|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Marriage
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Agreed Chorister! "Love is about having. Desire is about wanting." Another way to keep romance alive is to recognise the separateness of the other. Seeing them through the eyes of a third.
And Timothy, unpredictability doesn't have to be continuous, but a little keeps you on your toes.
However some people value stability over romance and that is fine if both parties in the couple feel the same.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
However some people value stability over romance and that is fine if both parties in the couple feel the same.
I would make the dichotomy between comfort (which for many if not most requires stability) and excitement (which similarly requires novelty).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Exactly. The challenge is finding someone whose optimal comfort:excitement ratio matches your own, or is at least close enough that a reasonably satisfying compromise can be achieved.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, I don't think that it's a very good idea for a woman to give up her job and career or education for that many years. You don't need to stay home that long to raise children. That's just my personal opinion. Generally, if a woman stays out of the job market past the children being teenagers then that is usually her choice.
Lets say a woman finishes high school, goes to university and finishes a degree. A year or two later ( say age 25) she marries and has three children around three years apart. If she chooses to raise them herself until age 16, she will be out of the paid job market for 25 years.
Starting a career at aged 50 is possible but highly unlikely.
And the house is still full of kids that you need to organise........so women often end up doing two jobs if they go to full time paid work.
It's possible to be terribly organised and get your teenagers to cook and clean and pick up their siblings from sports training etc etc . but not that easy. I still have to be very firm with my two boys just to get them to vacuum on the weekends and wash up each night.......
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Exactly. The challenge is finding someone whose optimal comfort:excitement ratio matches your own, or is at least close enough that a reasonably satisfying compromise can be achieved.
Probably saying the same thing ...But also to find love and allow that love to develop by forming a bond of trust. This , esp. if both parties have been divorced, may take several years.
Excitement and chemistry need to be there from the start. However, when this becomes less of a feature, as surely it will, couples must rely on that special bond of trust in order to go the distance.
Compromise always sounds like a word that puts the dampener on the fun and excitement aspect . Yet long-term relationships are likely to be fraught without it.
<Disclaimer alert> . Not wanting to sound like a relationship expert here . I darn't risk making such a pompous claim only to have my own fall apart a year later.
But for the Grace of God go L-T relationships IMHO.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mertide
Shipmate
# 4500
|
Posted
Evensong: Unless this hypothetical woman homeschooled, she had every opportunity to work or study herself while the children were at school from age 40, not 50. That's plenty of time to establish a second career. Even while you have small children at home, there are opportunities to work or run a small business from home. You're talking of either a financially extremely advantaged family or one of another generation IMO. My mother-in-law who is 80 had that life, never working after marriage, but none of the next generation of our family.
Posts: 382 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would make the dichotomy between comfort (which for many if not most requires stability) and excitement (which similarly requires novelty).
And I say that there is no way that one can maintain novelty past a decade or so of living together every day. At some point one just knows the other. Like the command to be spontaneous, the quest for romantic excitement is ultimately self-defeating. I think the desire for "novelty" here really means a desire for "attention". The key is to maintain attention in spite of familiarity, or better, attention to and for familiarity.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Evensong and Mertide...I'm kind of between the two if you. You are both right. I think it takes more trust of the union to stay home and raise children than it is to go through a mere marriage ceremony. I believe that indeed the working parent owes a great debt to the parent at home and should be recognized legally whether married or not.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would make the dichotomy between comfort (which for many if not most requires stability) and excitement (which similarly requires novelty).
And I say that there is no way that one can maintain novelty past a decade or so of living together every day. At some point one just knows the other. Like the command to be spontaneous, the quest for romantic excitement is ultimately self-defeating. I think the desire for "novelty" here really means a desire for "attention". The key is to maintain attention in spite of familiarity, or better, attention to and for familiarity.
I feel that the idea that one knows the other is false, kind of presumptuous, and a possible precursor to taking your spouse for granted.
Attention to the spouse for what, if not for some semblance of romance, chemistry, interest, excitement, passion or whatever you want to call that end of the LTR dichotomy?
(So far from the expert of a LTR expert, I cannot even tell you..)
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Exactly. The challenge is finding someone whose optimal comfort:excitement ratio matches your own, or is at least close enough that a reasonably satisfying compromise can be achieved.
Probably saying the same thing ...But also to find love and allow that love to develop by forming a bond of trust. This , esp. if both parties have been divorced, may take several years.
Excitement and chemistry need to be there from the start. However, when this becomes less of a feature, as surely it will, couples must rely on that special bond of trust in order to go the distance.
Compromise always sounds like a word that puts the dampener on the fun and excitement aspect . Yet long-term relationships are likely to be fraught without it.
<Disclaimer alert> . Not wanting to sound like a relationship expert here . I darn't risk making such a pompous claim only to have my own fall apart a year later.
But for the Grace of God go L-T relationships IMHO.
I would say that you need to rely on that bond of trust to build in the excitement end of the dichotomy since that end thrives on separateness and novelty, inherently vulnerable things.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I feel that the idea that one knows the other is false, kind of presumptuous, and a possible precursor to taking your spouse for granted.
If you do not know the other after a decade of living together, then I'll predict plenty of excitement for your relationship. It's just not going to be particularly good excitement...
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Attention to the spouse for what, if not for some semblance of romance, chemistry, interest, excitement, passion or whatever you want to call that end of the LTR dichotomy?
If there is no chemistry between you, if you have no passion for the other and no interest in each other, then what are you doing in a relationship with each other, much less a long term one? (Well, I'm not in fact knocking "marriage as business proposal" ideas of yesteryear or elsewhere. But I assume we are talking about typical Western "marriage for love" here.)
Yet life is not a pulp romance novel. One cannot be original at each other for decades on end. And if you cultivate a relationship "on the edge" approach, then guess what, a dozen years later that will have become routine. And novelty for novelty's sake ceases to be novel at the hundredth repeat. I have no idea what you consider "romantic", and it is none of my business, really. But unless you are prepared to enjoy it again, you will run into a problem, sooner or later.
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
(So far from the expert of a LTR expert, I cannot even tell you..)
Well, only 13 years here. That's more journeyman level than anything, really, but I've been down the road a bit at least.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I've just been reading a book about the Bal Maidens working at mines in the Tamar Valley. It was long, hard, dirty work (particularly when working with such substances as arsenic) - I can see why in the early 20th century when memories of that time were still fresh, it became the norm for a man to aim to earn enough money to be able to protect his wife from danger by her not 'having' to work. This is rather different from what it was portrayed as later by the feminists - the man keeping his wife in the home by not 'allowing' her to work (at some presumably enjoyable job).
This idea of marriage as protection from the harsh realities of pre-health-and-safety working life must have seemed, at the time, like a desirable haven rather than a stultifying prison run by a domineering husband.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Ingob
I'm talking about knowing each other completely. I'm not sure that's possible or desirable.
I wasn't neccesarily talking about myself. You keep mentioning familiarity and such and not romance (defined individually) so the question was directed at you. Evidently you have that end of the dichotomy. I just suggest that end is based on some level of vulnerability and not knowing. And wanting to know.
And what I'm suggesting is a balance of the two ends of the spectrum.
(Currently spinning wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other, and no, its not ideal.)
[ 10. February 2013, 14:21: Message edited by: Fool on the hill ]
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I just suggest that end is based on some level of vulnerability and not knowing. And wanting to know.
Reminds me of something I heard somewhere.... 'True love depends on being not being entirely honest with eachother.'
Some folks raise there eyebrows at that one .
I do believe there's more than a grain of truth in it though.
So long as we're not talking about the ridiculous. IE. One party conducting an adulterous affair and lying through their teeth.
[ 10. February 2013, 15:16: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I'm talking about knowing each other completely. I'm not sure that's possible or desirable.
I'm not sure either. Yet I was not talking about idealistic nonsense, but about practical realities.
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
And what I'm suggesting is a balance of the two ends of the spectrum. (Currently spinning wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other, and no, its not ideal.)
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I believe that indeed the working parent owes a great debt to the parent at home and should be recognized legally whether married or not.
This sounds like nothing more than, "They should have the benefits of being married, without having to bother getting married."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I believe that indeed the working parent owes a great debt to the parent at home and should be recognized legally whether married or not.
This sounds like nothing more than, "They should have the benefits of being married, without having to bother getting married."
Well, they can only get married if BOTH parties are up for that. Levelling the legal playing field so that financial protections are in place for the party who ends up being the custodial parent in the event of a relationship collapse (which is what I understood FOTH to be talking about) does at least offer some protection against 'we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love, baby' (translation: I want to be free to abscond at will).
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
I agree with the second poster. Z and I have been married nearly thirty-five years: I take the phrase in our wedding ceremony, in sickness and in health, v. seriously: I had a prolonged hospital stay back in 2004 and she did yeoman duty paying our debts and keeping things in order. There have been times when she was the main breadwinner and provided the health insurance and times when it was the opposite. My lovely bride is the love of my life and she has never let me down.
I can only hope that her health improves and she lives as long as me. I have the right genes: my paternal grandmother survived cancer for fourteen years late in life and lived to be ninety-four: my Aunt Rose, God willing, will celebrate her ninetieth birthday next year. She had heart surgery a few years ago and still lives in her own home; my older cousin, Georgie, takes care of her. I do not expect the same from our daughter. However, my physical health is improving as I lose weight.
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If one has a kid with someone like that, money is not nearly the biggest of the resultant problems, IMO.
Well, no. But it is not necessarily possible to create laws to take care of the other ones, and the fact that there are likely to be other problems isn't a reason to ignore the amelioration of the financial ones.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I believe that indeed the working parent owes a great debt to the parent at home and should be recognized legally whether married or not.
This sounds like nothing more than, "They should have the benefits of being married, without having to bother getting married."
Well, they can only get married if BOTH parties are up for that. Levelling the legal playing field so that financial protections are in place for the party who ends up being the custodial parent in the event of a relationship collapse (which is what I understood FOTH to be talking about) does at least offer some protection against 'we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love, baby' (translation: I want to be free to abscond at will).
But you're just restating what I said: they want to have the protections of marriage without getting married. Why work hard to create laws to mirror the various legal guarantees of marriage, when we've already got ... marriage? The outcome of that course of action would be to essentially force people to be de facto married, whether they wanted to be so or not.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
I think, mousethief, that people will procreate married or not. And laws need to be in place to protect the innocent. Such as children. And if those laws are in place regardless of marital status there's no reason to actually get married.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If one has a kid with someone like that, money is not nearly the biggest of the resultant problems, IMO.
Well, no. But it is not necessarily possible to create laws to take care of the other ones, and the fact that there are likely to be other problems isn't a reason to ignore the amelioration of the financial ones.
Trying to make hosts of laws to deal with assholism is a bit paternalistic to me. If the non-asshole partner wanted to get married or say Not without marriage, they would have. Maybe said person is also a grownup and was not worried. Now there are certainly times we should protect a person from themselves. But to make laws that force all the responsibilities of marriage on those that chose not to be married? Dislike.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
Right then: I do not give advice to my younger colleagues who are fathers but not married: at least two of them are raising children with their girlfriends without benefit of marriage. One of the two has a significant other expecting their second child. I do not understand young people in their early thirties or late twenties: what is the downside to getting married if both parties are bringing up children!?
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Making a vow of "till death do you part" only for the legal protection...dislike
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
Right then: I do not give advice to my younger colleagues who are fathers but not married: at least two of them are raising children with their girlfriends without benefit of marriage. One of the two has a significant other expecting their second child. I do not understand young people in their early thirties or late twenties: what is the downside to getting married if both parties are bringing up children!?
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Making a vow of "till death do you part" only for the legal protection...dislike
But it's not only for the legal protection, is it? It's an acknowledgement that parenting is the hardest thing you'll ever do and that the person you decide to do it with has a status in your life that goes far beyond your personal "feelings" about them. And always will have. After all, you can, in the law, divorce your spouse, but you cannot undo the relationship between your children and their other parent.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you. - Philip Larkin
[ 11. February 2013, 18:29: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
If I may refer back to the point someone made upthread about how people use 'commitment' to be positive and 'obligation' to be negative. In a similar vein, I've found it helpful to think of marriage both as making a major commitment to someone (the selfless side), but also locking them in (the selfish side).
On a related note, whilst I think there's something symbolically powerful in committing and obliging yourself to another person... I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you (assuming the hurt it causes you doesn't cancel out the good gained by making the switch, which is a fair assumption since your partner presumably cares about you a lot). Of course, polyamory would make things a lot easier if such a situation were ever to present itself.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
On a related note, whilst I think there's something symbolically powerful in committing and obliging yourself to another person... I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you
In that case I'd never get married at all. Who wants to be just one more stepping stone on somebody else's endless bedhopping for happiness? (to mix metaphors horribly)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Right then: I do not give advice to my younger colleagues who are fathers but not married: at least two of them are raising children with their girlfriends without benefit of marriage. One of the two has a significant other expecting their second child. I do not understand young people in their early thirties or late twenties: what is the downside to getting married if both parties are bringing up children!?
I imagine the dont see a down side to NOT getting married? The legal bond is just not as necessary any more. It doesn't guarantee happiness or stability. There is no social stigma to an unwed partnership. Any legal benefits can be obtained by other means, and remaining unwed also has its own set of protections. So, explain why the should bother, if they don't want to.
My aunt and uncle never married. They raised a child together, and lived as any married couple, through good times and bad, for 30 some odd years, untill my uncle passed away. So...till death did them part. Why exactly is that somehow worse than if they got married?
I think these days, marriage is one viable option for those who wish an outward sign of their inner commitment. But it's not the ONLY viable option. So, why don't your co workers just get married? Probably because they see no reason to.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
My aunt and uncle never married. They raised a child together, and lived as any married couple, through good times and bad, for 30 some odd years, untill my uncle passed away. So...till death did them part. Why exactly is that somehow worse than if they got married?
I'm not privy to what they said to each other privately, obviously. If they ever promised to each other that they would do what they ended up doing, then they in fact were married (at least in a natural sense). Any involvement of the state or indeed the Church (in Western understanding) is simply as notary and enforcer of such promise. If you tell me "I will paint your fence next Monday," and then you don't, I may wish to call on the state to enforce your promise (or extract due compensation for breaking it). And when I do so, I may well wish that I had this promise noted in a manner more accessible to the state (e.g., a written on a piece of paper, and signed). But that does not change that fundamentally this is a promise from you to me. It's not the state who worries about that fence. It is our problem.
For reasons of their own, both state and Church have decided to shower blessings on those couples that use them as notary and enforcer for a marriage promise. And indeed, the RCC at least still says that part of your promises to her is that you will make any marriage promises with her blessings. But even that does not change that fundamentally a marriage is simply an exchange of specific promises between a man and a woman. It simply limits under what circumstances one can validly make these marriage promises, given that one has made earlier promises to the RCC. (I'm studiously avoiding the word "contract", simply because people now associate this only with "business". But a promise is a kind of contract, and a contract is a kind of promise. There is nothing mercantile about saying that marriage is a contract, or at least that is not at all necessary.)
So, I think there is room here to step back from the involvement of both state and Church. Ultimately, both provide only a kind of "legal service" to the couple, neither of them marries the couple as such. The couple marries itself. The real question is then: is there value in saying to another what you will do, value beyond simply doing it? Again, consider this apart from any involvement of the state or Church. But do compare it with saying "I love you." Is it enough to leave that ever unspoken, keeping it at the "just do it" level? Or do you feel an odd strain there, if this is never said out loud?
That I believe is the correct order of thinking about marriage. First consider what it means between the man and woman, for that's where marriage really is at. Then consider the notaries and enforcers that one can call upon, be they secular or religious. They have their place in these matters, even a Divine place. But they are not the primary actors, and what they say or do does not create the marriage. They offer a service on this joyous occasion. Even a sacramental one in the case of the Church, but still just a service.
The true question is: Is there significant value in promising yourself to each other, or not? If you answer yes, then you should marry. How you do that (state, Church, ...) is important, but a secondary concern.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
On a related note, whilst I think there's something symbolically powerful in committing and obliging yourself to another person... I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you
In that case I'd never get married at all. Who wants to be just one more stepping stone on somebody else's endless bedhopping for happiness? (to mix metaphors horribly)
Sorry, I didn't realise your relationship(s) are all (or even primarily) about sex. That's not really how I approach relationships, and neither does my partner, so it's hard for me to empathise with you there.
Is perhaps the point you're making that if better sex makes all the difference between one relationship and another, then it kinda sucks if you're both the one who isn't as good at sex and your partner doesn't care too much about your own feelings? Well, yes it would suck, but that would suck anyway even if you took the sex out of the equation. Who wants a partner who doesn't care about them?
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
On a related note, whilst I think there's something symbolically powerful in committing and obliging yourself to another person... I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you
In that case I'd never get married at all. Who wants to be just one more stepping stone on somebody else's endless bedhopping for happiness? (to mix metaphors horribly)
Is perhaps the point you're making that if better sex makes all the difference between one relationship and another, then it kinda sucks if you're both the one who isn't as good at sex and your partner doesn't care too much about your own feelings?
I can't tell if you're joking or if you completely missed the point, but I'll take a crack at this one.
People are very bad at predicting their future happiness. Very, very bad. It is extremely common (at least in the background I come from) for men to leave their wives in their mid-forties to mid-fifties for (often younger) women with whom they think they will be happier. You're saying that the wife, if she truly loves her husband, should want to be abandoned in such a fashion because it will make him happy. While sex sometimes has something to do with this, it has absolutely nothing to do with being "not as good at sex." I really have no idea what you're getting at by assuming Mousethief's point was all about sex.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
On a related note, whilst I think there's something symbolically powerful in committing and obliging yourself to another person... I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you
In that case I'd never get married at all. Who wants to be just one more stepping stone on somebody else's endless bedhopping for happiness? (to mix metaphors horribly)
Is perhaps the point you're making that if better sex makes all the difference between one relationship and another, then it kinda sucks if you're both the one who isn't as good at sex and your partner doesn't care too much about your own feelings?
I can't tell if you're joking or if you completely missed the point, but I'll take a crack at this one.
People are very bad at predicting their future happiness. Very, very bad. It is extremely common (at least in the background I come from) for men to leave their wives in their mid-forties to mid-fifties for (often younger) women with whom they think they will be happier. You're saying that the wife, if she truly loves her husband, should want to be abandoned in such a fashion because it will make him happy. While sex sometimes has something to do with this, it has absolutely nothing to do with being "not as good at sex." I really have no idea what you're getting at by assuming Mousethief's point was all about sex.
I think that you need to consider "truly happier". In the scenario you present, the man who wants a younger woman and thinks that will make him happier, I'm assuming, just because she is younger and more physically attractive, is obviously deluded. The wife would know that and would not want him to leave her for his own happiness because she knows that younger does not mean better. Nor does being with someone more physically attractive make someone happier. There are a lot of shades of grey here. (No pun intended.)
And just to delve a little deeper, a man who leaves his wife for someone who is younger and "better" somehow is either a douchebag or he was truly not happy with his wife for a myriad of reasons and then in that case, the wife should either want him to go to be happier or wants him to leave because he is a douchebag. I personally would not want to be with someone who truly did not want to be with me.
And this is not to say that that husband and wife in this scenario should not try to fix whatever is wrong first.
And furthermore, leaving someone for another is not honest or healthy.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The true question is: Is there significant value in promising yourself to each other, or not? If you answer yes, then you should marry. How you do that (state, Church, ...) is important, but a secondary concern.
I think this is the true question. Personally, I don't think that many people truly mean "till death do we part". I think they mean, "until you break the marriage vows" or "until we can't stand each other anymore" or "we mutually decide to part". Not very romantic vows. But I do think it is important to be honest in your vows. I think it might be a better idea for couples to write their own vows.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...., then they in fact were married (at least in a natural sense). Any involvement of the state or indeed the Church (in Western understanding) is simply as notary and enforcer of such promise....
So, I think there is room here to step back from the involvement of both state and Church. Ultimately, both provide only a kind of "legal service" to the couple, neither of them marries the couple as such. The couple marries itself. ...
The true question is: Is there significant value in promising yourself to each other, or not? If you answer yes, then you should marry. How you do that (state, Church, ...) is important, but a secondary concern.
Oh, I completely agree. But fhe question asked was..if a couple is together and having children anyway, why don't they just get married. I assumed that to be referring specifically to the "legal notary" service of Church and or State. Otherwise, I would answer " they probably ARE married", in the promising to each other sense.
I particularly agree with the point that a couple marries itself, and any church or state recognition is more about enforcement than anything else. I would extend that to divorce as well...a couple divorces itself when they decide they can no longer live with that commitment, for whatever reason. Any church or State recognition of that break is purely a mater of enforcement, of providing some structure and, perhaps, civility to the process.
I think that society, at least in the West, has come to a point where it is less in need of that one, single form of legal recognition and enforcement. We can now make those arrangements in other ways, tailoring them more to our individual situations and needs, rather than relying on a single, one size fits all approach of legal marriage.
I don't see that as a bad thing at all. It is as good or as bad as the couple makes it. Which, I would argue, is also the case for a legally recognized bond as well.
[ 16. February 2013, 14:34: Message edited by: Anyuta ]
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Interesting article
http://www.womansdivorce.com/marriage-vs-wedding.html
It is interesting. But also a bit focused on something that is only part of one cultures wedding ceremony/process. "Vows" are not a universal aspect of the a wedding. It's not even universal within Christianity.
The points she makes are valid, though. It just bugged me a little that there was this assumption that marriage meant vows. Well....I guess every marriage does include some implicit vows, but the focus of the article was on explicit vows and their specific wording.
[ 16. February 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: Anyuta ]
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Sorry, I didn't realise your relationship(s) are all (or even primarily) about sex.
What a fascinating misinterpretation of what I said. And a fascinating denial that that is one of the things that people think makes them happy, and leave their spouses over.
quote:
Who wants a partner who doesn't care about them?
That's what you're praising, seems to me. Or at least, comparatively. "I don't care about you as much as I do about this new person." "Oh well then who am I to stand in the way of your happiness?" I find it pretty sick.
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
And furthermore, leaving someone for another is not honest or healthy.
That is exactly what Clonk is saying I should want for my wife -- that she should leave me for another, if she thinks that other would make her happier. What else can he mean by what he has said? And all my wife can go on, when she meets this new person she deserves to be able to leave me for, is what she thinks will happen, since nobody can know the future, and particularly the future of relationships. Clonk wants me to rejoice if my wife finds someone she thinks will make her happier than I can, and be happy to let her go based on her guesses about the future.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Sorry, I didn't realise your relationship(s) are all (or even primarily) about sex.
What a fascinating misinterpretation of what I said. And a fascinating denial that that is one of the things that people think makes them happy, and leave their spouses over.
quote:
Who wants a partner who doesn't care about them?
That's what you're praising, seems to me. Or at least, comparatively. "I don't care about you as much as I do about this new person." "Oh well then who am I to stand in the way of your happiness?" I find it pretty sick.
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
And furthermore, leaving someone for another is not honest or healthy.
That is exactly what Clonk is saying I should want for my wife -- that she should leave me for another, if she thinks that other would make her happier. What else can he mean by what he has said? And all my wife can go on, when she meets this new person she deserves to be able to leave me for, is what she thinks will happen, since nobody can know the future, and particularly the future of relationships. Clonk wants me to rejoice if my wife finds someone she thinks will make her happier than I can, and be happy to let her go based on her guesses about the future.
Dynamics become quite strange and contorted when a binary monogamist approach is taken to things. In such a contrived/inflexible paradigm there isn't much or any scope for testing one's 'guesses', which, as you say, makes such 'guesses' a lot more likely to be ill-advised than they would otherwise be. If you're sticking to an inflexible monogamy, then what I'm suggesting could well be pragmatically stunted. The problem might be my suggestion from one perspective, but from another the problem could be rigidly sticking to monogamy.
I don't have anything against monogamist marriage per se, and I don't mean to use words like 'contrived' to suggest that it's bad. It's just that it is contrived and inflexible, and that presents problems in some respects.
I am very interested in why you think that the scenario you present is 'sick'? Is that not what people generally do before they get married anyway?
Sure, I exaggerated my interpretation of what you were saying to make a point. As it happens, I'm sure that 'bedhopping' is what suits some people best. The trick is to be open about these things when starting a relationship so you can both make a choice as to whether or not you are wanting the same thing for your relationship.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If you're advocating for polyamory or open marriage, just come out and advocate for it. Or answer what I said. These games grow wearisome.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you're advocating for polyamory or open marriage, just come out and advocate for it. Or answer what I said. These games grow wearisome.
Well sure I personally advocate polyamory, but I'm interested in exploring with you how applicable polyamorous principles are to a monogamist marriage paradigm. That's something I've not considered as much.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Lord Clonk, if you could explain a little more of what is you wish to explore here, I would be very interested. I find non monogamous relationships fascinating.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I gots just three words to say against the narrow interpretation of the handful of statements on divorce and remarriage by Jesus and Paul (which is NOT in defense of betrayal, abandonment): David Instone-Brewer.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Seems to me if you apply polyamorous principles to a monogamous marriage, it ceases to be a monogamous one and becomes a polyamorous one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
Transferring polyamorous dynamics across to monogamous dynamics would be clunky, but perhaps worth a thought... even if it ends up demonstrating a clear incompatibility.
With polyamory there is freedom of movement for each individual in relation to other people (exactly how much freedom depends on what is idiosyncratically agreed, but I'll ignore that nuance for now). This is very essentially accompanied with open and steady communication about what's going on and how people are responding to such things. These two elements are absolutely paramount.
Now, what we have with monogamy, and especially with marriage, is that there is not freedom of movement and therefore anything that threatens to contravene this is taboo and therefore cannot be spoken of.
So I guess what I'm curious about is to what extent it would be beneficial for people in marriages to be openly communicative about any urges they might find from time to time to contravene their relationship's monogamous boundaries. Communication is always touted as THE fundamental thing for good polyamorous relationships. Communicating doesn't necessarily change what your partner thinks/feels (although of course it often does), but it treats people respectfully by letting them know what's going on, it gives people informed choice and it ensures that people's feelings and thoughts are expressed and heard... and these can be wrestled with together rather than alone. So, for example, monogamous couples would end up having greater opportunities to coordinate corrective action if that is what they wish to do.
I'm being very presumptive about the level of communication about these things in normal monogamous relationships, so do correct me if I'm entirely misconstruing how such relationships tend to work.
I guess the problem with taking lifelong vows in particular is that your subsequent recourse to expressing doubts and misgivings over those vows is fraught with questions of your own honour... So it's very difficult to express something different from what you've committed yourself to.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Transferring polyamorous dynamics across to monogamous dynamics would be clunky, but perhaps worth a thought... even if it ends up demonstrating a clear incompatibility.
With polyamory there is freedom of movement for each individual in relation to other people (exactly how much freedom depends on what is idiosyncratically agreed, but I'll ignore that nuance for now). This is very essentially accompanied with open and steady communication about what's going on and how people are responding to such things. These two elements are absolutely paramount.
Now, what we have with monogamy, and especially with marriage, is that there is not freedom of movement and therefore anything that threatens to contravene this is taboo and therefore cannot be spoken of.
So I guess what I'm curious about is to what extent it would be beneficial for people in marriages to be openly communicative about any urges they might find from time to time to contravene their relationship's monogamous boundaries. Communication is always touted as THE fundamental thing for good polyamorous relationships. Communicating doesn't necessarily change what your partner thinks/feels (although of course it often does), but it treats people respectfully by letting them know what's going on, it gives people informed choice and it ensures that people's feelings and thoughts are expressed and heard... and these can be wrestled with together rather than alone. So, for example, monogamous couples would end up having greater opportunities to coordinate corrective action if that is what they wish to do.
I'm being very presumptive about the level of communication about these things in normal monogamous relationships, so do correct me if I'm entirely misconstruing how such relationships tend to work.
I guess the problem with taking lifelong vows in particular is that your subsequent recourse to expressing doubts and misgivings over those vows is fraught with questions of your own honour... So it's very difficult to express something different from what you've committed yourself to.
my own personal experience (two marriages, total nearly 30 years, once divorce, several separations, many ups and downs) is that I only find myself seriously thinking about other partners (beyond just "oh, isn't he a treat for the eyes") when the marriage is ALREADY having difficulty. it's like there is some switch that goes off when there is a likelyhood of the relationship ending, which sets me looking for alternatives. it's not , for me, EVER that the desire for an alternative relationship impacts the current relationship, but only that existing problems in the current relationship may trigger interest in others.
That being the case, open communication about the feelings for others is rather pointless, since the real issue is not that, but something else. That something else DOES need to be talked about and dealt with one way or another, and of course I have to deal with whatever feelings I may have for alternative relationships.
Now, it seems to me that were I to have such feelings about another when my marriage is otherwise strong and stable, then talking about it with my partner would serve only to damage the relationship. It would hurt my partner (generally over something I'd never act on anyway, so what's the point), making my parnter feel inadequate, and will also likely trigger distrust (even if the communication is very clear about the degree of attraction and the unlikelyhood of action on it). I would certainly feel very hurt if my husband told me "you know, I really feel sexually attracted to my co-worker. Of course I'd never act on it, but I thought I should tell you". even if I trust that he woulnd't act on it, the knowledge that the feelings are there would cause me great angst.
What is the benefit? partners share things, certainly, but not every single passing thought. How horrible to constantly be bombarded with every impulse, every feeling, every thought that crossed my husband's mind! I think that that's actually selfish.. to be constantly demanding attention for every random thought.
There is, perhaps, a level beyond which it's not just a passing thought or impulse, but a serious issue, and yes, then I do think that it perhaps should be talked about as a couple. But in my case, there would be so much else that needed dealing with that any attraction to another person would be very minor in comparison. I can only assume that it's more or less the same for my husband... I don't care if he looks at a pretty girl and is aroused. I do care if he ponders a relationship with a specific person.
If I have questions/doubts about my commitment to my partner, I don't see it as a failure of my "Honor". but then, I don't see marriage as primarily about monogamy. it IS monogamous, but that is not the most important thing. My honor is only damaged is I act selfishly. and that's true in any relationship--and not only ones that involve sex.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
I totally agree, Anyuta, with almost everything that you said. I found Lord Clonk's description of open communication really stressful. My thoughts are my own and I don't want to feel pressured to share them if I don't want to.
I find open marriages or the like, interesting and I don't condemn them at all. But I kind of wonder if sharing every thought is really such a good idea in any kind of relationship.
I do think that some people who may be at the excitement end of the excitement vs stability relationship spectrum may fantasize more than others and may do so even if the marriage is strong. (I think)
And personally, I like it when my husband seems to appreciate a woman because it reminds me that he is a man. (So to speak, nothing against homosexual relationships). He has also said that he likes it when he knows another is noticing me because he knows he is going home with me. (I think it depends on his mood though) However, he's not as appreciative if I would openly appreciate a man. He's a bit more jealous than I am. I think those kinds of thoughts and feelings vary by the couple and the individuals.
In an open relationship, I guess to counter balance the lack of stability (things could change at any time) it would be neccesary to be open about all possibilities so that the other person might be prepared. That part doesn't sound appealing to me at all.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
There's clearly a big difference between polyamory and monogamy in that the binary nature of the latter makes any other potential relationships necessarily a threat.
Also, entertaining other relationships in order to cover over any failings in existing relationships is a terrible idea... And if such communication only would have occasion to happen in monogamy when there are problems, then that would be mimicking the time in a polyamorous relationship when it's least good to consider other relationships.
Hmm. It's very interesting how much prescriptions about relationship structure affects things.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
