don't know for sure, but I always want to ask them how happy their own marriages are. I mean, if someone is married and unhappy in it, I can see it being unbearable to see someone who is single and happy about it. Of course, someone who is happy and thoughtless could do the same thing, mistaking their condescension for sympathy, so I guess I can't say.
Do I have to say it? All relationships are not equal, and marriage in general is no panacea. OF COURSE I believe this - I can't imagine that anyone looking at my life would think for a second I believe differently.
This is a simplified rundown for individuals as I see it (the ">" is a "greater than" sign and not an arrow) (and this is over a lifetime and not for any given moment in a life): Happily married > happily single > unhappily single > unhappily married
kat, honey, where have I said that I thought you were either hoodwinked or trapped! As you have said and I agreed you are describing a cultural phenomenon. I don't think you are promoting it. It would be a good thing if the condescention that annoys both of us didn't exist. One of the reasons for that condescention and pity is this idea that women should be married. This is also, in my opinion, the reason why AofD finds the prospect of being single at 30 daunting enough to want a safety net. You seemed to sympathize with that, which is fine. I think it may have been more helpful to reinforce the idea that there can be lots of ways to fill that landscape, but that's just me. I think you were trying to empathize rather than correct.
It is the phenomenon that I am railing against. Not you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think telling Alt that being married doesn't matter and isn't important is...missing her point of what she's trying to accomplish - a happy marriage. It's like going to Sephora and asking for a mascara that won't run and someone starting trying to sell you fabulous lipstick that draws attention from the eyes. Very nice lipstick, but it isn't addressing her central concern.
I don't think she's saying that if she's not married at 30, her life will be worthless. I think she's saying that she wants to be married, but she wants to make sure it's right and that they'll be happy, and so to quell the anxiety that might push her to do something stupid (like...I just about did, and like I've known others to do), she's making plans with a friend. It seems to me that telling her not to want to be married is very unhelpful - she already does.
I can address her and her concerns, or I can tell her to have different concerns. Rather than push my view on her, I prefer to do the first. I actually have complete confidence in Alt that she will make her decisions about her future carefully and that when she does get married, she'll do it thoughtfully. No promises beyond that, but none of us get those.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad about who I was dating. My dad was trying very hard to be helpful, but it wasn't working: "Katie, what do you consider to be most important in someone that you want to date?" "That he is smart." "No, it is that he has the same values."
End of conversation. Thanks for telling me what is important to me, dad! Now, the same-values thing IS very important, and after a little bit of trial and error I've discovered it is also a sine qua non, but unless he's smart and articulate and thoughtful, I don't want to waste five seconds thinking about it and no amount of telling me to do otherwise is going to change that. Any conversation that starts out telling me to change how I feel is addressed to someone else.
quote:I think you were trying to empathize rather than correct.
Her desires for her life are not mine to correct.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I never said or implied that I thought I should be married for the sake of it, or that it was my life's goal.
I want to be married because I want to find someone that I can be with for love. Like...duh.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well...that's great. So what"s with the just-in-case pact and the scary landscape where one needs an oasis?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmm. This is obviously a very delicate question around these parts, but I'll take a crack at it anyway. If you could have the ideal of either two situations, kmbboots: an ideal married life, or an ideal unmarried life, which would you prefer?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Happily married > happily single > unhappily single > unhappily married
I like that. It makes a lot of sense.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I really, really don't like it. It says that if I never get married, I will never be as happy in my life as I could have been had I gotten married to someone I would be happily married to. I just don't believe that's the case. At least not for everyone. I believe that getting married can bring you great joy, but not necessarily more than a ton of other things also can.
I read a review of a book, I can't remember the title or author, that was about happiness. The thesis, according to the review, is that most people are going to be about as happy regardless of what happens in their life. That if your leg has to be amputated or you win the lottery, once the initial shock/sadness/euphoria wears off you'll revert to being about as happy as you were before. That your happiness has more to do with you than with what life throws at you.
Like I said, I didn't read the book, so I don't know how well it was researched or anything. But just from my own life, I lean towards agreeing with it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I really, really don't like it. It says that if I never get married, I will never be as happy in my life as I could have been had I gotten married to someone I would be happily married to. I just don't believe that's the case. At least not for everyone. I believe that getting married can bring you great joy, but not necessarily more than a ton of other things also can.
Hm. That's a pretty different mindset from mine, which leads me to believe that life is better* shared, and the more sharing, the better that better is. I had thought, almost, that this idea approached the level of a given--again, granting the possibility of the ideal status here.
I am curious, though: what other things do you think would bring you equal joy as marrying your ideal partner? I'm asking this as someone who isn't married and has no plans to be in the forseeable future.
quote:The thesis, according to the review, is that most people are going to be about as happy regardless of what happens in their life.
That's a completely unknowable thing though, isn't it? I cannot know what would have happened. I can certainly guess, but that's about it. Granted, whether you are just plain happy or not can often have a lot more to do with you than with what happens to you...and people can choose to be happy even in bad circumstances.
*bear in mind this is a comparative word.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It says that if I never get married, I will never be as happy in my life as I could have been had I gotten married to someone I would be happily married to. I just don't believe that's the case.
Why not? Honestly, the truth of that seems almost self-evident to me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Tom first, 'cause the answer's shorter. Well, it might be.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It says that if I never get married, I will never be as happy in my life as I could have been had I gotten married to someone I would be happily married to. I just don't believe that's the case.
Why not? Honestly, the truth of that seems almost self-evident to me.
Why does that seem self-evident to you? It doesn't to me. I don't want to have kids, which takes away the major reason for getting married, as far as I'm concerned. It's not that I actively don't want to get married, but I don't actively want to get married, either. Never particularly have. When I think about it, the only advantage I can see besides the financial ones is as a hedge against loneliness in your old age. Which would be a pretty silly reason to want to get married.
I'm not saying I won't get married if I end up in a position where I'm sure I want to spend the rest of my life with someone, and they feel the same. But I don't see why that situation would end up with net more happiness in my life than if it doesn't happen.
I don't feel that I will be incomplete as a person if I never promise to have and to hold 'til death do us part. And the idea that someone thinks you can't live out your life just as happily staying single as you could if you got married absolutely baffles me.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Maybe it's not really marriage that they're arguing for, but that kind of a deep commitment and connection to another person.
I think the real question is whether we need other people to be truly happy.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's a pretty different mindset from mine, which leads me to believe that life is better* shared, and the more sharing, the better that better is.
As an aside, I don't think this inherently implies your conclusion that marriage is necessarily a mechanism by which two lives are made better. It's simply taken as a cultural norm in Western societies.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I am curious, though: what other things do you think would bring you equal joy as marrying your ideal partner?
First off, I think that's a trick question. I don't believe there is such a thing as an ideal partner. I can't even think what I would include if I tried to dream one up. I believe that there are a number of people out there that I could fall in love with and be happily married to. Within that number, there is probably a continuum as to how well suited each is for me and I am for them. But there are also a number of people with whom I would be an excellent match for a short term relationship, or even a longer term relationship short of marriage, who I would not be happy married to.
Secondly, the problem with making the comparison as to what would bring me equal joy is that marriage would (presumably) bring me joy for a very long duration, that is hard to match with other activities. But that's because you're lumping a whole lifetime of shared experiences under the term "marriage." So, no, I don't think that there is any one experience out there that could bring me as much joy as a happy marriage. But I think there are many experiences that combined might.
Anything that I list will sound trite. The things that bring one person joy are not necessarily the things that bring another person joy. And you have the easy fall-back of saying "Yes, but wouldn't that be better with someone to share it with?" But I have people to share my life with. I have very good friends, I have a family I love deeply, and I have romantic partners pretty much whenever I want them. Yes, that might change when I get older, but the friends and family part won't. You can say it's not the same as much as you want, I just don't see it. If it's not the same, it's close enough for me to be fulfilled and happy.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The thesis, according to the review, is that most people are going to be about as happy regardless of what happens in their life.
That's a completely unknowable thing though, isn't it? I cannot know what would have happened.
Is it completely unknowable? Take a large sample group. Large enough that there are going to be some tragedies and some unexpected wonderful events. Have them keep a diary of major events in their life, updated regularly, so they're not thinking back on it before answering the survey. Twice a year, have them take a survey asking them to rate on a scale of 1 - 10 their level of happiness. Do it for 10+ years.
If the thesis of the book is correct, their answers may spike or drop after certain life events, but should level back off to where they were before in about a year. Overall, they should be at about the same level of happiness throughout.
I'm not saying that's what they did, I have no idea. I'm just saying I think you could draw some pretty clear conclusions if that was the case.
I'm going to try to find the book, I'll link it if I can.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, that's true enough. I don't think that marriage is the only way to achieve that level of companionship and sharing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I don't see why that situation would end up with net more happiness in my life than if it doesn't happen.
Because there's a certain richness in the committment itself. Believe me, I was skeptical, myself, before I married Christy; we'd already been living together for three years, and I couldn't particularly imagine how things would change once we married "officially." And yet they did. There was something about the public codification of our status and dedication to the relationship -- as an entity independent of each of us, in a way -- that made a surprising amount of difference.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Believe me, I was skeptical, myself, before I married Christy; we'd already been living together for three years, and I couldn't particularly imagine how things would change once we married "officially."
If that is the case, why did you say the truth of my hypothetical seemed almost self-evident to you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because once you've experienced the value-add of that commitment, and once you grant the assumption that you're making that promise to the right person -- which is the big risk -- and the further assumption that that person will remain the right person, then it's really a no-brainer. I can see how some people -- especially ones who place a low initial value on commitment -- might not consider it worth the risk, but this little thought experiment asks us to assume that none of the potential downsides actually apply.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
ElJay,
Well, it's a bit of a trick question, but the trick balances out because just as there is no ideal partner, there is no ideal single life, right?
quote:But that's because you're lumping a whole lifetime of shared experiences under the term "marriage." So, no, I don't think that there is any one experience out there that could bring me as much joy as a happy marriage. But I think there are many experiences that combined might.
You're certainly right about the first...and I grant that listing even a part of the second would be difficult to say the least. Which, I have to admit, to me sort of demonstrates the point I'm trying to make. You have to stretch a bit to think of a bunch of combined experiences that could compete with an ideal (or let's say "best possible" marriage), whereas with the best possible marriage, even the crappier things in life (I believe) are better.
quote:You can say it's not the same as much as you want, I just don't see it. If it's not the same, it's close enough for me to be fulfilled and happy.
Here's where the question becomes tricky. I am not in any way suggesting that you are unfulfilled or unhappy. I guess the question becomes...who do you value more? The friend you've had for as long as you can remember, or the friend you made last month? Unless you can honestly answer that you value them equally, it seems to me* that the romantic partners you can get whenever you want them are not going to measure up to the best possible marriage
As for the book, I would be very interested in reading it if you can find it. *crosses fingers*
*And when I say "seems to me", please bear in mind that I'm making no judgements on your life specifically. Although I'm using pronouns and such, I'm making no claims to knowledge here, except in generalities and such.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
ElJay, I think you are misunderstanding what Tom meant when he said "that."
(And maybe what "is" is, but I'm not sure.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Edit: I started this after Tom's post.
Sure. But you know I've never been married. So from your position now it's self-evident, but the question as you phrased it made it seem like you thought it was self-evident to everyone. Since you not only didn't consider it self-evident before you got married, you in fact didn't think it would make a bit of difference, I don't see why you needed to ask me why I think I can be as happy unmarried as married.
And, of course, now we're in the realm of "you can't know until you've done it." There's no answer for that, of course. I believe that it was an added richness, a surprising amount of difference for you. We're different people, and I don't accept that your experience is anything more than anecdotal. *shrug*
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Tom, are you saying it's impossible to have that kind of a connection and commitment to another person *without* something that very closely resembles a marriage?
Or that you can't have that with multiple partners?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You have to stretch a bit to think of a bunch of combined experiences that could compete with an ideal (or let's say "best possible" marriage), whereas with the best possible marriage, even the crappier things in life (I believe) are better.
Who said I had to stretch? I said I wasn't going to list them out, because what I would consider wonderful experiences might not mean anything to you. I can think of dozens of things that qualify, for me, but I'm not going to put them out there for you (read: anyone) to pick apart.
quote: I guess the question becomes...who do you value more? The friend you've had for as long as you can remember, or the friend you made last month? Unless you can honestly answer that you value them equally, it seems to me* that the romantic partners you can get whenever you want them are not going to measure up to the best possible marriage
*laugh* Are you serious? I have friends who I've had forever that are okay friends, fun to hang around with and everything, but who I would not consider part of my "inner circle." And I've made friends with whom I bonded instantly, and immediately started sharing everything with. Really bad comparison.
It strikes me, though, that I didn't make myself clear with my statement about romantic partners. You seem to be taking it as if I want one, I go out and get one, for a temporary relationship. I do not enter relationships expecting them to end. (fling /= relationship, for the purposes of this statement.) I give each relationship my all, and try my best to have it succeed. If it doesn't, I usually want to stay single for awhile. As soon as I decide I want a relationship again, I usually have one. I know part of that is because I meet society's current definition of attractive, part of it also is because I am a happy person ( ) and people usually enjoy being around me. That translates into being able to date pretty much whenever I want. If my boyfriend dumped me tomorrow, I know at least three people who have made it plain they would like to date me if I become available. I wouldn't, because I think dating on the rebound is a bad idea. But I also have no doubt that as soon as I wanted to date again, I could.
quote: As for the book, I would be very interested in reading it if you can find it. *crosses fingers*
Well I can't look when I keep responding to all y'all's interesting posts.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
rivka, if I'm not you'll have to explain how, because I've re-read and I don't see it. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ok, now I'm REALLY confused. If you're not, I'm supposed to explain how?
How about we ignore what I said. Except the funny bit. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Are you looking for the Dalai Lama's The Art of Happiness?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
rivka, if I am, not if I'm not. Sorry.
The funny bit made me giggle, though.
twinky, thanks, but I don't think so. It was a book by a psychologist, I'm pretty sure. The one I linked is probably it. The one reader review certainly isn't positive. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: The funny bit made me giggle, though.
My work here is done.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, are you saying it's impossible to have that kind of a connection and commitment to another person *without* something that very closely resembles a marriage?
Or that you can't have that with multiple partners?
I think you perhaps can have it with multiple partners, but you can't have it without public promises of lifelong commitment.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Interesting. Unfortunately, I have nothing more erudite to say on the matter. I don't know how i feel about that yet.
edit: okay, for further clarification, are you saying that it's impossible to be truly committed and/or close to someone unless you stand up in front of other people and make it official? that somehow the very act of calling it official makes it more meaningful?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
ElJay,
quote:Who said I had to stretch? I said I wasn't going to list them out, because what I would consider wonderful experiences might not mean anything to you. I can think of dozens of things that qualify, for me, but I'm not going to put them out there for you (read: anyone) to pick apart.
Fair enough. I'll just reply with my wondering what wonderful experience you would have as a single (or, at least, unmarried) life that you wouldn't also be able to have in the "best possible" married life (and to be clear, by that I mean that of married lives, I'm talking about the best possible). I would think that list would be considerably shorter, but I can certainly understand your reticence. I'm pretty much the same way in that regard.
quote:*laugh* Are you serious? I have friends who I've had forever that are okay friends, fun to hang around with and everything, but who I would not consider part of my "inner circle." And I've made friends with whom I bonded instantly, and immediately started sharing everything with. Really bad comparison.
Well, let me be more specific (although I thought my intent was pretty clear, I didn't state it precisely). If you have two friends of, let's say, an equal level of emotional closeness, who do you value more? The one who's known you for a month? Or the one who's known you for a decade? If you say that given that (admittedly abstract) comparison, you would still say "both, equally", I'll take you at your word, but for me personally that's a pretty foreign perspective.
I didn't take you to mean temporary relationships, I was again viewing it kind of generalized. By that I mean, if you look at any given relationship, taken from a random person totally at random, chances are that relationship isn't going to endure a lifetime. Thus, you were in effect talking about temporary relationship, not that that's what you entered into them looking for. Should've been clearer there, too.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I got married after 3 years of dating, and the before and after of the ceremony were exactly the same to me. No profound new level of commitment or extra happiness, just the same level of awesome that we had before. So for me, being married was no different.
Several years later, Bad Stuff happened, and we're no longer married, so if you want to add your own assumptions to the mix, I leave that to your imagination, although I prefer you not presume to know the circumstances
After, I was much happier single than married, so I submit my experience as a contradictory data point.
For further reference, I'm getting married later this year, and I expect things to be Totally Awesome from this point forward, but I don't expect that society's opinion of my legal status will make a lick of difference to my internal state of mind.
A further aside: if marriage does indeed make one significantly happier than being un-married with the same person, that really sucks for same-sex partners in America.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you have two friends of, let's say, an equal level of emotional closeness, who do you value more? The one who's known you for a month? Or the one who's known you for a decade? If you say that given that (admittedly abstract) comparison, you would still say "both, equally", I'll take you at your word, but for me personally that's a pretty foreign perspective.
Honestly, that's abstract enough to be meaningless to me. I can't answer it, because the idea of my relationships with any two people being close enough to the same to be able to make that comparison is completely foreign to me. People are unique, my relationships with them are unique, and I will say that I haven't found "time" to be a value-added aspect of a relationship.
quote: By that I mean, if you look at any given relationship, taken from a random person totally at random, chances are that relationship isn't going to endure a lifetime.
Sure. Same goes for marriages, you know. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, more marriages still last a lifetime than not.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat, most marriages still last one person's lifetime. Not both.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't clear to me what your point is.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Rakeesh and I are talking about if there's necessarily a difference between the happiness you get by being legally committed to one person vs. having a series of relationships of varying lengths. He said that if you're not married, any given relationship is most likely not going to last a lifetime. I pointed out that the same is true if you are married. It might last the lifetime of one participant, but then the surviving member is not married anymore, and has to make decisions about if they are going to remain single, begin dating again, and/or get married again. Obviously, the age the surviving partner is when they are widowed (Is that gender neutral? Do I need to add or widowered? That looks funny.) plays a role in the decision, as does if there are children and numerous other factors. Surely you've read the articles about the hot dating scenes in many retirement communities? And about how many seniors are choosing to live together without the benefit of marriage the second time around because they don't want to combine their estates and have to have elaborate legal documents prepared to make sure their respective heirs are protected?
So, for 50% of the people who's marriages end in the death of one spouse, their marriage did not last a lifetime. (I think the number of people who die at the same time as their spouse is probably small enough to be statistically insignificant.) Add in the divorce rate, and my statement to Rakeesh and my statement is perfectly accurate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Widowed" is indeed gender-neutral.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that's missing the basic point that marriage chooses one of a crowd and makes him or her special, and that connection more often than not lasts until one of the two dies. A marriage creates a shared life, and (generally) most non-marriage relationships are individual lives coming together and apart.
An exception would be for couples who stay together but who never have the ceremony, but that reinforces the point rather than diluting it. Senior couples who live together but do not get married are avoiding intertwining their lives and all that that means, including finances and descendants.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think it's disagreeing that that is a basic point, actually, not missing it. In fact, I believe that's what I've been doing for my last several posts in this thread.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. I'm disagreeing that that is a basic point to the conversation Rakeesh and I were having at the moment. Sorry.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
okay, then we disagree. I think that marriage relationships are different from other, less permanent, less committed relationships. If another relationship is as comitted, permanent, and entangling as a marriage relationship, then they are married in all but name.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Different, sure. I won't argue different. I'm arguing that happily married is not by definition better and preferable to happily not married. Or, if you prefer, happily married /> happily single.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:After, I was much happier single than married, so I submit my experience as a contradictory data point.
Except that we're assuming that you're marrying the "right person" in this hypothetical, so your situation can't apply.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:After, I was much happier single than married, so I submit my experience as a contradictory data point.
Except that we're assuming that you're marrying the "right person" in this hypothetical, so your situation can't apply.
In that case, you can't tell if anyone married the "right person" until both partners are dead, and perhaps not even then, so the hypothetical seems kind of silly to me.
"The happiness that I imagine I might have in a relationship that lasted until my death is greater than the happiness that I imagine I might have if none of my relationships last until death."
Why do you feel such a need to assert that your purported happiness is better in some (quantifiable?) way than anyone else's? There's a distinct lack of corroborating reports from the departed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why do you feel such a need to assert that your purported happiness is better in some (quantifiable?) way than anyone else's?
I don't, personally. It's not like I'm walking up to my single friends and saying, "Are you happy? Not as happy as I am." But by the same token, I think it is NOT the case that someone who is happily married is "merely" as happy as someone who is single, all else being equal. There is indeed a value-add in the act of marriage itself.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
In effect, you just did what you're saying you don't do.
I'm also not sure why you think there's some kind of absolute happiness scale on which a marriage always causes an increment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Happiness is not a competition and it is definitely not a zero-sum game.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Of course not. Which is another reason why I think perpetuating the idea that people* would be happier if they were married is silly.
*In general. I'm not saying this holds true for specific people. If, for instance, what a person wants most in life is a traditional family with lots of kids, of course they'll be happier married.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do the words "lots of kids" and "traditional family" and "most" modifiers have to be in your description to be true?
What about "If person wants in their life to share that life with and be mutually committed to someone they love, then they'll be happier married."
What I find to be sillier is to say that a happy marriage has no value beyond easing the work of raising children.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Happiness is not a competition and it is definitely not a zero-sum game.
I haven't suggested that it is. In fact, that's what I'm arguing against.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think that works, too. The argument is that not everyone WANTS that in their life.
edit: ah, too slow. that was in response to kat.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
At any given moment, agreed. However, I think - I know this is opinion and I have no studies to back it up but I really do think - that very, very few people go through an entire life never wanting that.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Well, to put it another way -- just because everyone might have, at one time, wanted a close, committed relationship with someone else, does NOT mean that NOT getting it is going to decrease their happiness. That is, there are other ways to be happy, and marriage and commitment to a suitable person is not the only answer.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are many ways to be happy. Has anyone said that there isn't?
However, if a happy marriage is something that someone wants, while there are many ways to be happy, getting a pet is not precisely the same thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well, to put it another way -- just because everyone might have, at one time, wanted a close, committed relationship with someone else, does NOT mean that NOT getting it is going to decrease their happiness.
Absolutely true. However, I don't see how you could possibly argue that being in a happy, lifelong relationship with someone -- whether you call it marriage or not -- could possibly decrease happiness. If we don't grant the possibility that the relationship ceases to be happy, we're looking at an absolute net benefit.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Do the words "lots of kids" and "traditional family" and "most" modifiers have to be in your description to be true?
What about "If person wants in their life to share that life with and be mutually committed to someone they love, then they'll be happier married."
What I find to be sillier is to say that a happy marriage has no value beyond easing the work of raising children.
I was giving an example. I didn't say that was the only situation in which a specific person might be happier married. And I didn't say a traditional marriage holds no other value. What I said, again, is that "you would be happier married" is not a statement that I believe applies in general.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think anyone has said "you would be happier married" in this thread at all. I know I haven't.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat, you said happily married > happily single > unhappily single > unhappily married. How is that not the same?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Tom, you're arguing that being in a happy marriage significantly increases one's happiness, OVER that of someone who is perfectly happy and NOT in a marriage. I just don't see how that statement can be anything but completely anecdotal and based on opinion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I feel like this is going in circles.
ElJay, give me some credit for NOT advocating that everyone run out and get married as soon as they are legal. What do you think I meant?
When you add in my previously stated qualifiers (that this is over a lifetime and not for any one given moment or even decade in a life), then I do believe that. It's a long life (hopefully). I think the exceptions to that general rule for experiences over a lifetime are miniscule.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Well, i think you're talking about one thing, and I'm talking about another. It's not so much circling as butting heads
edit: oh, you're talking to ElJay. Well, point still stands
[ April 18, 2007, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote:"you would be happier married"
kat, you said happily married > happily single > unhappily single > unhappily married. How is that not the same?
If someone is not the type of person who would be "happily married" then they would not be happier married.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ElJay, give me some credit for NOT advocating that everyone run out and get married as soon as they are legal. What do you think I meant?
Of course I don't think you're saying that. The fact that you'd even suggest it means that you don't get what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with anything I've posted here.
quote:When you add in my previously stated qualifiers (that this is over a lifetime and not for any one given moment or even decade in a life), then I do believe that. It's a long life (hopefully). I think the exceptions to that general rule for experiences over a lifetime are miniscule.
And I don't believe that, and believe it's harmful for that belief to be the cultural default. And it's fine that we disagree, but as long as people are advocating that that's a fact, I'm going to be advocating that it isn't. *shrug* It's not a big deal. I'm not all worked up about it or anything. Maybe you're one of the people who would be happier married, and maybe I'm not. Or maybe I am and just don't know it yet. Since there's no way to prove any of it, this is all just a theoretical conversation, and it happens to be one that I find interesting.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Dag, I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or just commenting on my post. So if you were expecting a response to that from me, you're not going to get one unless you clarify. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ElJay, do you see ANY merit in anything that I've said? Is this a conversation? If it's just a game of riposte and counter on principle, I don't want to play.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Dag, I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or just commenting on my post. So if you were expecting a response to that from me, you're not going to get one unless you clarify.
I was presenting a reason why what Kat said ("happily married > happily single > unhappily single > unhappily married") is not the same as "you would be happier married."
You asked how they were not the same. I was answering a question. If that question was actually a means of asserting that you thought those statements were the same, then I am also disagreeing with you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, you're arguing that being in a happy marriage significantly increases one's happiness, OVER that of someone who is perfectly happy and NOT in a marriage.
Now, you can argue the ludicrousness of a term like "perfectly happy," or even "happy marriage," and that's fine. But, like I've said before, it's pretty self-evident that adding a happy marriage to existing happiness can only increase happiness.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat, I feel like I could ask you the same question. You're the one who engaged me, I've addressed your points and answered your questions to the best of my ability. You haven't answered the one question I've asked you, you've ignored it.
I'm not playing games. I see merit in things you've said, but I don't agree with the conclusions you've come to. What do you want from me?
---
Dag, okay, I didn't get that at all from your post. My question was not a means of asserting anything, it was a question.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, okay, I didn't get that at all from your post.
This is confusing to me - it was posted directly under your question, and it directly answers it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I found your syntex confusing. It doesn't read to me as an answer to the question.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:But, like I've said before, it's pretty self-evident that adding a happy marriage to existing happiness can only increase happiness.
I just don't see why people view Happily Married as the pinnacle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think anyone here is saying that it is.
Perfectly Happy + Poor Health + Happily Married may in fact be less happy than Perfectly Happy + Fantastic Health + Single and Not Interested.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
But people are saying that there is a specific level of happiness that cannot be reached or attempted WITHOUT being happily married. All i'm trying to say is there certainly is a Different level of happiness, but i can't see how it thusly qualifies as "better"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's not what I'm saying, Leonide. I'm saying that if someone wants to be happily married, then being happy in their job is great and desirable, but it isn't the same thing. That doesn't mean that all is bereft and wan and sad violin music plays all the time, but it does mean that a specific desire/need/want/dream is not met/fulfilled and won't be by running a marathon instead.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: But people are saying that there is a specific level of happiness that cannot be reached or attempted WITHOUT being happily married. All i'm trying to say is there certainly is a Different level of happiness, but i can't see how it thusly qualifies as "better"
They are saying that if everything is the same except for whether one is happily married or happily single, the happily married one will, in general, be happier.
This says nothing about a specific level of happiness and nothing about whether a single person can be happier than a married person or even what level of happiness can be obtained by either.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
yeah but, Kat, i don't think anyone is talking about people who want to be married, as a goal. I think we're emphatically talking about those people who don't consider marriage a particularly strong goal at all (like ElJay) and whether people think somehow they're missing out on some happiness.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:After, I was much happier single than married, so I submit my experience as a contradictory data point.
Except that we're assuming that you're marrying the "right person" in this hypothetical, so your situation can't apply.
The tricky bit is that we both thought we were marrying the right person, at the time. I would guess that most people who get married think, "This is the ONE. We're going to stay together forever."
Circumstances can change though, so that people who were at one time a perfect couple are no longer so. I don't think that invalidates the rightness of the couple, at the time of marriage.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then y'all are talking about something completely different and have been all along.
I also think that over a lifetime, the number that stay that way their entire life is very, very small. Heck, Gloria Steinem got married in her sixties.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think we're emphatically talking about those people who don't consider marriage a particularly strong goal at all (like ElJay) and whether people think somehow they're missing out on some happiness.
I think they are. But if they think any form of marriage would make them unhappy, then no marriage would -- by definition -- be a happy marriage, and would not be a net gain. If marriage itself would make them unhappy, they shouldn't enter into it. It's my opinion that they're missing out on a source of happiness, but there are lots of sources of happiness; no one human being is ever going to optimize them.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Well, then.
We agree. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think (because singing makes me happy) that everybody would be happier if they sang. Of course, if singing makes them unhappy, they wouldn't be happy singers. They are missing out on a source of happiness.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think (because singing makes me happy) that everybody would be happier if they sang. Of course, if singing makes them unhappy, they wouldn't be happy singers.
That ALMOST works, except that marriage isn't so much an act that produces joy directly as a state which promotes acts that produce joy. A better analogy might be "I think everyone would be happier if they always had the right amount of money, unless having money for things makes them unhappy in itself."
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I am happy and satisfied with my life. I am married, and I really like being married. It's fun and satisfying and my husband is my best friend.
I can honestly say that I'm not happier now than I was before I was married, though. I was happy then, too.
I mean, as long as we're using anecdotes and generalizing from them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So what things provided happiness before you were married that no longer provide happiness now that marriage is an additional source of happiness? Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I'd say marriage didn't really provide an additional source of happiness. It just changed it.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
For example: If I were single, I'd stay here on the fora continuing to post. That would make me happy.
Since I am married, I have been requested to go downstairs and join my husband in watching (probably) something on Game Show network. This will also make me happy. But it does mean this is my last post for a while. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It looks like your sources of happiness have changed. To wit:
Pre-marriage: Posting on Hatrack: +1
Upon marriage: Watching GSN: added Posting on Hatrack: removed
Post-marriage: Watching GSN: +1
Assuming all else is somehow held equal, you've gained one source of happiness and lost one source of equal value, producing no net gain.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think they are. But if they think any form of marriage would make them unhappy, then no marriage would -- by definition -- be a happy marriage, and would not be a net gain. If marriage itself would make them unhappy, they shouldn't enter into it. It's my opinion that they're missing out on a source of happiness, but there are lots of sources of happiness; no one human being is ever going to optimize them.
I don't think marriage would make me unhappy. I do think that if I don't get married, I will find other things that will make me just as happy as being married would have.
But there is a cultural weight to marriage that there isn't to all those other sources of happiness. We wouldn't be having this conversation if someone had said that learning to juggle brings joy to people's life and makes them happy.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I suppose it's kind of a tricky question. I think that being married will make me happier, because it comes with benefits such as shared insurance, easier tax filing, and wedding presents, to name just a few.
The relationship I share with my lovah I don't expect to magically change upon completing a ceremony and signing a legal document.
If people who aren't married could get the full legal and social benefits that we have reserved for married people, perhaps fewer people would get married but more people would still be in the extra happy bracket.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do think that if I don't get married, I will find other things that will make me just as happy as being married would have.
Here's the thing, though: what things could you find that you couldn't also find if you were happily married?
I'm not asking for a list, you've made yourself clear on that point. I'm just wondering, are there things you think being happily married would preclude you from finding?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm sure that there are a lot of things you can do when you're not married, which you can't do when you are married. For one thing, you've got only yourself to consult with, so you can do anything you like without considering if anyone else will or won't want you to.
Maybe you want to live in the woods and play bagpipes 20 hours a day. Maybe you like to randomly get on a bus and spend a week traveling to anywhere. Maybe you want to go to cuddle parties and have 3 different lovers and play basketball in the house.
True, you might find a spouse who wants to do every single thing you do, but I've never heard of a happy marriage without compromises. If your absolute personal freedom is more important to you than being married, then you would be happier single than even in the best possible marriage.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I have no idea. I don't think I implied that they would be things I couldn't do if I was married. But, like Tom said, there are a lot of possible experiences in the world, and no one is going to be able to have them all. I would undoubtedly have different ones if I was single than if I was married. Both because of opportunity cost and because my spouse would presumably steer me towards things that I wouldn't have thought to try myself. I'm not saying that being married is going to keep me from doing whatever. I'm saying that if I'm not married, I'm still going to be doing things that make me happy.
The one exception, of course, is dating. I like dating, and it brings me a lot of happiness. I probably couldn't do that anymore if I was married. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ElJay:
quote: The one exception, of course, is dating. I like dating, and it brings me a lot of happiness. I probably couldn't do that anymore if I was married.
And here I was THRILLED to leave the emotionally turbulent and heart murdering world of the dating game when I got married.
MightyCow:
quote: If your absolute personal freedom is more important to you than being married, then you would be happier single than even in the best possible marriage.
If your ultimate goal in life is absolute personal freedom I think you will find it will never be fulfilled. Humans have yet to obtain omnipotence, but hey, keep trying.
I would agree that your actual happiness would be significantly less if you got married, (that being your goal). But your potential for happiness IMO is dramatically lower single then married.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
BlackBlade: Does it have to be married though? Is a person's potential for happiness with a loving partner dramatically lower than if they are married to that same partner?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ancient Chinese saying: "A loving family, great wealth, good friends, and great power are all like zeros. Good health is like the 1 in front of the zeros."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Ancient Chinese saying: "A loving family, great wealth, good friends, and great power are all like zeros. Good health is like the 1 in front of the zeros."
I've never heard that phrase.
MightyCow: Besides the fact that I do not place the happiness marriage provides within the ceremony itself, perhaps you can explain why when two people love each other in a way that they love nobody else, why would they not want to commit?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Can't the be just as committed without being married? What is it that marriage provides, which is otherwise left out of their lives?
Are a couple who dated for a month and are newly married happier than a couple who have been in a loving relationship for 30 years, but never tied the knot? Is a couple's life better the day after they got married than the day before?
I'm just trying to figure out what exactly about the marriage itself adds value to the relationship. I'm not trying to be confrontational, so I hope it doesn't sound like I'm trying to catch you (or anyone) in a trap. I'm just wondering what specifically do those who believe marriage is better than non-marriage believe are the features of marriage which make it better - by definition it seems - than any number of non-married states.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ancient Chinese did not have the concept of zero. The oldest test to mention zero is from about 450 AD in India. The first definite use of zero as a number is from about 800 AD, also in India.
It is possible that the saying was on a fortune cookie somewhere. Fortune cookies are an American phenomenon.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't know about the origins of the saying, but I'd consider 900AD pretty ancient Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
BlackBlade,
quote:And here I was THRILLED to leave the emotionally turbulent and heart murdering world of the dating game when I got married.
Not everyone is wired the way you are. One possible reason is that not everyone sees dating as a method for finding a spouse; if you do, I can certainly see you setting yourself up for "heart murdering," while someone who isn't looking to spend the rest of their life with someone would have very different expectations.
I certainly agree that the end of serious relationship (dating, married, whatever) typically sucks, but dating doesn't have to be like that. Some of my most enriching dating experiences have been comparatively casual, though not "one-night stand" casual (I don't find those as fulfilling as slightly longer entanglements).
quote:But your potential for happiness IMO is dramatically lower single then married.
This is basically what I've been arguing against for the last two pages.
I note that not a single one of the people claiming this has proposed a mechanism by which one's happiness can be objectively quantified and thereby compared to the happiness of others.
quote:Besides the fact that I do not place the happiness marriage provides within the ceremony itself, perhaps you can explain why when two people love each other in a way that they love nobody else, why would they not want to commit?
Becuase "I love you more than I love anyone else" doesn't imply -- for example -- "I only want to have sex with you and no one else for as long as we're both alive?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Becuase "I love you more than I love anyone else" doesn't imply -- for example -- "I only want to have sex with you and no one else for as long as we're both alive?"
Was someone proposing a sexually exclusive marriage here? I'm not. It's certainly what I believe the ideal marriage is, but I can easily imagine two people living in an ideal marriage (for them) that does not include sexual exclusivity.
Pretty difficult to imagine, though. I've met few if any people indeed who I would trust if they told me they would never get jealous about that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: MightyCow: Besides the fact that I do not place the happiness marriage provides within the ceremony itself, perhaps you can explain why when two people love each other in a way that they love nobody else, why would they not want to commit?
And why is love measured against the idea that you must be loved "in a way that they love nobody else"? Obviously, each relationship is different as people are different, but why with romantic love do we seem to think that it is more different, that only one person can be loved in that way? My love for one friend or one sister isn't measured against my love for other friends or sisters.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Romantic love is usually thought to be different in qualitative ways from fraternal or sisterly or friend love.
I know there are stories about people being perfectly with their signifigant other having a number of signifigant others themsevles, but three thousand years of stories of enraged, broken-hearted lovers who have been betrayed cry out that those are the exceptions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I realize that it is thought of that way. I'm asking why it is thought of that way. I think at least some of those enraged, broken-hearted lovers are enraged and broken-hearted because of those expectations. Expectations which are clearly not always met.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You think it is an artificial social construct to want your sweetheart to be faithful?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Faithful" is kind of a loaded word. "Faithful" has come to mean "exclusive" in those kinds of realtionships and I don't think it has to mean that. I want my friends to be faithful to me; that doesn't mean they can't have other friends.
"Artificial" is also unnecessary. Social constructs are, I think, automatically artificial. Which doesn't automatically mean "bad". The idea of romantic love (not all that ancient) is certainly better than, for example, the concept of marriage in "bible times". Women were property to be sold by their fathers to men that wanted them. The idea that men had any obligation to exclusivity wasn't part of that social contract.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know what you're actually saying. You think that an expectation that someone who has promised to share his or her life with you and with you mutually agree to be committed, the expectation that they will not make similiar lifelong commitments to someone else is just another quirk of culture? Something that only exists because everyone was raised to think it the same way Americans think black is the color of mourning and white is for brides?
What are you basing this on?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think "quirk" is quite the right word. Social constucts have history and reason. They are adaptive. They reflect responses to other social conditions etc. I am not saying they are somehow whimsical or accidental if that is what you are implying.
And I'm basing my questions on observation of actual behavior or people, behavior of other primates, history etc.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kate, where do you think these apparently created, utilitarian expectations come from?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Becuase "I love you more than I love anyone else" doesn't imply -- for example -- "I only want to have sex with you and no one else for as long as we're both alive?"
Was someone proposing a sexually exclusive marriage here? I'm not. It's certainly what I believe the ideal marriage is, but I can easily imagine two people living in an ideal marriage (for them) that does not include sexual exclusivity.
I can imagine it too, but what do you think BlackBlade meant by "commit?" Based on what he's said so far and what I know of his background, I thought it was reasonable to assume his view of romantic committment implies sexual exclusivity.
Regardless, that was only an example.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sorry Twink, I should've been more clear. I wasn't mentioning that as a reference to BlackBlade's branch of the conversation, but rather back to the trunk so to speak Just trying to make clear than when I compare "ideal marriage" to "ideal single life", I'm not talking about some socially conservative ideal of marriage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't really know. That is what I am asking. As I said, it hasn't always been the way it is now. The concept of "courtly love" comes into it, I would guess. A medieval idea and a ninteenth century phenomenon. Women being exclusive was a practical matter of knowing whose offspring one was supporting. I think that as women gained more independence and power, as opposed to being property where a man can "own" as many wives as he can feed, exclusivity was visited on the men as well as on women.
edit: things moving fast. This was in response to kat's question.
I would be interested in hearing other speculation.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I think marriage as we understand it today - existing primarily for the emotional benefit of the parties involved - is more or less a historical creation. In earlier periods it was an economic or political institution, and concepts of exclusivity, romantic love, and suchlike that have been elevated today were decidedly vestigial and of limited importance. Of course, medieval understandings of marriage were also historical creations, but that's the way society works; "reality" in terms of social norms and institutions is simultaneously created and real - roles of, say, 'teacher,' and 'student' and the norms by which they interact don't actually exist outside our understanding of them, but that doesn't mean they do not have power and validity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooo...good speculation.
Another interesting question (for me anyway):
I agree that the norms have their own power. I think that can either be a good thing (when it works) or a bad thing (when everyone expects it to work for everybody and it doesn't). Do you see an inherent good in norms in general. How much do we need them? Are they useful or essential and in what degree. Is allowing the norms to evolve freeing or dangerous or both?
Do you think we are likely to achieve "perfect" norms? Norms that won't need to continue to evolve. Is changing a constant or are we working toward an ideal?
Have we reached that ideal when it comes to romantic relationships? I think that, although we have come a long way, we still have some things to work out.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Now that I understand what you meant, I think I mostly agree with you.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)