quote:No, I think he's saying that a consequence of revisiting certain standards was ultimately the revisiting of ALL standards, and that he doesn't believe that the right choice was made in the case of each standard.
Ok; I guess I can see that in his post, although it seems a little...gray to me.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Every single one of those points is of course full of fallacy, not least of which is the idea that promiscuity is somehow more common today than it was in the 1800s. But to varying degrees, I've seen all of them expressed or assumed on this thread.
I think that promiscuity rates are actually irrelevant. It is the societal reaction to and view of promiscuity which is important. I think that you would agree that today sleeping together without being married is much more acceptable than at any other time in American history.
quote:Ah. So to you, all societal changes are representative of "the new way," which you're defining as a product of '60s leftist activism?
What I am calling the "new way" is the radical departure from previous views of morality. And no, I do not see this as a product of 60's activism. I see it as a product of several trends of which 60's activism is an illustration.
quote: I'm a little taken aback that you lump civil rights for women in with things you obviously consider negatives, like abortion and gay marriage. Without getting into arguments based on these things, do you really hold the believe that it would be better for women not to have equal rights as men? Do you apply that to all gains made by various civil rights movements (one of the big sources of the push for diversity that you seem to disapprove of)?
As a matter of fact I think that your response is a very good indication of what I am talking about here. I see civil rights, woman's lib, homosexual marriage, abortion etc. all as an extension of the same trend towards individual freedom. In part this is because advocates of each of these movements have deliberately done their best to portray the movements in this light.
The difference that I see in whether these things are good or bad is in their effects on individual responsibility. Woman's lib and Civil rights were about more, not less personal responsibility while, as I have said I view abortion as a direct attack against the idea of personal responsibility. Homosexual marriage is a more complex issue and I don't want to explode this thread with that particular debate.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, it's quite possible. It's also possible there are genetic issues involved. I'm not *agreeing* with the meme because the hard data is clearly difficult to come by.
What I am saying, that the cultural meme *exists* and it's powerful. And I don't think many LDS, because they are, often more focused on their own lives within the LDS framework, realize how strong it is, external to that framework. (Actually you are probably one of the exceptions, but that's a different discussion)
It isn't anti-lds in particularly vindictive lynch-mob way, it's more of, if anything, a condescending (and insulting), "look at those stupid repressed people, no wonder they are miserable" kind of way.
I did see reports of a recent LDS generated study saying "happiness" was ranked higher in LDS women, than the national average. However being unable to find much reference to raw data, I'm skeptical until I can find out how rigorously the variables were measured and treated. It also doesn't report whether the women were medicated or unmedicated either.
posted
Banna- As Dagonee said, the greater use of anti-depressants in Utah can be explained by many other factors which have nothing to do with religion. Some of the most obvious:
Occurrence of clinical depression in women may be linked to hormonal changes such as those which occur during pregnancy. Utah has a higher birth rate than most of the rest of the nation.
Clinical depression is at least partly genetic. Perhaps utah simply has more family lines which carry the genes for depression. The high birthrate would tend to propagate these lines.
Most likely the reasons are a result of many interacting complex factors.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, here in the East, most of the LDS I know are averse to using anti-depressants. Kind of a knee-jerk, "I don't need no drugs," attitude.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Jaccare, see my above response) However, I would say perceptions, can and often do become their own realities, without any sort of rigorous logical treatment at all.
And I think it has happened in both the LDS and non-LDS sectors on this subject.
posted
Ron once dreamed that the Mormon Missionaries visiting us were ostriches. In the dream, he opened the door and there were ostritches, wearing name tags, pecking at the screen.
He thought it was amusing, but when he told them about the dream, they never came came back.
I submit this story as evidence that Mormons are unreasonably ostritch-phobic.
posted
Olivet- who wouldn't be afraid of turning into an ostrich? All of those feather duster manufacturers after your tail feathers...
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes me very uncomfortable to have so many people talking about pre-marital and extra-marital sex like there's something desperately wrong with it. It's just so alien to me...
Reproduction is a major part of animal life; however, marriage is a thing invented by people to add some sort of stability to the reproductive cycle. Marriage is not a “beautiful thing”. It had little to do with love for years and years, and was merely useful economically and socially. Marriage was abusive; if not in the obvious way but in the way that it made people follow and fit into a pattern that was very, very difficult to break: A man had to marry a woman and keep her in check or risk being ridiculed. A woman had to marry a man and keep her head down or out of sight or risk shame and stigma. Why is this considered “good”?
In the sixties, a time I consider held extremely important and good changes, this idea was challenged. What had marriage ever done for the generations before this? They rejected marriage not because they were irresponsible or immoral but because until then, marriage had not been this mythical fairy-tale thing. They wanted to focus on love. The sexual revolution, I guess, though I don't know if I'm using that term correctly.
We are now in the sexual counterrevolution. We must be. People are starting to talk of taboos and the sacred beautiful institution of marriage. What sacred institution of marriage? It doesn't exist! Marriage exists; a partnership of humans to seal love as forever. But is every marriage forever? Is every marriage bringing out the best in both people? Perfect marriage is largely a myth.
But everyone knows that. Some marriages are going to fail; end in tears, violence, abuse or even death. So how, in reality, can we expect people in this day and age who know all they know about history and oppression, who can see in the world around them they good things the sixties brought, to treat marriage like something perfect, something good enough to wait for, however long it takes? So many people have had children out of wedlock and survived and been very happy. So many people have had their children in wedlock and had it end in a bitter and destructive war. Marriage is not going to do away with social irresponsibility, and I think everyone knows it. Nothing will ever do that.
We need to find a way, instead of holding up marriage like the Holy Grail, to help people who do not want marriage or do not fit the you-and-me mentality. We need to stop treating single or unmarried people like the devil incarnate. Instead of sending the mother to a nunnery and her child to a orphanage workhouse, we could actually treat these people like normal, real, responsible adults who, like the people who have made a decision to marry, have made a decision not to, or worse, have not made a decision at all! They are not lepers! They are not scum to have their lives driven by "more responsible adults"!
I think it is assumed that marriage is the answer or the best choice for everyone, and that every other choice; single life, divorced life, extended family life, is inferior. Think of the “miser” (always a single man sitting in a dark house counting his coins again and again) or the “spinster”- words that imply something bad or strange. Why should that be? Not everyone wants to be a scientist. Not everyone believes in God. Why should everyone fit into and thrive in the artificial institution of marriage?
Because our society has so long used marriage as a tool, I think marriage has perhaps become more of a part of society than it should be. Perhaps, in reality, marriage would work for 60% of the population- perhaps more, perhaps less. Perhaps there are people who would prefer to live alone or with friends rather than in a marriage.
People on nature films are always saying things like "ducks, like humans, mate for life". But humans don't mate for life. We aren't like these animals that mate for life. Our closest living relatives, Orangutans, do not mate for life. Neither do any other monkey species I could research. If we two, monkeys and humans, are so close, why is it at all likely that we humans should always attempt to mate for life either?
You may say that we are Great And Wonderful Humans, that we can overcome the more animal sides of our nature, that we can seal ourselves to a pure and eternal partnership. But look at the evidence; no human society has managed to get rid of extra-marital relationships, even on pain of death. Nothing points to endless monogamous relationships as any better than any other way of living.
There is something beautiful in the Cinderella story, that’s for sure: two come together to make one, the pure number. Duality has long since been symbolically evil and impure. Perhaps it’s time to change that. Why is a man and a woman together forever so great and fabulous? Why is any other adult responsible way of living so disgusting?
I want to get married, but if I do not think marriage is ever going to work for me, I won’t do it. If that's the case, I'm not going to abstain from sex all my life, goodness. If I have a kid, then great, I love children and know I want some. I'll be a single mother. If anyone calls me socially irresponsible then, I'll squash him or her.
I think it’s time we payed attention and stopped trying to fit everyone into the same square little boxes in the name of justice, responsibility, purity and security. We don’t all fit. There is nothing perfect about marriage except in the imaginations of the people. There is nothing wrong about living a single sexually active life. There is nothing wrong with extra-marital sex, because, in a real un-boxed world, sex has nothing to do with this thing called marriage whatsoever.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi- your post is rife with unfounded assumptions which many people don't share. To be sure, much of what any of us belive is based on unfounded assumptions, but how humans should behave is perhaps the area least subject to objective evidence.
With that said, I truly hope that you don't ever become a single mother. Raising children is a devilishly difficult task. To do it alone has got to quadruple the difficulties involved.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, I don't agree with you. People are certainly free to do what they like with their lives, but I don't agree with your final paragraph. I'm sorry.
quote:I want to get married, but if I do not think marriage is ever going to work for me, I won’t do it. If that's the case, I'm not going to abstain from sex all my life, goodness.
Why not? Why is it such an unthinkable concept? If you can't bear to be part of all of someone's life, why is it impossible to refrain from being part of only the most intimate part?
quote:You may say that we are Great And Wonderful Humans, that we can overcome the more animal sides of our nature, that we can seal ourselves to a pure and eternal partnership. But look at the evidence; no human society has managed to get rid of extra-marital relationships, even on pain of death. Nothing points to endless monogamous relationships as any better than any other way of living.
Not nothing. You don't agree with what has been pointed out, but that doesn't mean there is nothing.
I don't understand why no marriage and no family is perfectly conceivable for you, but no sex is unthinkable.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi: Just as it makes you uncomfortable to see so many people talking about the evils of premarital sex, it makes me uncomfortable to see so many people talking about the goods of premarital sex. And it hurts me even more to see the idea of marriage thrown down and trampled underfoot.
Yes, perfect marriage is a myth, but so are perfect people. That doesn't mean there's no reason to try. Just because we have bad tendencies that can be hard to overcome doesn't mean we shouldn't try to overcome them.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but I do think sex and the accompanying physical aspects are a very intimate part of a person. Sharing that part of them while refusing to share the rest seems really tacky.
Are you going to list your hierarchy of intimacy now?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, but I do think sex and the accompanying physical aspects are a very intimate part of a person. Sharing that part of them while refusing to share the rest seems really tacky.
I really don't get what part of another person I am refusing to share if I am not married. I can do all of the same behaviors outside of marriage as I can inside of marriage. What is the difference? Marriages end all the time so the commitment is not set in stone forever. A relationship that does not result in marriage could very well last just as long as that same relationship if the people were married.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> If I have a kid, then great, I love children and know I want some. I'll be a single mother. If anyone calls me socially irresponsible then, I'll squash him or her.
Okay. I've called this attitude socially irresponsible, and I stick by it. Come and squash me.
Look at the data-- single moms have a tough life. Statistically, their children are more prone to every type of bad thing in the world, physical and social. Lots of moms and kids beat the rap; lots of 'em don't. Why in the world would you think that it's an okay thing?
To me, it's like saying, "I'm so tough, I can stand outside naked in the snow! WITH MY BABY! WOOO-HOOO!"
quote: It had little to do with love for years and years, and was merely useful economically and socially. Marriage was abusive; if not in the obvious way but in the way that it made people follow and fit into a pattern that was very, very difficult to break: A man had to marry a woman and keep her in check or risk being ridiculed. A woman had to marry a man and keep her head down or out of sight or risk shame and stigma. Why is this considered “good”?
Can you prove this attitude with writings from POPULAR culture (diaries and such)? I think that you'll discover, if you look into it, that people loved their families in much the same way that we love our families today. Specifically, look at the letters from civil war soldiers (either side) to their sweethearts and wives. You can find similar tender sentiments with soldiers in the American revolution, and I imagine, on the other side of the ocean.
It's true that the upper classes married for economic/social reasons. But where is the evidence that the lower classes (who had no property) did the same? I believe in 'Life in a Medieval Castle,' the author shows that peasantry often married after a child was conceived-- disproving the idea of matchmaking for reasons of wealth/status.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, Scott. My great-grandmother was regularly raped and beaten by her husband. I know this because my mother witnessed it as a child. In the rigid social structure that has been eloquently eulogized here, she had no recourse.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that happily planning on being a single mother is socially irresponsible.
My great-grandparents were divorced, around the first world war. It wasn't impossible.
In fact, on my mother's side, the past four generations have all been divorced. My mother's response was like KQ's - she ran from that, joined the church, and got sealed in the temple.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was piss poor Appalachia. Her family was dead, other than her children, and it simply wasn't DONE. She had no education. The nearest lawyer was 50 miles away, which she would have had to walk if she'd known where to go.
Was it possible for other people at the time? I'm sure it was. Was it possible fer her, with her limited knowledge and resources? She could have left him and become a vagrant whore, I suppose, but that hardly seems better.
Now, possibly, if the Klan had gotten wind that she was being beaten by him, they would have taken him out for a talk (and a breating of his own), but rape... well, you couldn't, legally speaking, rape your wife.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it was more common than you do, Scott, but maybe that's because my people were ina different social strata than yours.
Even if every plantation didn't beat or abuse its slaves, that isn't going to make anyone want to bring back slavery.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet- under any possible social structure there will be those who suffer due to the structure.
With that said, I think that divorce because of abuse is completely justified, but I also think that the old stigmas associated with divorce were also justified. I think it true that every divorce is the result of bad behavior on the part of at least one and most often both partners. I think it right that society stigmatize such bad behavior. I also think that in the case of abuse, society should stigmatize the abuser doubly and sympathize with the abused.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I don't think you got what I was saying. I'm not talking about morality or what's right or wrong. I am saying that what you are describing doesn't work, as in it isn't effective, as in it doesn't achieve the goals that it sets out to do, as in people and cultures who focus on external reward/punishment scenarios to discourage cheating on one's spouse do not actually discourage cheating on one's spouse.
We've already talked about how the divorce statistics don't support the idea that religious people value marriage more than other people. That goes for your culture too, which you're touting as being very focused on marriage.
Repression doesn't equal not doing something. In fact, it rarely equals not doing something and in most of those cases results in some generally unhealthy displacement behavior. People don't not do things because although they feel a strong urge to, they will get punished if they act on it or they turn that urge as something sick and nasty and wrong. The urge is still there and they don't actually have a meaningful, coherent strategy for why they, themselves, don't want to do it. Of course, now it's driven into the subconscious, which works to arrange situations where the urge can be fulfilled.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: Olivet- under any possible social structure there will be those who suffer due to the structure.
I agree. I just think that the best of all societies should have some recourse for those who are victimized, which is what we are striving for in America. Thoughtless marriages and divorces are a price I am willing to pay to supply those choices to people who formerly had none. The price of freedom is that some will abuse it.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to marry. I want to have children in the way that is traditional. I even would like to have time to stay home with my children.
But I also want to challenge this rigidness that has taken America in particular by storm. I want to ask the uncomfortable questions like why is marriage so insisted upon? I know it makes you uncomfortable. You should be uncomfortable... if i am facing one thing that worries me, then naturally, you should be facing something that worries you. That will be the way of the world forever.
quote:Look at the data-- single moms have a tough life. Statistically, their children are more prone to every type of bad thing in the world, physical and social. Lots of moms and kids beat the rap; lots of 'em don't. Why in the world would you think that it's an okay thing?
Much of the reason single Mums and Dads have a hard life is because they are seen to have failed. Who's fault is it if single parents are social outcasts? What if I want a child but I can't seem to find a partner? What then? Raising any child is devilishly difficult, even in a couple. My point is not that it's okay but that it should be okay. It should be possible to raise a child reasonably well with only one parent. It has to be, because not only is it the irresponsible people who had a child out of wedlock dealing with it but also those people who's partner has died. If it's not, and it is not, then that's a problem that needs fixing.
Katharina, if I don't plan on getting married... if I discover that it's not what I want (which is not actually the case) I do not plan on sleeping around. I plan on falling in love. I plan on trying to make it work. And that, for me, will include sex.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also think that the old stigmas associated with divorce were also justified. I think it true that every divorce is the result of bad behavior on the part of at least one and most often both partners. I think it right that society stigmatize such bad behavior.
But that's the problem with stigmatizing divorce. You're not actually stigmatizing the bad behavior. You're stigmatizing the result of the bad behavior (often the results pushed for by the victim). Abusive spouses don't push for divorce. It's the one's who get abused.
And stigmatizing divorce does not lead to healthy marriages. Focusing on the factors that make or interfere with happy marriages do. The "bad behavior" that many divorces seem to result out of is people getting married to the wrong person or when they are not prepared for it. Likewise, our society puts it's emphasis on the economic mode leading to a devaluation of others and burdening individuals and couples both with stresses that they are not prepared to deal with. You want to make marriage better, these are some of the issues you set out to tackle. Prohibiting or fostering social disapproval of divorce is attacking the results of problems that have already occured.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It should be possible to raise a child reasonably well with only one parent.
While it's confounded by the fact that a majority of single parents tends towards having characteristics that would make them bad parents anyway, the literature shows that children in single parent households suffer distinct disadvantages in physical and mental health, even when you control for the effects of social disapproval. I don't think that it's okay to plan to have a child like this. It seems to me like putting your needs ahead of those of your child.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Much of the reason single Mums and Dads have a hard life is because they are seen to have failed.
Do you have anything to back this up?
Single parents have less time, less money, and more stress than families with two parents. It is because one person must both serve the outside world enough to support the family and serve all the needs of the family.
This is not because of any stigma - this is because of numbers. The number of adults have been halved but the amount of responsibilities have not.
quote:Katharina, if I don't plan on getting married... if I discover that it's not what I want (which is not actually the case) I do not plan on sleeping around. I plan on falling in love. I plan on trying to make it work. And that, for me, will include sex.
In what scenario would falling in love, staying together, and making it work be possible but getting married would be impossible?
quote:I know it makes you uncomfortable. You should be uncomfortable... if i am facing one thing that worries me, then naturally, you should be facing something that worries you. That will be the way of the world forever.
Why? Because everyone must share in uncomfortableness equally? Because no one can be happy unless everyone is happy. I'm not actually taking issue with the idea of an issue is controversial because there are differing opinions, but this concept of communal uncomfortableness. Communism of emotion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: But I also want to challenge this rigidness that has taken America in particular by storm. I want to ask the uncomfortable questions like why is marriage so insisted upon? I know it makes you uncomfortable. You should be uncomfortable... if i am facing one thing that worries me, then naturally, you should be facing something that worries you. That will be the way of the world forever.
Taken America by storm? It's not like marriage is some sort of recent craze.
Marriage should be insisted on because it provides a stable, long-term environment in which to raise children. Unmarried couples may be very committed, but I think there's something about marriage that solidifies that commitment. It's a way of telling society that you want to make something permanent, that you're in it for the long haul.
Of course, divorce is a very big problem that weakens the statement that marriage makes. Now marriage is something to abandon as soon as it stops being beneficial for you. But it shouldn't be a simple matter of "what's in it for me?" That's not a real commitment. When that's what marriage becomes, it stops strengthening society and simply becomes something that makes people ask things like "Why the insistence on marriage?"
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that's the problem with stigmatizing divorce. You're not actually stigmatizing the bad behavior. You're stigmatizing the result of the bad behavior (often the results pushed for by the victim). Abusive spouses don't push for divorce. It's the one's who get abused.
True enough.
quote: Focusing on the factors that make or interfere with happy marriages do. The "bad behavior" that many divorces seem to result out of is people getting married to the wrong person or when they are not prepared for it. Likewise, our society puts it's emphasis on the economic mode leading to a devaluation of others and burdening individuals and couples both with stresses that they are not prepared to deal with. You want to make marriage better, these are some of the issues you set out to tackle. Prohibiting or fostering social disapproval of divorce is attacking the results of problems that have already occured.
Also a good point. However, stigmatizing divorce also gives impetus to working problems out rather than jumping ship. There is clearly a sliding scale here- at one end you have no cultural pressure for marriage at all. At the other everyone is virtually forced to remain in their marriage by cultural pressure. Clearly reality requires a middle road. I think that loosening up negative cultural attitudes towards divorce and premarital sex encourage bad behaviors. Tightening those attitudes can allow other bad behaviors like stigmatizing abused spouses. Finding a compromise position seems possible.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, is the literature uniform on the subject of children in single parent households across socioeconomic strata? (you did say they were convoluted by other facts that probably led to less than desireable parenting characteristics in single homes)
I believe the statistics are skewed towards the majority of "single parents" being "poor single mothers" Is it good we have poor single mothers? Heck no. However I think a wealthier single mother *could* provide without at least a drop-off in physical health.
There's also a distinction in 'single parent from the beginning' because the other parent doesn't acknowledge the child for whatever reason and 'single parent as a result of divorce' that make a difference in the mental health state of the child.
I have no doubt that, if I was completely on my own and I wanted to acquire a child, by either adoption or AI. I would probably be a darn good single parent, and the kid wouldn't suffer physically for sure. But I'm also an engineer, pulling down an income far higher than average, which makes a *huge* difference.
Having said that, raising a child is a lot of work and it would undoubtedly be easier with two parents so that you had someone to trade off with at least some of the time. And I'm not a parent because at this point of my life, even though I *could* do it with or with out a partner, I just plain don't want to have the extra work, even if there are intangible rewards from parenting.
quote:However, stigmatizing divorce also gives impetus to working problems out rather than jumping ship. There is clearly a sliding scale here- at one end you have no cultural pressure for marriage at all. At the other everyone is virtually forced to remain in their marriage by cultural pressure.
I agree with this to a certain extent, but I think that a much more effective strategy would be to build up an understanding of why, exactly, marriages are a great thing when done right and providing people with training in, among other things, conflict resolution.
From what I can see, most of what you do when you make divorce hard to acheive is trap people in marriages that aren't working. There are some on the edges that are maybe helped by having their impuslivity limited and some social reinforcement. I don't see a preponderance of bad marriages as being a much healthier than having a lot of divorce. A much better way, in my opinion, is to acutally try to foster healthy, working marriages. Which concentrating on divorce, or pre-maritial sex for that matter, does not do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grin, Squick, I think your description is probably exactly the reason as Tom put it, that Steve and I are committed to Not Getting Married. We have the healthy relationship benefits, and marriage has been too often used as a crutch for prolonging unhealthy relationships, rather than an aid for healthy ones.
quote: There are some on the edges that are maybe helped by having their impuslivity limited and some social reinforcement. I don't see a preponderance of bad marriages as being a much healthier than having a lot of divorce. A much better way, in my opinion, is to acutally try to foster healthy, working marriages. Which concentrating on divorce, or pre-maritial sex for that matter, does not do.
I agree with you that fostering healthy marriages is a better way. The actual problem in everything that we are discussing is, of course, the fact that there is very little that any of us can do about anything as massive as "culture" outside of deciding how to live our own lives and how to raise our children.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unmarried couples may be very committed, but I think there's something about marriage that solidifies that commitment. It's a way of telling society that you want to make something permanent, that you're in it for the long haul.
Absolutely. Marriage is a social institution, and society should hold us to it. I think it is one of the reasons why we have a big, public ceremony with family and friends. We have witnesses to our commitment. We aren't just making a promise to each other, we are making a promise to society. Why is this? In part because marriages so often *do* mean children.
Children deserve to be raised in stable homes. When there is an abusive relationship, separating the marriage partners may be what is best for the child. But when the parents can work through it and acheive a stable relationship, staying together is far better for the children. I believe that marriage helps people to work harder at staying together--in spite of all the divorce we see.
I find the lack of divorce among the older generations (who could divorce *now* as easily as us young'uns can) is very telling. It seems indicative of a changing perspective about the permanence of marriage and how "worth it" it is to work through difficulties in order to stay together.
Some say that marriage was usually about economic or political advantage throughout history. I disagree with this (though there are elements of it, to be sure). I think it was far more about a stable environment for the next generation. Of all creatures in this world, humans are the most dependent on their parents for the longest time. The family is a crucial structure to support this extreme need. Two parents are better than one, and far better than multiple constantly shuffling parents.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is some wisdom in this post - and yes, it sounds good when people say "Well, it's better to live together to make sure we really, REALLY like each other enough, and that way avoid a divorce."
It makes sense, it really does. So I'm having a hard time articulating why I find it so distressing.
I think it's because it feels to me, like it's saying "Gee, I know marriage is supposed to be about making a lifetime commitment, but see, I want to try you out first, and make sure that living with you is going to bring me all the satisfaction I want before I make the real commitment." It takes the focus of what should be two people coming together to make a life together and instead saying "it's all about ME, and about what I want from this relationship so I'm going to make sure you can fulfill my desires first before I make a commitment that's harder to break."
Belle: I've never been married, and as a result I feel like my opinion is slightly underqualified in the face of those who have had that experience, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway.
You claim that in my situation, I was thinking it was all about ME, but I have to ask: in a marriage where you do not live together first, who is it all about instead? Frankly, I think what we did was far more unselfish than leaping into a marriage: sure, it was about me and my needs, but it was also about her and her needs, not to mention doing our best to ensure that if and when we did decide to get married, it would develop into a relationship our neighbors, children and society could be proud of.
We probably just have to agree to disagree. I feel we did the responsible thing, you feel we did the selfish thing, and our reasoning is completely alien to each other.
quote:You don't live with your girlfriend. You get married instead. Chemistry is great, and you're deeply in love. All the same problems crop up in the first year of marriage. But instead of letting them drive you both crazy, you know you have to work through them and give your marriage a real shot. You decide you don't care which way the TP rolls. She makes a conscious effort not to drive the remote like she's on a meth bender. You agree to pick up after her if she agrees to really try to keep her messes minimized.
In short, in a marriage, you take away the 'easy out' clause that exists in every relationship. So things that are deal breakers when you're single can be worked around when you're married, because marriage means something. It's this flying without a net aspect that makes people totally commit to each other when married.
The marvelous fairy tale situation you described must be nice when it succeeds, but I've seen way, way too many children of divorce from relationships where people thought they could "make it work." People use the same rationale you're using to have children in a flawed relationship: "This takes away the easy way out, this will help make us stronger." Sure, it might, but in my mind, leaping into something you know is flawed and trying to rationalize it after the fact is by far the more irresponsible route.
Your line of thinking rationalizes our current administration's spending tons of money on disaster relief, while cutting the budget on disaster prevention.
quote:Hm. On a related note, I submit that one of the advantages of marriage as a formal promise of committment is that it gives people a reason to say, "Okay, yeah, the toilet paper thing annoys me, but since I've already promised to spend my whole life with you, we're going to either work it out or get over it." Lacking that kind of formalized agreement, truly petty things like channel-changing frequency can be deal-killers, whereas -- ideally -- they wouldn't be if you had made more permanent promises to each other.
IMO, without knowing any more about the situation than you laid out here, what makes you irresponsible is ditching someone you thought you loved well enough to spend your life with because they didn't hang toilet paper correctly. Couples gripe about that kind of thing, but they don't usually gripe about it seriously; actually basing your relationship decisions on that sort of pettiness is a sign of weak character.
Look. I'm not proposing (proposing, get it?) that marriage should be easy: I don't know even one married couple that says marriage is always easy.
I think the problem - and one that will never, ever go away - with this entire debate is a fundamental difference in perception. See, your formula seems to be:
1) Great relationship with person, fall in love, decide to get married. 2) Get married, move in together, discover tons of compatability problems. 3) You've made a committment: stick to it.
Again, while I'm happy for you if you manage to work this out, it works out for a surprisingly small number of couples. Divorce rates in America speak for themselves. How commonplace is spousal abuse, seeking relationship therapy, other signs that a marriage is NOT WORKING?
People that think like this are what salespeople like myself refer to as "fish." You've done your product research, you've seen pictures, you've read the reviews, so you'll buy the car without test driving it first. Who cares if it turns out that the seat doesn't quite adjust far back enough for your legs, that the roof in the backseat is uncomfortably low for your passengers? The mechanic you had planned to use for the lifetime of the car dies six months after you bought the car, and the next nearest is sixty miles away, but that doesn't matter, you've made a committment.
My formula looks like this: 1) Great relationship with person, fall in love, consider marriage. 2) Move in together, discover tons of compatability problems. 3) Decide whether or not this is the person you truly want to spend the rest of your life with.
There are obviously disadvantages to this situation, too: the opportunity for serial monogomy is compounded when the committment you make to each other isn't a legal one, but I personally think that's more healthy than getting tied into a relationship you aren't completely satisfied with.
Maybe I'm just an idealist, and my conception of what a marriage can and should be is simply too rare to be a standard.
Regarding the reasons why we broke up: The list of problems with the relationship was quite a bit longer than I'd listed, but it amounted to many things that you just wouldn't know about without living with a person. These things ended up being the sort of things neither of us wanted to deal with for a lifetime. Do you know how frustrating it is to be faced with someone that you love, whose personality meshes so well with yours in so many facets, but be totally unable to rationalize marriage to her because of too many incompatabilities? To take a walk in frustration because here is the woman you love, but you've discovered so many things that bother you that you feel like hitting something?
I'm sure you do. I'm sure your wife frustrates you to the point of wanting to pull your hair out from time to time: if she doesn't, it'll be the first time I've heard about it.
I have to say again that maybe our conceptions of what's attainable in a relationship are just too different. Maybe my standards are too high.
But I don't think what we did was socially irresponsible.
and Tom: the toilet paper was supposed to be a humorous reference to OSC's latest column, not a serious complaint. I honestly don't even remember which way she liked the toilet paper, if I even noticed in the first place.
[Edit] Sorry, not his latest column, the one about toilet paper.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, I don't know about comparisions across SES, but I know that within SES children from two parent homes fare significantly better than children from single parent ones.
The physical health issue is somewhat complicated because there are obviously many factors at work. However, besides the explicit abuse and poor nutrition and medical care issues, there is a component of less tangible factors such as parental attention and child's psychological state.
I'm sure than many people can do a good job raising kids as signle parents, especially when they have an extensive support structure. However, I'm reasonably sure that in a large majority of these cases, these children are going to be significantly better off if there is anoter parent around.
I find the attitude that "Well, what if I don't find a partner to have a child with?" to be a disturbing one as I think it betrays a selfish focus. In raising a child, I think that the child's well-being must be the primary concern and I find the argument that "Well, what if I can't raise them without them being at a significant disadvantage?" to be suggestive that this isn't the case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:marriage has been too often used as a crutch for prolonging unhealthy relationships, rather than an aid for healthy ones.
IMO, this perspective is part of the problem.
With work and effort on both sides, unhealthy relationships can become healthy ones. As I said before, in generations past, there was more importance placed on making what you have work than finding something different--and I think that attitude is better for children.
The big problem is when one of the partners won't put in that effort. But I firmly believe if more people were committed to making marriages work, far more marriages *would* work.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been married, but I have made committments and seen others do so, and I've discovered something.
You grow by making and keeping committments.
I actually think this particular system blows, because how do you know if you want it before you do it? But you cannot succesfully make any committment with your fingers crossed.
You can't try out a new life, or a new religion, or a new morality system, and see how it works before you give it your all, because they will work ONLY if you give it your all. You have to throw the dice and bet the farm and go from there, and there's no way to do that with one foot out the door. The results obtained then are not the results that would have been obtained if the committment was done completely and sincerely.
I think this sucks, because I'm impulsive in small things and cautious in large things, so it's the exact opposite of the way I'd like things to be. But this is how human nature/the universe works.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the problem - and one that will never, ever go away - with this entire debate is a fundamental difference in perception. See, your formula seems to be:
1) Great relationship with person, fall in love, decide to get married. 2) Get married, move in together, discover tons of compatability problems. 3) You've made a committment: stick to it.
Personally, I prefer the scenario where you don't decide to get married because you are in love, you decide to get married because you are compatable. Being in love is important too, but it isn't *as* important, IMO.
I think if more people used this (IMO) wiser approach, more marriages would work.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven't been married, but I have made committments and seen others do so, and I've discovered something.
You grow by making and keeping committments.
I actually think this particular system blows, because how do you know if you want it before you do it? But you cannot succesfully make any committment with your fingers crossed.
You can't try out a new life, or a new religion, or a new morality system, and see how it works before you give it your all, because they will work ONLY if you give it your all. You have to throw the dice and bet the farm and go from there, and there's no way to do that with one foot out the door. The results obtained then are not the results that would have been obtained if the committment was done completely and sincerely.
I think this sucks, because I'm impulsive in small things and cautious in large things, so it's the exact opposite of the way I'd like things to be. But this is how human nature/the universe works.
Maybe this is my problem. I'm interested to see how the nay-sayers to premarital relations tie this in to "social responsibility."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I prefer the scenario where you don't decide to get married because you are in love, you decide to get married because you are compatable.
I refuse to believe that not everyone deserves to be in love with the person they marry. That the "love, honor, and cherish" must needs be for some only a nice idea, as they enter into a legal arrangement.
That's so offensive to me. It's been suggested several times to me (including once by my idiot brother), and I always want to ask the person offering it as a solution if they were in love with their spouse when they got married. As far as I can tell, it is a solution always suggested for other people.
So, bev, were you in love with Porter when you got married?
---
I am one of the naysayers to premarital relations. And I mean it, when I say bet the house. You're in, all the way, and short of abuse or complete disaster, you're committed. So be very careful about who you pick.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I prefer the scenario where you don't decide to get married because you are in love, you decide to get married because you are compatable. Being in love is important too, but it isn't *as* important, IMO.
I think if more people used this (IMO) wiser approach, more marriages would work.
This is an interesting blend of two viewpoints: see, I think my way is ensuring compatability, and Tom's is ignoring it entirely. Mine is also most definitely prioritizing love, although I have no idea how Tom feels about love being a key to successful marriage.
This might be an entirely different ball game: how important IS love to the success of a marriage? I've never attempted to have a serious relationship in which I didn't love the person, and I'm not inclined to try: maybe that's my problem?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I refuse to believe that not everyone deserves to be in love with the person they marry. That the "love, honor, and cherish" must needs be for some only a nice idea, as they enter into a legal arrangement.
I didn't imply anything of the sort, Kat, I only said that a person should pay more attention to the compatability than the romantic feelings. There are plenty of people I can be romantic with, many of which would *not* be good marriage partners. I should pick the person I am compatable with as well as romantic with.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've never attempted to have a serious relationship in which I didn't love the person
I actually have. Like I said, what beverly is espousing is something that I've heard many times, and I'm not immune to the dispassionate practicality of it.
From personal experience, it sucked. It was all of the work with none of the payoff. I had friends, financial stability, and a life of my own that I loved, and all relationships involve sacrifices. When you are sacrificing a life you love for someone you don't because someone else says that you're irresponsible or selfish otherwise, it is absolute hell. I don't recommend it.
---
You are saying there should be both, then, and not just one. That is different.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
