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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what things provided happiness before you were married that no longer provide happiness now that marriage is an additional source of happiness? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?"
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
