|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Stop staying pure until marriage"
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm not posting stuff to score points or anything crass like that. And I genuinely wish that divorcing or separating parents first and last thought was for the welfare of their children, and that nothing untoward was going to happen to them because of the unhappiness of the adults' relationship breakdown.
But it genuinely looks like parting is more likely to have a poor impact on the children than a good outcome. I can't change that.
Now, whether it follows that "staying together for the sake of the kids", and the troubles that situation can bring, is better than divorce? That's going to be arguable.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Couples who split but remain amicable and do their level best for their children seem a pretty good example to me.
And yet in many cases, the couples who should split cannot remain amicable in their marriage, much less after it ends.
quote:
It is not using the children as weapons or considering them as collateral damage that is important. Parents maintaining stability whatever the arraignment is the key.
And how often does a divorcing couple not use the children as weapons? And continue to do so? I'm sure it happens, so everyone who has been through a divorce need not post. I'm just not sure how common it is as every child of divorce I know has at some point complained about wanting to stop being used as a pawn (even if it's only one parent doing it out of revenge or an unwillingness to let their ex have their way - likely the thing that led to the divorce in the first place).
quote:
It is situational and neither remaining together or separating is inherently better. The social stigma placed on children of divorced or non-married parents had been a very damaging thing. Losing that notion is naught but good.
I disagree that losing the notion that divorce is bad is naught but good. (I'm a child of divorce, and the first time I moved to an area with a large number of Catholics I kept asking people "wait, but your parents are married? To each other? in disbelief).
While I agree that are situations when a divorce is necessary, I've known far too many people who have hit a bump in the road or feel some vague dissatisfaction who have gotten divorced with no real understanding of how hard it is going to be either for them or their children.
I think most Americans view of marriage needs some serious revision, but I don't really think most people's stigmatization (or the lack thereof) of divorce needs much revision.
Of course, I have also have no idea why anyone would wage a campaign to "stop staying pure until marriage" as most people I know don't talk in those terms and I occasionally hang out in some fundie circles (not the types who have purity balls, but the types who expect you to save sexual intercourse for marriage).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But it genuinely looks like parting is more likely to have a poor impact on the children than a good outcome.
Not according to your link, which says that "long-term adverse outcomes typically apply only to a minority of children experiencing the separation of their parents" and that even in the case of adverse outcomes, "it cannot be assumed that parental separation is their underlying cause."
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Couples who split but remain amicable and do their level best for their children seem a pretty good example to me.
And yet in many cases, the couples who should split cannot remain amicable in their marriage, much less after it ends.
Then the children are fucked regardless. But that bit you quoted was a counter example to one Doc Tor gave, not a statement of what all splits are like.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I disagree that losing the notion that divorce is bad is naught but good.
But I did not say that. I said the stigma especially for the children, is bad.
Divorce is an ending. Sometimes it is merely the recognition of something that should never have been, sometimes it is cutting off a gangrenous mass before it does more harm to the body.
I do not think the necessity of divorce is a good thing, but the availability is.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not think the necessity of divorce is a good thing, but the availability is.
I agree with this. Sometimes it's the least bad option moving forward.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Couples who split but remain amicable and do their level best for their children seem a pretty good example to me.
And yet in many cases, the couples who should split cannot remain amicable in their marriage, much less after it ends.
But at least the kids won't have their parents fighting face to face, day and night, if their parents split.
[ 31. December 2014, 04:57: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
I don't think King David is a good example of backing that theology. He had at least six wives that used to be Saul's which were given to him by God, and only got into trouble when he committed adultery (which under Mosaic law is taking another man's wife). Polygamy was ordained in Mosaic law as a valid form of marriage.
Most of the obsessive puritanical theology in the protestant church falls to bits when you realize God allowed polygamy, failed to condemn lesbianism in the OT, and that adultery in the OT is only concerning taking another's wife.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
1. It it honourable to keep one's promises even when it is detrimental to oneself. It is dishonourable to keep one's word when it is detrimental to another.
Granted that (since I don't necessarily agree in all circumstances) my point is made strictly in the context of someone who is doing their level best to be loving, and therefore not detrimental to their partner. Further, as mousethief says, the other person has the right to end the relationship too, and if they decide not to, it seems odd to suppose I should know their interests better than they do.
There might be circumstances in which I am so toxic a partner that, knowing that my wife will not divorce me, but that her life would be immeasurably better if she did, I really ought to leave - I'm not ruling that out as a concept - but that situation is going to be very rare indeed. The chance of me kidding myself that my selfish choices are "in her best interests, really" seems several orders of magnitude higher, TBH.
quote:
2. & 3. A strong, committed relationship is a boon to society, I agree. And also concur that marriage, as a label, still has a connotation of permanence that exceeds not married.
That said, I think a poor marriage, a "we are staying together for the kids", we are staying together because God tells us to" or because "I said I would and so I shall" are detrimental to marriage and society.
Here I disagree. I disagree because the commitment that makes marriage work, that makes it stable and beneficial, has to be, at least to some degree, an over-commitment. You can't be sufficiently committed to a marriage such that it will survive all that is humanly survivable, UNLESS you hold on beyond the point where you can't see any hope. The reason is that in cases of desperate unhappiness and extreme temptation, the sign above the exit door WILL look like the only visible light you can see, and every other choice will look as bleak as all Hell. Even if there is still hope, still something capable of being saved, it won't look that way on the worst days. If you want a marriage that can survive desperate unhappiness and extreme temptation, and be re-built from that, then you need some principle that keeps you at your post when reasoned self-interest is telling you to quit.
Clarification to avoid possible misunderstandings: There are things that no one should be asked to endure - domestic violence tops my list - but those are, generally, things that happen when one person has given up on being a good partner altogether, rather than being cases of "the relationship" raking a bad turn. The habitual abuser or cheat has, essentially, already declined the role of husband or wife, as much as if they had already walked out. We're not talking about those cases, but of marriages where both parties retain substantial good will, but are nonetheless making each other deeply unhappy.
quote:
4. For the children. Utterly fucked up reason.* It is very difficult to be a loving, reasonable parent whilst involved in a bad relationship. And the message you send to them by doing so may not be the one you intend.
No, not fucked up at all. Again the condition on which I am arguing any of this is that of a loving desire to improve the relationship - the intention is not to just to "stay in" an unhappy home for their sake, but to make the home happier for their sake. That's worth trying for.
Of course I might fail at that. The point may be reached where it is better for them that their parents separate. I would still say that it is important to have tried. The children (who often, but not always, see and understand more than adults suspect) should at least have seen their parents try before they see them fail.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
1. It it honourable to keep one's promises even when it is detrimental to oneself. It is dishonourable to keep one's word when it is detrimental to another.
Granted that (since I don't necessarily agree in all circumstances) my point is made strictly in the context of someone who is doing their level best to be loving, and therefore not detrimental to their partner.
I do differ with you here. Trying is not accomplishing, intent does not automatically negate result. Not that I do not see the value of trying and trying earnestly, but ISTM one can reach a point where there is no point.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree because the commitment that makes marriage work, that makes it stable and beneficial, has to be, at least to some degree, an over-commitment. You can't be sufficiently committed to a marriage such that it will survive all that is humanly survivable, UNLESS you hold on beyond the point where you can't see any hope. The reason is that in cases of desperate unhappiness and extreme temptation, the sign above the exit door WILL look like the only visible light you can see, and every other choice will look as bleak as all Hell.
Good gods, no. With as much respect as I can muster, no. All close, long-term relationships will have good and bad, some will have very bad. But none should be this extreme. The balance of a marriage should be well in the positive or what is the point?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
the intention is not to just to "stay in" an unhappy home for their sake, but to make the home happier for their sake. That's worth trying for.
Of course I might fail at that. The point may be reached where it is better for them that their parents separate. I would still say that it is important to have tried.
I agree that trying is important. But if you are the type of people to consider your children's welfare before your own, this should persist in seperation as well.
[code]
[ 01. January 2015, 19:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Another issue here is that people's toleration of misery varies a lot. Then it seems very difficult to me to say to someone, that they quit too soon, when there was still some unhappiness to be wrung out of that marriage.
I am thinking of people that I know who had become pretty miserable, and then, there seems to be no alternative.
Possibly, there has also been some kind of compensation effect here - I mean that older generations did hang on, partly because there was little alternative, especially for the woman. So I wonder if today couples may think, sod that for a lark, bye bye.
[ 02. January 2015, 15:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
It seems to me that any discussion of changing attitudes to marriage and divorce needs to take account of the paradigm shift in the dominant view in society of an individual's purpose. It is now commonly agreed that an individual's principle purpose is to pursue his/her own personal happiness. When applied to marriage this principle leads to the focus being placed on the extent to which the marriage unit serves the individual rather than the extent to which the individual serves the marriage unit. This seems upside down to me. In order for a marriage to succeed both individuals must be serving the unit (or arch) if one or both are not the unit will fail. If people believe that the unit must serve them it will decline and this is in fact what we have seen (not only in marriage but also in churches and trade unions for example which have both declined). The decline of marriage will only be reversed IMO if there is a paradigm shift away from individualism.
[ 03. January 2015, 11:31: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I think Hallmark have found a new writer.
I think looking at marriage a "serving a purpose" is seriously wrong.
Marriage is a commitment and contract between partners. IMO, love and affection should be part of that.
There should be no commitment to the institution, but to each other, but this does not preclude ones own happiness. That is part of the relationship, not apart from it.
I would agree that excessive focus on self mars and ends relationships that could well bloom otherwise. The positive aspect of self is not being trapped in a loveless or abusive relationship.
Edited for emphasis.
[ 03. January 2015, 15:31: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think Hallmark have found a new writer.
I think looking at marriage a "serving a purpose" is seriously wrong. Marriage is a commitment and contract between partners. IMO, love and affection should be part of that. There should be no commitment to the institution, but to each other, but this does not preclude ones own happiness. That is part of the relationship, not apart from it.
I would agree that excessive focus on self mars and ends relationships that could well bloom otherwise. The positive aspect of self is not being trapped in a loveless or abusive relationship.
This is a very new (like, by-and-large since the advent of readily-available birth control) understanding of marriage. Marriage, or the functional equivalent when peasants didn't marry per se, has always been about serving a purpose. Stability, security, mutual aid, partnership for keeping the farm going and raising kids, etc., etc., etc. -- these things have been the purpose of marriage. When we moved from agrarian to urban/industrial, when readily-available birth control came into the scene, these old reasons for getting married became increasingly less important, and the institution became redefined. Love and having one's emotional needs fulfilled came to be the point.
The idea of a matchmaker, or one's parents, choosing one's marriage partner has gone from being the ho-hum way of the world, to being unthinkable and nearly horrific, at least in the industrialized "west." This is a huge shift in society's understanding of marriage. Your description of what marriage is for (however you want to put that) is soaked through-and-through with this new understanding, to where you think the older understanding is "seriously wrong." But it worked for humanity for the vast majority of recorded history. Why is it so wrong now?
[ 03. January 2015, 16:03: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it worked for humanity for the vast majority of recorded history. Why is it so wrong now?
It worked for men for the majority of recorded history. Now, with the advent of reliable birth control, we can make it work for women too.
Hallelujah!
Amen
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
mousethief,
I think you answered at least part of it in your first paragraph.
The "necessities" simply aren't anymore. Society has changed.*
First, and perhaps formost, women aren't property anymore, they are not merely a component of one's status/legacy/estate.
Second, the way in which we track and administrate inheritance and responsibility has changed.
Arraigned marriage, indeed marriage at all, was more important when it mattered to who tilled the field, managed the estate or inherited the title.
Marriage, and it's administration, has been used as a form of control as well. Is that a return we want?
That what was should inform what which is, not rule it.
*Terms, conditions and description vary by location. Please consult your local leaders for your level of oppression.
[ 03. January 2015, 16:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it worked for humanity for the vast majority of recorded history. Why is it so wrong now?
It worked for men for the majority of recorded history. Now, with the advent of reliable birth control, we can make it work for women too.
Hallelujah!
Amen
You're saying that women had emotional needs that weren't being met, but men did not? All men had were practical needs? I find this very insulting.
The thing is, nobody expected emotional needs to be met by a marriage partner. Neither men nor women. That wasn't what marrige was for. It may be that women got a raw deal; but it wouldn't necessarily have occurred to anybody they were getting a raw deal, because nobody expected anything better. When our ideas of marriage changed, and people came to expect better, then women could say, "I'm not getting what I need," and indeed when no-fault divorce came along, many women fled emotionally-unfulfilling marriages. But emotional fulfillment has only very recently become something we expect of our marriages.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Double post to say the focus on birth control, though important, is too narrow. ISTM, the reasons for a change in the view of marriage is much broader than that.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So, lilBuddha, you're saying it didn't used to be seriously wrong, but it is now? Because our understanding of marriage has changed?
I'd also add that women being property was probably more the case in the upper classes than the peasantry, where nobody even owned property so the idea of anything being their property, be it a woman or anything else, didn't arise.
ETA:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Double post to say the focus on birth control, though important, is too narrow. ISTM, the reasons for a change in the view of marriage is much broader than that.
True. Women being able to support themselves and their children without being married (sometimes referred to as "women entering the workforce" although that is a little simplistic) is also huge.
[ 03. January 2015, 16:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But emotional fulfillment has only very recently become something we expect of our marriages.
And this is a very good thing that we now consider it important.
As far as your response to Boogie re men's emotionsl needs. Yes, men have emotional needs. Society has always been focused on them. Their has always been an outlet for them, not so much for women.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, lilBuddha, you're saying it didn't used to be seriously wrong, but it is now? Because our understanding of marriage has changed?
No. IMO, it was always wrong, but had some practical reasons. Those are now gone.
True, as far as peasants were concerned, there was no property to manage. But marriage, whether it be a paper contract or a social acknowledgement, meant you had a woman to manage your home, prepare your meals and produce help to help you till the fields and take care of you and your duties when you could not. Again, the focus on the man.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I am perfectly good with the idea that the purpose and goal of marriage changing. Clearly it has. Just as slavery has changed. It would not be possible to go back to an OT system of slavery. And it is not possible to use an OT marriage system either.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it worked for humanity for the vast majority of recorded history. Why is it so wrong now?
It worked for men for the majority of recorded history. Now, with the advent of reliable birth control, we can make it work for women too.
Hallelujah!
Amen
You do appreciate that the vast majority (over 90%) of single parents are women? The new attitude towards marriage has left many women in poverty with a far greater burden of childcare than they ever had in the past.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think Hallmark have found a new writer.
There should be no commitment to the institution, but to each other, but this does not preclude ones own happiness.
The difficulty is that 'happiness' itself is now defined in individualistic terms. A person cannot, according to modern logic, be happy without a large degree of control over the outcomes that might influence their destiny. This directly conflicts with marriage which must involve surrendering to some extent our own control over our life outcomes.
If we define happiness as 'positive affect' and ignore individual autonomy there can be no doubt that the success of the marriage 'unit' increases this. Divorcees are more likely to suffer from depression than people who never married. By way of contrast people in successful marriages feel more secure and experience greater health.
However, to define happiness purely as positive affect is IMO incorrect. We are by our very nature social beings and it is thus natural that we should pursue collective goals. In view of this happiness in marriage may include autonomy but it is the autonomy of the unit and not of the individual that must prevail in order for happiness to be achieved in marriage. I say this on the basis that happiness is only one legitimate purpose for marriage there being a myriad of other potential purposes, not least of which is God's glory.
[ 03. January 2015, 19:24: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
What period (and where) are we talking about here? I can see some referent in many of the assertions, but I don't think many (any?) were universally true.
There has been no long gradual emancipation of women. Things have gone backwards as well as forwards and change has tended to be stepwise.
(X-posted with Makepeace)
[ 03. January 2015, 19:29: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
(er, Makepiece. Sorry!)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As far as your response to Boogie re men's emotionsl needs. Yes, men have emotional needs. Society has always been focused on them. Their has always been an outlet for them, not so much for women.
Society has provided for men's needs? All of them? A loveless marriage meets a man's emotional needs but not a woman's? Come on. You can't believe that. And THAT was what I was talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But marriage, whether it be a paper contract or a social acknowledgement, meant you had a woman to manage your home, prepare your meals and produce help to help you till the fields and take care of you and your duties when you could not. Again, the focus on the man.
Because that's what YOU are focusing on. Marriage meant you had a man to protect you, to keep income coming in from the farm while you were pregnant or nursing, to take care of you when you fell ill. It was of mutual benefit. I find it almost dishonest to pretend otherwise.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
mousethief,
Mutual benefit does not mean equal benefit. Nearly every system has the possibility of some benefit to all parties. This does not make them fair or equitable.
I did not say that society met all of men's emotional needs, just that it has been more focused on theirs than women's. Indeed, a women's needs have been secondary at best.
Makepiece,
Marriage, or any commited relationship, requires will entail the surrender of something from the individual to the relationship. But it should also give back to the individual as well. And the balance to the individuals, and therefore the relationship itself, should be positive. That is what I am saying. I do not accept that your definition of "modern" terms of happiness is necessary.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
mousethief,
Mutual benefit does not mean equal benefit.
Nor did I say so. You said that the benefits were all to the men and none to the women. That is wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Marriage today ain't what it used to be. It used to be that people married in their mid-teens, and most were dead 15 years later. They had fleas**. They shat under the house, in the street, and so did the dogs, chickens, pigs and horses. They had expectation that less than half of the kiddies would survive, and everyone died young. So it wouldn't matter if Romeo and Julliet lived and gotten into marital difficulty, they would have been dead before they sorted it out. Not like with our expanded lifespans.
Yup, it's entirely different now, where we can expect to spend 50 or more years married if we figure out how not to kill each other. A large contrast from times of old. BTW, I'm an advocate for marriage; we're coming up on 35 years. But I don't expect my children to marry until they can make it on their own, which will be 30ish I think. And I certainly don't expect them to be sex-free. Far cry from when we were young when housing, education and all sorts of other things were far far cheaper and affordable given the wages.
Frankly, as much as I like the idea of aspiring to character-building moral fibre sexual abstention, it wasn't within my actual capacity either. I eventually thought perhaps it was moral vanity to make vows above my real level, and that in my soul I thought it might be better to be my authentic sex and pleasure-loving self, which you can label as cognitive dissonance if you want, but the fact remains, it isn't within most of our capacities as Kinsey told us in the late 1950s, before birth control was even legal. I'd had a rough go as a boy and young person, and found significant comfort in the compact universe of joined souls formed with the making of the beast with the two backs*** I see this now as wiser and less needful of any tut-tutting so long as it is mutual, loving and responsible. If you cannot cry together, discuss things with a table between you, you probably shouldn't be frotting your bacon against another's, so yes, there are lines. It isn't free love and eff everyone you might. There is an integrity to it.
** there's poem in the back of my head about how romantic it is to see a flea that has bitten me now bite my love, with the giddy joy at the mixing of lover and loved's blood in it's tummy - who wrote it and what is it? I cannot extricate it amid the snow and ice of my wintry brain.
*** link: Rabelais, ~1532, "Gargantua and Pantagruel, Book I", Chapter 1.III "These two did oftentimes do the two-backed beast together, joyfully rubbing and frotting their bacon 'gainst one another..." We should do the beastly things with joy shouldn't we?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Marriage today ain't what it used to be. It used to be that people married in their mid-teens, and most were dead 15 years later.
A common misunderstanding of life expectancy. The life expectancy wasn't low because everybody died in their 30s. It was low because most infants didn't make it past 2 years. This greatly skews the average. If you made it past 2 years, you could generally plan on living into your 50s or 60s.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Also marriage in your teens was not standard (at least not in Europe). In most cases people did not marry until the couple could support themselves which meant later marriages (except for nobility/royalty). The lowest median age for first marriage in the US (with records dating back into the 1800s) was in the 1950s (about 20 for women and 22 for men); it was higher earlier.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Anecdote 1: marriage with no experience on either side, in church, lasted 11 years but never truly satisfactory, eventually crumbled into open infidelities, and ended.
Anecdote 2: marriage between experienced partners with no great idea (or at the time intention) of fidelity, immediately and sustainably successful, faithful these 34 years without any question of the marriage failing.
Moral: none.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
mousethief,
Mutual benefit does not mean equal benefit.
Nor did I say so. You said that the benefits were all to the men and none to the women. That is wrong.
I don't think I actually said "all", though one might infer that from what I said. I do stand by the statement that the benefits were well more in favour of men in the vast majority of circumstance.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A common misunderstanding of life expectancy. The life expectancy wasn't low because everybody died in their 30s. It was low because most infants didn't make it past 2 years. This greatly skews the average. If you made it past 2 years, you could generally plan on living into your 50s or 60s.
I generally agree with this point, but think the numbers a little high.
The BBC offer this: quote:
However, by the time the 13th-Century boy had reached 20 he could hope to live to 45, and if he made it to 30 he had a good chance of making it into his fifties.
I would think your higher longevity figures relate more to those of whom we have greater record, the wealthy.
[ 04. January 2015, 05:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do stand by the statement that the benefits were well more in favour of men in the vast majority of circumstance.
Which is just to say, men ruled the world. And of course still do. Actually to be more accurate rich men rule the world. The rest of us dance on their strings, to greater or lesser extent.
quote:
I would think your higher longevity figures relate more to those of whom we have greater record, the wealthy.
Fair enough. I was pulling a number out of my admittedly-faulty memory.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
The flea poem was by John Donne.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
<aside> Anyone else thinking that its threads like this where we particularly miss Ken, with his mine of information and analysis of the history of social institutions like marriage ....? ![[Frown]](frown.gif) </aside>
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
<aside> Anyone else thinking that its threads like this where we particularly miss Ken, with his mine of information and analysis of the history of social institutions like marriage ....? </aside>
Ken was in his element on this type of topic. A great loss ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Anecdote 1: marriage with no experience on either side, in church, lasted 11 years but never truly satisfactory, eventually crumbled into open infidelities, and ended.
Anecdote 2: marriage between experienced partners with no great idea (or at the time intention) of fidelity, immediately and sustainably successful, faithful these 34 years without any question of the marriage failing.
Moral: none.
Excellent. I suppose one can draw out moral points from various marriages, including one's own, if one likes, but the danger is imposing them. I take the point that no-one on this thread appears to be doing that, but traditionally the churches did, I think, and still do.
I suppose the C of E has it both ways, on the one hand, by saying that sex should be kept within marriage, and on the other hand, not overtly condemning people who have sex outside it. Well, maybe the evangelical wing do, I'm not sure.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
** there's poem in the back of my head about how romantic it is to see a flea that has bitten me now bite my love, with the giddy joy at the mixing of lover and loved's blood in it's tummy - who wrote it and what is it? I cannot extricate it amid the snow and ice of my wintry brain.
John Donne, "The Flea"
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Marriage today ain't what it used to be. It used to be that people married in their mid-teens, and most were dead 15 years later.
A common misunderstanding of life expectancy. The life expectancy wasn't low because everybody died in their 30s. It was low because most infants didn't make it past 2 years. This greatly skews the average. If you made it past 2 years, you could generally plan on living into your 50s or 60s.
Surely women had to make it thorough childbirth as well as infancy? I don't know the stats but a knowledge of literature from previous centuries and of history suggests that women did tend to die in their 20's or 30's more frequently in the past than now.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
This page has numbers for white males and females in Massachusetts in 1850. Life expectancy at birth was 38.3 (m) and 40.5 (f), but it you made it to 10, you could expect to live to 58 (m) or 57.2 (f); if you made it to 20, you could expect to live to 60.1 (m) or 60.2 (f). Women don't regain their initial ~2 year advantage until the age of 40; that may be due to the effects of maternal mortality.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
A nearby page has info on median age of first marriage. In 1890 in the US 26.1 for men and 22.0 for women. The age dropped in following years reaching a minimum of 22.8 for men in 1950/1960 and of 20.3 for women at the same time. Age as of 2010 is 28.2 for men and 26.1 for women.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
All of this quantitative, statistical information can only take you so far. It is also necessary to consider qualitative information. What did those marriages that thrived have that those that didn't lacked?
John and Abigail Adams enjoyed a long and happy marriage in C18 (often noted for their puritan New England roots). Others had long marriages in C18 that were unhappy and adulterous. What is it about the Adamses that made them happy? IMO it was their strong common values. They both shared their faith, a strong work ethic and a belief in American Independence that complemented their republican belief in the independence of citizens. In their case at least the submission of the individual to the broader unit seems to have strengthened their marriage. When the Adamses went to France, to further the American cause, they were shocked by the pleasure seeking extravagance of the French and the lack of commitment in marriage was notable to them. It should be obvious that a commitment to one's immediate personal concerns- to maximise pleasure and to minimise suffering- is fatal to marriage. By way of contrast the Adamses willingness to make sacrifices for their country reflected their desire to make sacrifices for one another. The individual's submission to a greater cause than his/her immediate personal concerns will lead to a successful marriage regardless of the lifespan of the component parts.
Moreover if a longer lifespan is fatal to the existence of a unit, as purported, how could any unit survive? Why has Procter and Gamble lasted and why is it still so extremely successful? If longevitiy is fatal to survival then P&G should have died a long time ago. P&G themselves state that:
'Taken together, our Purpose, Values and Principles are the foundation for P&G’s unique culture. Throughout our history of nearly 175 years, our business has grown and changed while these elements have endured, and will continue to be passed down to generations of P&G people to come.
Our Purpose unifies us in a common cause and growth strategy of improving more consumers’ lives in small but meaningful ways each day. It inspires P&G people to make a positive contribution every day.
Our Values reflect the behaviors that shape the tone of how we work with each other and with our partners.
And Our Principles articulate P&G’s unique approach to conducting work every day.'
Strong, unifying values that transcend the concerns of the component individuals are IMO key to the survival of any unit.
[ 05. January 2015, 19:44: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Marriage today ain't what it used to be. It used to be that people married in their mid-teens, and most were dead 15 years later.
No, it didn't.
In the early 17th century in England, life expectancy was 35 years. This is not because most people died in their 30s, but because the infant mortality rate was around 65%. A person who had lived beyond the age of 4 could reasonably expect to survive into his or her late 60s or early 70s.
ETA : Sorry, I crossposted this with mousethief. Also, it seems pretty disingenuous to allude to a statistic and then claim (when shown to be wrong) that statistics aren't the point.
[ 05. January 2015, 20:52: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Holy presupposition and false analogy, Batman!
This has to be the work of The Muddler!
Curse you! Fr. Weber! Foiled again with your x-post.
[ 05. January 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
A more serious response, Makepiece.
About the only salient point in your post is commonality. Most successful, non-forced relationships seem to have this.
The Adams, lovely couple though they may have been, are an anecdote. And, IMO, what makes their marriage relevant is that they shared values, not which those values were.
quote:
It should be obvious that a commitment to one's immediate personal concerns- to maximise pleasure and to minimise suffering- is fatal to marriage.
You do realise those are two, completely separate, issues?
A "commitment" to one's personal needs over one's partner's is generally harmful to a committed relationship. I think that a better statement.
A relationship is not a separate entity to the individuals which compose it. Needs and wants of individuals in a relationship should be subject to but not separate from the health of the relationship. Because they are the relationship.
Maximise pleasure and minimise suffering. Hmmm. If there are crimes committed by Christianity to the health of its members, the elevation of suffering is surely one of them. Suffering is not a virtue. Enduring suffering without compromise of virtue is. But when it is necessary, not for its own sake.
Nor is pleasure a vice. It is seeking pleasure without thought of consequence that is a vice. It is the desire of sensual pleasure that can be a distraction. It is not the experiencing, or the enjoyment of, pleasure that is wrong.
And comparing a company to a relationship is wrong beyond words.
[ 05. January 2015, 22:34: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Moreover if a longer lifespan is fatal to the existence of a unit, as purported, how could any unit survive? Why has Procter and Gamble lasted and why is it still so extremely successful? If longevity is fatal to survival then P&G should have died a long time ago.
![[Biased]](wink.gif) Well, there's a long-running urban legend that P&G serves the devil. (Check Snopes, etc.) I'm not at all saying it's true. But I'm ROTFL that you picked P&G to prove a point that actually fits the legend!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is seeking pleasure without thought of consequence that is a vice. It is the desire of sensual pleasure that can be a distraction. It is not the experiencing, or the enjoyment of, pleasure that is wrong.
And comparing a company to a relationship is wrong beyond words.
Yes, I don't disagree. I didn't say that experiencing or enjoying pleasure is wrong I said that 'maximising pleasure' is wrong. As you say it can be a distraction. A distraction from what precisely? Well it is difficult to be precise because it could distract from anything that is important to building the relationship, as you say any values that a couple has in common. Maximising one's own personal pleasure can never be a shared value by its very nature. That is why I contrasted pre-revolutionary French culture with Puritan New England culture- not because I think that Puritan values are essential to marriage but because I think this contrast illustrates my point. Indeed hedonistic French society, in spite of its perceived immortality came to a sudden, crashing halt. Why? Because it didn't have a sense of purpose beyond pleasure seeking. It didn't have fraternity, equality or liberty. I can't help but feel that our own hedonistic society cannot last for more than a century.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not very versed in French history, but even I know the revolution was not triggered by hedonism.
Fraternity, equality or liberty. Perhaps you mean liberté, égalité, fraternité? Possibly, just possibly, a slogan might not accurately represent motivation. Oration does not equal causation.
None the less, hedonism is not completely incompatible with those concepts.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not very versed in French history, but even I know the revolution was not triggered by hedonism.
'Let them eat cake'?
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
