Ship of Fools: Do you have to be married to be normal?

Thread: Do you have to be married to be normal? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029496

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

Just heard a programme on BBC Radio 4 about Ted Heath.
In a nutshell, it claimed that it will be impossible for an unmarried person (gender unspecific) ever to be PM in the future, presumably because of a perception that they are sexually deviant by definition.
Heath may, or may not, have been a paedophile. But the assumption seems to have been made that unmarried = not normal.
There was also an odd assertion made that Ed Miliband was perceived by the electorate to be "not normal" and therefore not PM material, irrespective of his policies, competence and character.
Very depressing.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The whole idea is rubbish. Not being married is normal. There are plenty of reasons why people don't get married and it doesn't mean they're players, or paedophiles or gay or whatever.

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

Some of the most normal people I know are unmarried. Some of the most unstable people I know are married - sometimes serially.

As for unmarried politicians, Pierre Trudeau was unmarried when he first became prime minister, marrying only later in his first term of office - at 51.

One of the most notorious Liberal prime ministers who held office, with one five year break, between 1921 and 1949 was William Lyon Mackenzie King. Ok, he had a short break in 1926 during a constitutional crisis but he wiggled bsck in by playing a deft hand of political poker,

He was a mother-idolator, medium following complex man, but he was one adept politician.

During the 5 year break a Tory prime minister, Richard Bedford Bennett had the misfortune to guide Canada during the worst of the Great Depression. He led the Tories in 1935 to their worst-ever defeat at that time, promptly moved to the UK and became a Viscount. He was also unmarried, and lived his entire term of office in a suite of rooms in a hotel next to the parliament building. He was rich enough to afford it, and the hotel probably gave him a big discount.

Besides Harper, our current prime minister, is dragging out his family to provide backdrop for this election. What a bunch they all are!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think that underlying this prejudice is a sense that sexual desire will out, one way or another. Celibacy as a choice is seen as implausible, or a sign of unusually low libido, but not the sort of choice that "normal" people would make. Singleness, likewise, cannot be seen as a choice, more a misfortune. Single people must, therefore, be frustrated and a need of an outlet. Therefore any allegations of unusual sexual activity (whether lawful or not) are seen as more plausible. "Surely they need to do something with their desire?"

We live in a highly sexualized culture, which provides the backdrop for these assumptions and prejudices.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Lloyd George, anyone?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

So Jesus was not 'normal'?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Maybe that's why people keep shipping him with Mary Magdalene ...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think that underlying this prejudice is a sense that sexual desire will out, one way or another. Celibacy as a choice is seen as implausible, or a sign of unusually low libido, but not the sort of choice that "normal" people would make. Singleness, likewise, cannot be seen as a choice, more a misfortune. Single people must, therefore, be frustrated and a need of an outlet. Therefore any allegations of unusual sexual activity (whether lawful or not) are seen as more plausible. "Surely they need to do something with their desire?"

We live in a highly sexualized culture, which provides the backdrop for these assumptions and prejudices.

There is also an association with weakness.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Maybe that's why people keep shipping him with Mary Magdalene ...

I've always thought that that whole Holy Blood Holy Grail/Da Vinci Code thing, far from being the radical takedown of patrirchy that its fanbots take it to be, is essentially just saying "See? Jesus wasn't some wierdo celibate like the Bible says, he was a married family man just like every other normal person! Wife, kids, picket fence, the whole deal."

Even if that's not what it explicitly says, I think that's part of its psychological appeal, especially in a protestant culture trained to regard celibacy as a strange Catholic importation. Sorta like the evangelical book I once read which argued that Jesus was really drinking grape juice at Cana, because as we all know, a morally upright person would never touch wine.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

Now, don't get me wrong. I like girls. I like women. As far as I am concerned, the world would be a better place if there were more females, and more of those in positions of power and influence.

But marry one? Again? For a second time, having discovered the disadvantages? That would be a truly be a triumph of hope over experience. I'm content to be single, footloose and fancy-free, and admire the fair sex from afar.

Best wishes, PV.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Ted Heath was, I suppose, asexual. That is a part of the "normal" range of sexuality.

I think that, while the legal position of homosexuals has significantly improved, and the acceptance of them as a)existing and b)valid has increased substantially. But I don't think that they are accepted as "normal" yet. What is more, I don't think other sexualities have been included (transexual, pansexual, asexual, any others I have not yet heard of).

There is also an idea that sexual deviancy is something associated with single people - ignoring the fact that most abuse happens within families. Ignoring the fact that families are not always the safe places that we wish they were.

I think this is something pushed by this government-of-the-entitled. They assume, as so often, that all families are as privileged as theirs. They also push the "happy families" image as a good Christian value. Ignoring the fact that a) Jesus was single and b)most biblical families were abusive, broken, damaged, corrupt and f*cked up.

The biblical picture of families is, I think, the accurate one. as Douglas Coupland said "All families are psychotic". Being married is pushed as "normal". Being part of a family is pushed as being "normal". Being in a good job is pushed as being "normal". This is a way of disempowering those who do not fit into this image.

It makes me sick. It reminds me of the Radiohead song - No Surprises. I think we need to both reject this cosy, middle-class image of normality, as well as rejecting the idea that normal is an aspiration. I don't want to be normal (despite the fact that I am by this definition!). I want to be honest.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I think this line demonstrates the true attitude of various institutions, including the vast majority of churches.

Sexuality is the universal problem in their eyes. It's a problem however it is expressed. If it is physically expressed, then it is automatically out of control. If it's not physically expressed, then the person is not normal.

Marriage is a means of control, not of sexual expression. I'm sorry if this offends those who are married; that is not my intention. My intention is more to posit that the intense richness of your marriage, the enrichment it brings to your life, has little to do with the institution. It has to do with your love of your partner, the mutual appreciation and regard between you, and of course your sexual compatibility. The social structure is designed to extend societal control into the private, domestic sphere; to make the private public, in other words. That way, the guardians of the social structure in question, in this case the church, get to dictate how the private, which would normally be outside their control, live their lives. Or at least, that is the intention.

The celibate evade the structure of social control, and are therefore equally stigmatised. They're weird, out of control again - this time it's not just their sexuality that's out of control, it's the whole of their personality. Their failure to participate either in sexual activity or in marriage challenges the guardians of social structures on two levels; they are not caught up either in the universal problematisation or in the associated control structure. This is simply not allowed.

To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.

Marriage, of course, has many other roles in the lives of those who are married. But this, to my mind at least, is clearly its role in the life of religious institutions, and the level on which it connects to their views of themselves and of the people within them. These views are, I believe, utterly pernicious and inimical to human flourishing. This whole culture is in need of profound change if the church is to survive. I am convinced that a perfectly correct appreciation of this perniciousness is a major element in social currents which reject organised religion.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I think order rather than control is a more appropriate word.* For one, the same pressures exist for non-Christians. Even <gasp> atheists! And <whispers> homosexuals.
Order and place are important to humans. Marriage/recognised commited relationships fill in several blanks. We "know" things about that individual.
We have many shortcuts we assign people based on indicators such as this. It is the way our brain works. And our minds are not comfortable with unknowns.

*Not that religious institutions have not used this as control.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

...and from the addiction to order comes the conviction that sexuality is essentially disorder. The red herring in part of the current debate about human sexuality is the idea that only homosexuals are intrinsically disordered, according to certain strands of religious opinion. Human sexuality is intrinsically disordered, and requires the long pair of tongs provided by marriage or other social institutions.

Patterns are marvellous things and can tell us a lot. Addiction to patterns is terrible, and narrows the potential range of human life and experience to a terrible degree.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

Just as an aside, I think the evolution-psychological explanation of marriage is that both sexes gain benefit. Men get a degree of certainty that the brats they are bringing up are, actually, their own offspring, and women get some assurance that while they are pregnant and otherwise involved with rearing their children, someone will provide them food, clothing and shelter.

The moral arguments around the benefits of marriage seem, from this perspective, somewhat spurious. If you don't want rug-rats, why involve yourself in a life-style compromise?

Cheers, PV.

[ 09. August 2015, 17:25: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Jesus was not 'normal'?

I would certainly hope he wasn't, or we're all wasting our time following him!

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.

This view sounds bizarre to me.

Who exactly are these people who get married for fear of hell and consider marriage to be a declaration of sinfulness?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

Patterns are marvellous things and can tell us a lot. Addiction to patterns is terrible, and narrows the potential range of human life and experience to a terrible degree.

No argument on this from me. Though I word emphasis how it allows us to be manipulated.

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Just as an aside, I think the evolution-psychological explanation of marriage is that both sexes gain benefit. Men get a degree of certainty that the brats they are bringing up are, actually, their own offspring, and women get some assurance that while they are pregnant and otherwise involved with rearing their children, someone will provide them food, clothing and shelter.

Well, no. Established relationships have these benefits. A paper or ceremony adds no more certainty.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, no. Established relationships have these benefits. A paper or ceremony adds no more certainty.

Well, yes, actually. A socially recognised, legally sound, conventionally solid, morally approved relationship, such as marriage, has considerably more traction on society than 'shacking up' for sexual convenience.

Cheers, PV

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The term "Institution" has been used and that reminds me that Edward Heath was asked why he hadn't married and he replied that he regarded marriage "as an institution and I'm not ready for one of those yet".

He did however have his enthusiasms, notably yachting and music, both of which he took seriously and to a high standard. There probably wouldn't have been room for a wife, let alone a family.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Socially recognised. Check.
Legally sound. Why?
Conventionally sound. WTF?
Morally approved. As in whose morals?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There probably wouldn't have been room for a wife, let alone a family.

Probably more likely he considered those more important than marriage. But this is all our trying to find a fit, a reason rather than just accepting.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Lloyd George, anyone?

The P.M following Thatch anyone.

You lot all go 'Back to basics' with your family values while I have some extra-marital bed-action a fellow M.P.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A few decades ago I read a book about marriage or or dating or something, written by a supposed expert in counseling. He flat out stated anyone not married by age 25 has psychological problems. My friends and I were in late 20s and had a good laugh at that. But yes it's exactly the way some, even some professional psychologists, think.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

It is clearly not normal not to have at least one long term relationship / serious relationship in the course of your life - in that the vast majority of people do.

However "not normal" is not the same as "bad" or "perverted".

In the course of conversation the other day I mentioned to a colleague that I have been single for 20 years - and never in a serious relationship - she was extremely surprised. She has now taken me on as a matchmaking project - I have no objection but also no very great expectation of success.

Somewhere along the line I have not learned how become close enough to someone to have a relationship. I am not sure why not, but I don't think it is about sex, I think it is about how willing - or not - am to allow myself to be psychologically/emotionally vulnerable with another person.

To a certain extent I am willing to accept that constitues a psychological problem - it is certainly not a choice, in the sense that I have thought - actually I don't want a life partner.

Politicians are almost by definition not normal, I think the attempt to pretend they are - especially those who end up in significantly powerful positions - is largely suprious. it would be better to be clear on which points of difference matter and which don't.

Successful politicians will be ambitious, obsessive, charasmatic and likely to put their career first. I can live with that, I want to know that they are not criminal, sociopathic or currupt - for senior posts I would like them to be of above average intelligence and have some ideal which they hold more important than their own self-interest. Anything else is neogotiable.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Lloyd George, anyone?
The P.M following Thatch anyone.

You lot all go 'Back to basics' with your family values while I have some extra-marital bed-action a fellow M.P.

But he was married, which is all that mattered. Cameron could be gay or a paedophile, but at least he is married, so he is "safe".

Never mind a single PM, when we we have a gay PM (married or not)? When will we have a divorced PM? When will we have another female PM? When will we get away from the hetero-normal assumptions of our society.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
When will we have a divorced PM?

1955 & Sir Anthony Eden (though he had re-married).

quote:
When will we have another female PM?

Theresa May in 2020?

quote:
When will we get away from the hetero-normal assumptions of our society.

Never, because most people are?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

If Theresa May becomes Prime Minister I will emigrate to the newly independent Scotland.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Ted Heath was, I suppose, asexual. That is a part of the "normal" range of sexuality.

I think that, while the legal position of homosexuals has significantly improved, and the acceptance of them as a)existing and b)valid has increased substantially. But I don't think that they are accepted as "normal" yet. What is more, I don't think other sexualities have been included (transexual, pansexual, asexual, any others I have not yet heard of).

There is also an idea that sexual deviancy is something associated with single people - ignoring the fact that most abuse happens within families. Ignoring the fact that families are not always the safe places that we wish they were.

I think this is something pushed by this government-of-the-entitled. They assume, as so often, that all families are as privileged as theirs. They also push the "happy families" image as a good Christian value. Ignoring the fact that a) Jesus was single and b)most biblical families were abusive, broken, damaged, corrupt and f*cked up.

The biblical picture of families is, I think, the accurate one. as Douglas Coupland said "All families are psychotic". Being married is pushed as "normal". Being part of a family is pushed as being "normal". Being in a good job is pushed as being "normal". This is a way of disempowering those who do not fit into this image.

It makes me sick. It reminds me of the Radiohead song - No Surprises. I think we need to both reject this cosy, middle-class image of normality, as well as rejecting the idea that normal is an aspiration. I don't want to be normal (despite the fact that I am by this definition!). I want to be honest.

Don't confuse asexuality with celibacy - I don't know enough about Ted Heath to say either way, but many asexual people marry for companionship and have sex in order to have children. Asexual people are not automatically celibate, just as celibate people are not automatically asexual.

Also, being transgender is to do with gender and is totally separate from sexuality. Trans people who prefer transsexual are referring to sex as a biological category, not sexual orientation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Never mind a single PM, when we we have a gay PM (married or not)? When will we have a divorced PM? When will we have another female PM? When will we get away from the hetero-normal assumptions of our society.

Some people do say that Edward Heath was gay.

As for the rest, we live in a society where same sex marriage, sex of whatever type without marriage, and divorce are all relatively commonplace. It's ironic, therefore, that only someone in a straight marriage would be deemed 'normal' enough to become our PM.

Maybe it's a matter of aspiration. People regularly fail at marriage these days (or fail to marry at all), but want to fantasise that a long and happy marriage is possible. Or it could be that in a world of celebrity pop stars and actors are expected to be liberated and uninhibited in their private lives, while top politicians are expected to prove their steadiness and trustworthiness in a stable, straight marriage.

And image is so important these days. In the past, politicians could get away with much more in privacy because the media and public couldn't necessarily follow their tail. Today, we all demand openness, and then pass judgement on what we find.

[ 09. August 2015, 21:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Never mind a single PM, when we we have a gay PM (married or not)? When will we have a divorced PM? When will we have another female PM? When will we get away from the hetero-normal assumptions of our society.

Perhaps even one who doesn't burn under a strong florescent bulb? When will we get away from the paleo-normal assumptions of our society?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.
This view sounds bizarre to me.

Who exactly are these people who get married for fear of hell and consider marriage to be a declaration of sinfulness?

I assume ThunderBunk is referring to 1 Corinthians 7, which does indeed see marriage as a form of weakness, and which (in the Authorised Version) includes the line about better to marry than burn. Although all modern translations seem to interpret this as 'burn with passion' (which may also be how ThunderBunk reads it) rather than 'burn in Hell'.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.
This view sounds bizarre to me.

Who exactly are these people who get married for fear of hell and consider marriage to be a declaration of sinfulness?
I assume ThunderBunk is referring to 1 Corinthians 7, which does indeed see marriage as a form of weakness, and which (in the Authorised Version) includes the line about better to marry than burn. Although all modern translations seem to interpret this as 'burn with passion' (which may also be how ThunderBunk reads it) rather than 'burn in Hell'.

If this was the reference, Thunderbunk seemed to be suggesting that the extreme version of Paul's view was shared by people who actually get married - that's what I find bizarre.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

It is interesting that most of the examples people have given of single political leaders have been from quite some time in the past. There really does seem to be a fair degree of pressure/expectation today that a political leader will present with a supportive spouse and ideally a few children to show that they have those good "family values." And I'm not sure this is even about heteronormativity -- I'm willing to bet the first time an LGBT person is in the running to become the leader of his or her country, they will also be expected to show up with a smiling partner and perhaps even a couple of kids.

I do think people might be less accepting today of a single politician as a potential leader than they were in the days of Mackenzie King or Pierre Trudeau (and in the case of Trudeau, despite the Trudeaumania and his dashing persona as a single man, how happy the country was when he acquired that lovely wife and started having beautiful children!) I'm only familiar with the Canadian examples given here and can't comment much on the British ones, but I do think in any country today, singleness would be, not a deal-breaker but certainly a stroke against an aspiring leader.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.
This view sounds bizarre to me.

Who exactly are these people who get married for fear of hell and consider marriage to be a declaration of sinfulness?
I assume ThunderBunk is referring to 1 Corinthians 7, which does indeed see marriage as a form of weakness, and which (in the Authorised Version) includes the line about better to marry than burn. Although all modern translations seem to interpret this as 'burn with passion' (which may also be how ThunderBunk reads it) rather than 'burn in Hell'.
If this was the reference, Thunderbunk seemed to be suggesting that the extreme version of Paul's view was shared by people who actually get married - that's what I find bizarre.

I think that in the U.S. among the population that sport chastity rings, young adults have been known to marry early in order not to "burn". Not really widespread but it happens.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think the voting population as a whole would probably quite happily accept a single person as leader. The real problem might be a single person getting the nomination and election as party leader, because the process is so much of compromise. If they could achieve that, the population would probably vote for them as much as anyone.

Incidentally, I was not equating asexuality with chastity. I was trying to indicate that the range of sexuality now acknowledged in some areas should be an indication that married (hetero or homo) may be usual, but is not the only definition of normal.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Julia Gillard became Prime Minister of Australia.

Julia Gillard was a childless, unmarried woman (though she did have a boyfriend by that time).

Julia Gillard copped some nasty pieces of shit because of the undercurrent of bias against her. One of those was when it was basically suggested that she couldn't understand what life was like for families because she had chosen to be barren.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

SC wrote:

quote:
I was trying to indicate that the range of sexuality now acknowledged in some areas should be an indication that married (hetero or homo) may be usual, but is not the only definition of normal.

Is there a different definition of normal? Surely there is a pretty strong bond to it being something to do with a measure of central tendency - a norm. Isn't the problem the unstated importation of value to that? It bears a remarkable similarity (in reverse) to the use of "extreme" (see Mudfrog thread), which is simply an observation about something being distant from such measures of central tendency.

It's all rather underhand. I guess if you can say something "is not normal" without anyone hearing an implied "it's a bit weird", then all will be OK. Until then it remains a rather problematic word if you want to avoid value judgements being smuggled in.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

'Normal' and 'norm' can have very different meanings. Insofar as it's common in most human society for people to marry, we could say that marriage is a 'norm' for human society. But for many people marriage might not be at all 'normal' for them for many reasons.

Would I have felt more 'normal' if I had happened to find someone who loved me, and whom I loved, and mutually wanted to spend our lives together? Well, that would've been a normal thing (though not necessarily the only normal thing) to do.

But so far it hasn't happened to me, so it feels completely normal for me to remain unmarried.

In macro-view, I look around me at the apparent predominance of married couples in society, and I can see that marriage is a 'norm'. But that doesn't and shouldn't dictate what is normal for most, let alone all, of humanity.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think we need to distinguish between:

This action is normal: most people do this, or enough that it's not seen as odd.

(Contrariwise, This action is not normal: few people do this, and there's something wrong with the ones who do, somehow)

This person is normal: this person has no psychological or sociological disorders

This action is normative: People SHOULD do this.

This action is the norm: This is what most people do.

Human beings and human societies (all that I know of) are hetero-normal, in that it's normal to be hetero, in that most people are in fact hetero and there's nothing seen to be wrong with it.

But hetero-normativity is the idea that people SHOULD be hetero, and people who are not are doing something wrong, or there is something wrong with them.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
It is interesting that most of the examples people have given of single political leaders have been from quite some time in the past.

My grandmother said a man who does not marry is admirable, but a woman who does not marry is wrong. (That was back when living together in sin was admitted only by scandalous Hollywood stars.)

That societal attitude may have applied to politicians who were single, may even have made them seem "admirable." Today a man over 30 not married is not admired for that, but more often shied away from, he seem a little weird, something's probably wrong with him.

As to women, UK has had several queens as good as or better than some of the historical kings, which I would think quiets a lot of the "women aren't as good as men" or "women should stay home rearing kids" we still hear from parts of USA culture.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Some known gay men have gone quite far up the ladder in British politics in all the major parties. I imagine, though, that the first gay (male) PM could be a Tory, perhaps one of the posh types. This is because the Tory party appears to have a higher tolerance for 'unusual' candidates (Disraeli - Jewish, Thatcher - female, Heath - single and possibly gay) so long as they are otherwise strongly conservative. That's my theory, anyway....

As for divorcees, the front runner in the Labour leadership battle is the twice divorced Jeremy Corbyn. His age also goes against the trend for younger party leaders and MPs. (Being fairly old also gives him the opportunity to have a much younger wife, which I think would be less acceptable for a middle aged high achieving politician.)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I think you're right about the Tories' greater acceptance- now- of gay men (and I imagine lesbians). I think there are two things at work here. one is a strong pragmatism- as you say, being strongly Conservative outweighs a lot of other factors. The other is that just as the Conservatives have become economically (neo)-liberal they have also become socially liberal. This is turn has two further elements: if you believe in liberty in the economic field you might well believe in liberty in perosnal relations; and secondly, in fact, objections to sexuality (etc) are to be dismantled because they get in the way of economic functioning. Plus of course there is a generational thing, which affects Consservatives as much as anyone else.

Labour, by contrast, still have elements of working-class (often Roman Catholic) sexual and social prudery, alongside the middle-class liberalism.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

@Belle Ringer

I'm feeling that I've known many more socially accepted single women (or living together women) than I've known men...

Not statistically sufficient to disagree with you but enough to think that I might like more data...

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Order and place are important to humans. Marriage/recognised commited relationships fill in several blanks. We "know" things about that individual.
We have many shortcuts we assign people based on indicators such as this. It is the way our brain works. And our minds are not comfortable with unknowns.

Yes, this is what I was thinking. Society's definition of 'normal' tends to be recognised, established things that people can identify with and feel they understand. As a single person with no children, with no desire to marry or have children, I find a lot of people are a little uncomfortable around me because of this, and don't see me as quite normal. I'm not sure that asexual is seen as normal, as someone said earlier - many people don't seem to believe I'm asexual (or that asexuality exists) and I have often been told that everyone is sexual, that we are sexual beings, that I simply am not aware of my sexuality, or maybe I have something wrong with me and I should go to the doctor.

So yes, from that angle, if you want to be seen as 'normal', and to have people feel more comfortable around you, being married is an advantage. Although there are surely other ways to establish that impression of 'normality' - other 'norms' people can relate to. I was reading one of Maya Angelou's autobiographies, and she was saying that one time when she was working with the actors and directors for a play she had written, people were uncomfortable around her because she was the only black person, and they weren't used to black people (so being white is another way to be seen as 'normal', in a predominantly white society), and the actors didn't want her on the set. She was so miserable that her mother came along to support her, and she found that when her mother was there, people's attitudes towards her changed - they were friendlier to her, let her on the set, seemed more comfortable around her. And she reckoned it was the simple fact that she had a mother, and her mother was there for people to see - people could relate to having mothers.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Society's definition of 'normal' tends to be recognised, established things that people can identify with and feel they understand.

Got to give people something to connect with when you are "different". Maya Angelou's experience is sad, especially for the why of it.

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:

I'm feeling that I've known many more socially accepted single women (or living together women) than I've known men...

'Cause they are less "dangerous", even when they are weird.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Looking at marriages themselves, both same sex and opposite sex, it seems to me that they come in a wide variety of expressions, e.g., "open" marriages, sexless marriages, marriages for money, marriages "made in Heaven", lifelong marriages, serial marriages, common law marriages).

What is a "normal marriage"? Is possession of the marriage license the only thing we look at? Do we base the answer only upon externalities? Can something called a marriage be further outside the norm of society as a whole the simply unmarried?

[ 11. August 2015, 01:48: Message edited by: ldjjd ]

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

For example, in the U.S. a polygamist would be much further from the statistical and "moral" norm than would be someone who has never married. The opposite, of course may be true in some other countries.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I am reminded of the lecturer on the cruise I have just been on, having galloped from the settlement of Iceland to the end of WWII in the first lecture, he did the second from there to the present.

On the last Prime Minister, he announced "I will tell you about her and leave you to make up your minds what you think about her." Which I thought might be regarded as code for "I don't like her or her politics, and I expect you to agree with me." And I was right.

I thought at first it was Johanna Sigurdardottir's left-wing politics, honed in the trades union movement*, but though that may have contributed, his last PowerPoint slide, showing her with the person she married (carefully omitting pronouns until he showed it) revealed the real problem. He did not think her "normal" even though married, because her partner is also a woman. (She had divorced her husband in 1987 and joined her partner in 2002 - even Wikipedia elides the intervening years.)

*His politics had showed in his asking if we thought that the political setup of the Viking Settlement might have led to anarchy, since they made such a point of renouncing kingship and a hierarchical society. That the same criticism could have been made of the United States, also setting up a republic, did not see to occur to him.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
SC wrote:
quote:
I was trying to indicate that the range of sexuality now acknowledged in some areas should be an indication that married (hetero or homo) may be usual, but is not the only definition of normal.
Is there a different definition of normal?

I think there is an important difference. Usual is more like a statistical issue - it means that this is the majority state, with no judgement, just the fact that many people fit this.

However, people can not fit into this image, whatever it is, and still live a life that is "normal", but different.

If you image a small community, where a large proportion of people have brown eyes. The "usual" would be then to have brown eyes. However those with Blue or Green eyes would also be normal, just different. At the same time, it might be that having yellow eyes is abnormal.

Not being married is not "abnormal". It may be different, but it is a perfectly reasonable version of normal. the problem is that married is seen as "safe".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

The Netherlands have had an unmarried PM for a couple of years now.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
My grandmother said a man who does not marry is admirable, but a woman who does not marry is wrong. (That was back when living together in sin was admitted only by scandalous Hollywood stars.)

That's quite curious. Our culture has assumed in the past that a bachelor is a man who enjoys spreading his oats, whereas a spinster is a celibate woman. So it would seem that from the perspective of traditional morality it's more virtuous to be a single woman than a single man. (Of course, the same probably isn't true today.)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It would also assume that there's a whole lot of married women out there cuckolding their husbands. Alternatively, a relatively small number of very busy prostitutes.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would also assume that there's a whole lot of married women out there cuckolding their husbands. Alternatively, a relatively small number of very busy prostitutes.

There were also a lot of "bad" girls who were fun to date, but one didn't marry them. Not sure where all the spoiled women went, but I think this is where nuns came from.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

It is normal to be married but you don't have to be married to be normal. Only weirdos will disagree with me.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You certainly don't have to be normal to be married.

(That MUST have been said up-thread.)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

In answer to the original question, I'd say it depends on the other party!

I had a grandparent who managed to get through three spouses (surely the plural of spouse should be spice?) before the age of 50, all having been said to have died 'in self-defence'.

On the other hand, I dearly-loved uncle and aunt were so devoted to each other that they literally couldn't live alone: she died at 9am after a fairly drawn-out illness and he died in a 15 minute gap between my cousin leaving with the undertaker and another cousin arriving home. It later transpired that he'd briefed the undertaker it was to be a double funeral... There was nothing physically wrong at all, he just sat down and died.

As for normality. what is normal?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

If we take the question seriously, we have to ask whether the death of a spouse makes the surviving spouse abnormal.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
If we take the question seriously, we have to ask whether the death of a spouse makes the surviving spouse abnormal.

Why? Mathematically, 50% of all spouses will be in that position.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

There does seem to be something universal in pair-bonding/ marriage that goes beyond religious instruction or Establishment peer pressure. Coming out as Couple does seem to feature quite large in the human psyche. This alone could make such seem normative.
Stereotypical womanisers and man-eaters, who seem perfectly happy with bed-hopping, seem also to be socially accepted in a normative kind of way.

So pointing a finger at someone we believe to be dodgy, in a deviant kind of way, then back it up with "yeah, always thought it was funny they weren't married" just seems to be something we like to do. It lends weight to the judgement made despite being rooted in out-dated attitudes and flawed argument.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Everyone who wants to be married to someone who is going to marry you in order to be "normal" raise your hand.

Didn't think so.

Marriage can be wonderful. Approaching it as a commitment over a lifetime is an important part of making marriage wonderful.

Approaching marriage as a way to be comfortable with what third parties think of you is not a commitment to a spouse. It is a commitment to noise inside your head that say you are not "OK" unless you meet the expectations of persons other than yourself and God.

So, someone who marries a person who wants to be married is getting a double whammy. First a spouse who is not committing to the marriage because of love. Second, a person who is insecure enough in their-self to need to live up to social standards that have nothing to do with marriage.

And why exactly would anyone want to listen to a politician to get advice on how to live their life?

Posted by cattyish (# 7829) on :

In Western societies it is currently usual to marry because of what we refer to as love. This wide concept takes in various states of attraction, comfortable companionship, wild passion, admiration and enjoyment of the other's company, usually in combination. Marriage is now usually solemnised after a couple have made a commitment to one another and often after they have children.

In previous times in the UK marriage was often a contract arranged by a family to provide the husband and wife with a socially acceptable starting place to have children. This still happens in other places in the world and occasionally in the UK (I met one happily married couple in Aberdeen who had married after a correspondence arranged by their families).

In Scotland it was customary to marry by handfasting, which cut out the need for expensive ceremonies. Marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute persisted until abolished in Scottish law in 2006.
Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006

So normal drifts. Didn't Will and Kate live together before they married? Could that have been talked about in 1950?

Cattyish, not normal.

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

I'm married to someone who is not normal!

Now waiting to duck the various flying objects.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Everyone who wants to be married to someone who is going to marry you in order to be "normal" raise your hand.

Did it Tortuf

Everything appeared normal for several years and then.... Wallop! The ground opened up and normality fell through it.
Marriage can be wonderful form of normality when it works. Alternatively it can be a label for something distinctly abnormal when it doesn't. Having experienced divorce my faith in marriage has been diminished not shattered.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

From my side of the Channel, the answer to this question seems to be rather different.

Our current President seems to have been rather, ahem, unhappy in love, but even when it was going well with Valérie Trierweiller, they were never married. Prior to that, he had four children with Ségolène Royal (who was a presidential candidate in her own right), and they were never married either. No one seemed to care all that much. Admittedly Mr Hollande isn’t having a terribly successful time at being President, but I don’t think it has anything to do with his love life.

The French just care a whole lot less about the private lives of their politicians. The one possible exception to this might be Sarko, who actually was married – apparently he made a pact with his ex-wife that they wouldn’t get a divorce until after the election, at which point he promptly married (again) Carla Bruni. This attracted media attention of a kind that had hitherto been extremely rare in France. But then Sarko was kind of a media tart all round.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It was much more normal, back a couple of generations ago, for there to be large numbers of unmarried women. Due to the war, many never met or were widowed before they were able to get married. Almost everyone seemed to have a Maiden Aunt somewhere in the family. There was also a terrible fear of being 'left on the shelf', contrary to today's attitude (where there are plenty of eligible males around) of 'oh I'm not ready to settle down yet'.

I have read several articles in recent years about asexuality, and am wondering whether that will soon be seen as normal as being gay now is.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

As a modern maiden aunt, and even maiden great aunt, I am aware that there was a second wave of war-affected women. Back when I was still of child bearing age, a women's magazine (they entertained serious journalism then) revealed that dating agencies would not accept many women of my cohort, because there were fewer men available in the right age range. Which explained a lot.

The Bulge, as the sudden rise in births immediately after WWII was known before people started going on about boomers, had a larger number of boys than normal - during the war, the proportion was the other way about, so that along with a reduced birthrate, there were fewer boys anyway. This became very obvious during teenage years, where in my circle there was a gap between those boys five years older who had all disappeared to higher education, and those who were about, who were just too young.

On the other hand, because of changes in attitude to marriage and divorce, there may have been more sharing around of relationships. And one mother at the school I taught at, who had been left by her husband, complained that the boys who had grown up at home during the war had grown up without fathers to learn from, and with doting mothers who led them to expect too much from their wives. I am not sure how much can be generalised from this, but two late approaches I have had to deal with have been from men in that group who have suddenly found the need of a caring helpmate of a sort I am not. (One whose mother had just died, one a widower. It's very embarrassing to suddenly find one needs techniques last used in one's twenties in order to persuade the wrong people they really aren't interested.*)

Given the developing interest in cruise ships in changing their practice of charging singles enough supplement for a whole extra person with a cruise food appetite, I suspect not being married at cruising age is increasingly normal, as the Bulge arrives at the same time as people start dying. What this may mean for normality at younger ages I know not.

*If you note a contradiction here, for some reason, the very few available men who seemed to be interested didn't notice anything higher than my chest, and I wanted interesting conversation.

[ 01. September 2015, 21:01: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

*If you note a contradiction here, for some reason, the very few available men who seemed to be interested didn't notice anything higher than my chest, and I wanted interesting conversation.

No doubt someone will tell you that it's perfectly 'normal' for men to address their attention and conversation to women's tits, and very 'abnormal' of you to take exception to this!! [Big Grin]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0