1
   

Some theories on marriage - all feedback welcome

 
 
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 06:05 pm
Hi all - apologies ahead of time if this gets to be a long post, but I'd really like to active feedback on some of the following.

I've been married now 5 years, to a wonderful woman that I met in college. We became friends over several years, then dated on and off for 3 years, and finally tied the knot after both of us ending our short-lived relationships with others.

From many other marriages I've seen, we really have worked out the petty details to a science. We both make great incomes and have solved the usual money issues, we know how to solve our other problems together, and we share many friends together. Sound like a blissful marriage?

For the most part it is, but recently many things have changed in my mind and I've spent the better part of the last several years thinking about marriage and society/culture as a whole and what it means.

Three years ago, my parents ended a 30 year marriage when my mother announced (at Thanksgiving no less) that she had been having affairs for nearly 10 years, and would be leaving my father to be with another man. My father and I were hit like a brick. It absolutely devastated my dad and he spent the better part of 2 years getting himself mentally back on his feet. Now, they remain friends, and have both moved on. They get along reasonably well, and even see each other on occasion.

But I digress; more to my point. Until the episode with my folks occurred, I never really thought about the future of my marriage, or others' marriages for that matter. Having come from a solid family, I naturally assumed I was "immune" to the troubles of the world and assumed my marriage would always have it's share of issues, but we would deal with them and blissfully move on.

However, I've begun to open my eyes a bit, and pay attention to what is happening in the world, in hopes that I might not be yet another blind sheep who follows the same footsteps and mistakes that have been made time and time again. What got me started was the sheer divorce statistics in this country. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Of the half that are left, 50% of those seem to want to divorce, but don't because of any number of reasons (children, religion, etc). The question I was forced to ask myself, is, what are we doing wrong as a society that makes so many people want to get out of marriage?

A few thoughts:
Have we, as a society, outgrown the ~need~ for marriage? Are we outwardly, and publicly trying to cling to a tradition, that, for most intents and purposes, isn't absolutely necessary anymore? Look at our culture, for the most part, people have the ability to live independently of each other these days. Jobs, homes, you name it, we all have the capability.

Also, when couples marry, the natural assumption is to live together (are there stats on couples that marry, but do NOT co-reside? I don't know, but I'd be interested). I realize there are many social, and especially economic advantages to living together, but does doing so, especially in today's culture, squash the love and desire out of us? Let me clarify. Name one roommate you've ever had that you didn't get sick of? I cannot. What makes us think, that our spouse would be immune to that affect? Daily routine, and little separation to me, seems to breed complacency. Complacency drowns out all of the sensation of "missing" someone, and voids the tiny bit of uncertainty in ones relationship that really stokes the fire of passion. Is one really willing to douse the fire of passion, in exchange for cheaper living?

I recall a recent conversation with my lovely spouse, where we both commented on how wonderful it was back when we lived separately, back when we were engaged, but separated by our independent lives and 250 miles. We both maintained our own lives, careers, and households, and were only able to see each other on the weekends. But what a feeling! I couldn't wait to see her, be with her, get intimate, and often drove in the wee hours of the night to do so! A feeling that would be hard to contemplate now!

The only other time I've felt this, since being married, is when I had traveled for two weeks on a trip with a friend. Being unable to see my wife, when I wanted, I began to miss her. Being "independent" and having the ability to go and do whatever I pleased, where my wifes input and decisions were not a fact, gave me room to appreciate what was at home, and miss her a great deal. What resulted, was a WHOLE day of the most amazing love making i've ever experienced. We made out like a couple of teenagers for litterally HOURS. I couldn't get enough of her, and any other petty issues that might be looming, seemed insignificant. A feeling I long for, and find it hard to imagine feeling now, when our daily lives are entangled together in daily routine issues.

To wrap that point, I now find myself looking forward to times away from home, and in the company of my friends and social life, more often than being at home, and intimate with my spouse. My question is, can a balance be found?

Another point I'd like to bring up, is in monogamy itself. I have no problem with being sexually dedicated to a single person - for as long as both desire it - not because they are married. But from a third-point observer, is this fighting an uphill battle against biology? Without entering things like religious, political, or philosophical teachings, which differ from person to person - human biology is the only common binder amongst ALL people. Is the attempt to be monogamous a fruitless quest? Though I love my wife dearly, and respect the trust between us immensely, my human desires, especially as a male, and attraction to the opposite sex has not dwindled. In fact, if anything, it becomes more intense over time - my theory being that my desire to be intimate with my wife, being numbed by the complacency experienced above. How about one's need for independence? As humans, it seems to me that we are designed to compete - in all areas. Without that exercise, we become lost in our minds and restless in our thoughts. The untold truth is that for nearly all time, man has been involved in extramarital affairs. In many cultures, it's almost expected. In our own, it happens under the table, and publically, is taboo; yet it happens, in staggering occurence!

How about marriage from a legal standpoint? Again, religious or political beliefs aside (i know they are important - not trying to ignore these, only trying to get to the common denominator) - what does legally binding yourself to someone gain you, that you didn't have already? Some might say that it is your solemn promise to stay together. First, based on what we observe, is this kind of promise even practical? Second, why do we need to legally bind ourselves to make this promise? Shouldn't that level of trust be there already, even if not practical? Does something change the day after you get married? Do you love someone more because you have legally bound yourself to them? And, it seems, it's this legal binding that ultimately creates havoc when a decision to leave the marriage (whether jointly or singly decided..). It's a field day for lawyers in the business, and, in my observation (again, welcoming any other point of view, or cases) magnifies an already tough situation.

Time and time again, we are observing the same thing - people fall in love, legally and/or religiously bind themselves together, only to face a high probability (the numbers don't lie) that it will end, for whatever reason. I find it very similar to mankinds attempt to create life, artificially. Living cells, are physically, and chemically quite simple. Yet despite all our knowledge and technology, we've been unable


I guess I'm finding myself studying this topic at great length mostly because of my parents case - what caused a perfectly happy, in my view, union to spiral so out of control? What does it mean for my own marriage? I too see the signs today, in my marriage that might, and likely will, lead to separation being the solution, despite the fact, that many would say I married the greatest, most giving woman on the planet, and our relationship is like a well-tuned machine. How could that possibly go wrong, and yet the early signs are there, as they are in many many other married couples that I know.


In light of all this, I'm not trying to be a gloom, or, have a bad attitude. I'm a curious scientist by nature, and long to find the solution, no matter how simple, crazy, unbelievable, or complex.


I have a theory, and I'm wondering what you all think of this:

Would it be better, for couples to, rather than marry and live together in the traditional sense, to instead, remain living independent from one another? To me the advantage would be:

1) The creation of some required balance and distance, enabling the couple to actually "miss" each other. Not knowing, all the time, what each other is doing, and where they are at creates a sense of "uncertainty" that itself enhances and amplifies passion for one another. Additionally, removes the "i'm sick of my roommate" factor.

2) The sensation of ones own independence. Though possibly economically more challenging, certainly offers the reward of self-accomplishment, as well as removes the possibility of one mate feeling "tied down" to the other. That's not to say that a couple can't help each other out - would I ever have given my love any amount of money, or resources that she needed, at any time when we dated? Of course I would!

3) The notion, that your monogamy is your own choice. Wouldn't a union between two people, be intensely beautiful, if it were being maintained by their own choice; knowing that they have their own independent lives, but choose to be together, rather than being 'legally contracted for life' to be together. There are some creatures, that simply can't be caged, no matter how large, or comfortable the cage is. It's still a cage. Might not the knowledge that you could leave, inconsequetially, at any time, by your own choices, remove the pressure, of being forced to be together, ultimately causing the end of the relationship?

I know the hard point I've missed here, is the prospect of raising children. How do you do it affectively, while living apart in western culture? Can it be done? Sure...does it always work? I don't know. This, my friends, is one of the holes in this theory. Many cultures, throughout history have lived this way very successfully - non-monogamous and communitively raising children. Not that western civilization is going to turn on that one overnight.

So, fellow readers, could this be a reasonable start, at explaining why so many marriages today end in divorce? Are we trying to maintain a tradition, that culturally, philisophically, and humanly isn't possible anymore? Am I a complete nut? Have I only realized what many already have?


I'll open the floor to all comments, suggestions, flames, and experiences...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 10,172 • Replies: 57
No top replies

 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 07:07 pm
BM (Sorry, don't have time to read right now)
0 Replies
 
gabbyme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 10:06 pm
every person in my family has been divorced many times. my parents are both in their second marriages and my grandpa has been divorced over nine times. each time my "grandmas" left it was because my grandpa cheated on them. he could not controll his manly urges and to this day is having an affair with a married woman who was his live in nurse when he had a stroke, of course he uses the help of viagra, has had muliple strokes and is blind. he was married to my real grandma for over 30 years and has recently made the only comment about her i can remember. He said "i let the best one get away". He is right, my grandma is awesome, especially compared to his other wives. Be careful, do not let this issue between your parents become an issue in your own marriage. it sounds like you have a wonderful woman, dont blow it. Just because your parents did not make it, doesn't mean you and your wife won't. As a female I'll give you a tidbit of advice, something I know (from all the divorces in my family)and some personal opinion) that will keep a woman happy. She wants to constantly know that 1. love her 2. find her attractive even as she ages 3. that you will be faithful to her 4. that she is more important to you than your job 5. That you would do anything for her. show her you care every day, it may be hard some days. Don't go to bed until you have worked out a fight, if this means no sleep...so be it. My parents, both in their second marriages have been married 28 years. My dad hardly speaks to my mother, never says anything nice about her in public, will not touch her, i have never seen them hug, kiss, nor have i heard my dad utter the words I love you, to my mother. If she is walking in heels across ice, my dad will not let her take his arm... he will jerk it away. My mother is sooo lonely. She hates her life, is depressed though she wouldn't admit it. She craves that attention. My mother will never cheat on my dad. Her first husband cheated on her that is why she left him. When she wants to go on a trip, he wont go. He will not call my grandma by her name.. it is "hey you". When they go eat with friends he will sit there and say maybe 5 words. No I am not joking. My father is a hard worker, but his work (farming) always comes before us. WE are not even in his top 5. fishing and friends are also before us. He will pout if my mother hangs out with friends. He will call asking whats for supper. He made her go to a ball game and sit on blechers all night the day she came home from surgury (she had her uterus removed) out of spite. He was mad at her. My father has never been phsyically abusive, but he is mentally. I think some things would be worse than a divorce. You can be more lonely in a marriage than when you have nobody. Please make sure your wife knows you love her. Little phone calls, a single rose (99cents at walmart). I hope you did not take offense to this. Perhaps i did more venting than helpful comments, for that I'm sorry. I do hope some day to break the chain in the family and not get divorced. I plan on dating at least 2 or 3 years before I get married. People cannot put up a front forever. However, some things are worse than divorce.
0 Replies
 
gabbyme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 10:07 pm
lol I just finished watching Indiana Jones the Last Crusade.. just before I read this post!
0 Replies
 
gabbyme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 10:10 pm
ooh one more thought. I have had past relationships where after being together so much it felt like we just needed to get away. My current boyfriend and I spend almost all of our time together, and after 8 months have not once gotten tired of it. We also make a point to once in a while have a "guys/girls" night out! Thanks for the insight to what marriage can be like.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 10:12 pm
Hello, and welcome to a2k, indiana.

I thought your post to be pretty sharp as it developed.

Back to comment in a while.
0 Replies
 
Aurora Dark
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 10:30 pm
It's a daunting task for me to reply to the entire entry, but I did want to comment on these points:

"1) The creation of some required balance and distance, enabling the couple to actually "miss" each other. Not knowing, all the time, what each other is doing, and where they are at creates a sense of "uncertainty" that itself enhances and amplifies passion for one another. Additionally, removes the "i'm sick of my roommate" factor."

-- Definitely not a bad idea. Many couples purposely spend some time apart, or do things with their own separate friends sometimes, and arrange events so that they can be alone without their spouse. So that when they reunite, they are happy to see each other Razz
(Personally, I haven't worked this out yet, in my own relationship... we spend almost every day together, but I only get sick of him for maybe 10 minutes a day ^^ so it's not really a concern for us *yet*)

"2) The sensation of ones own independence. Though possibly economically more challenging, certainly offers the reward of self-accomplishment, as well as removes the possibility of one mate feeling "tied down" to the other. That's not to say that a couple can't help each other out - would I ever have given my love any amount of money, or resources that she needed, at any time when we dated? Of course I would!"

-- DEFINITELY YES. I happen to remember this token of advice: A spouse should not complete you, they only compliment who you *are*. You definitely need to have your own motivations and life outside them, or else you'll feel trapped and lost in their life. I know this from seeing my own parents... My father is very ambitious, and for many years my mother was unhappy by simply living in his shadow and just following him. It wasn't until she found her own career that she really became happy again, which made them both a happier couple.
But all means, help each other. But you shouldn't need to tie each other's shoes Wink

"3) The notion, that your monogamy is your own choice. Wouldn't a union between two people, be intensely beautiful, if it were being maintained by their own choice; knowing that they have their own independent lives, but choose to be together, rather than being 'legally contracted for life' to be together. There are some creatures, that simply can't be caged, no matter how large, or comfortable the cage is. It's still a cage. Might not the knowledge that you could leave, inconsequetially, at any time, by your own choices, remove the pressure, of being forced to be together, ultimately causing the end of the relationship?"

-- Honestly though, this is the only one I disagree with. It does not work for everyone... with my fiance (we're not married *yet*) and I, I never want to be with anyone else. I couldn't even lust for anyone else, let alone love them, or want to. if I had the freedom to choose whether I stayed or not, I wouldn't want or need it. Chain me up, tie me to him, I'll be fine Wink We've spoken a lot about it, and he feels roughly the same way.
We have evolved a lot and bonded indescribably since we fell in love. I can't imagine myself without him, life would lose its sense of balance and harmony.
Granted, that does make me vulnerable, should he ever walk out on me...
But that's where the "faith" comes in Wink All of our previous experiences (and believe you me, we've been through hell together) have proven that nothing I can imagine, save for death, could keep him from coming back to me Razz

However, for most people, what you suggested is more "free", thus comfortable. It really depends on the couple.



You make a good point, that it almost goes against natural chemistry to only have one partner. HOWEVER, remember that certain animal species do choose to be monogamously linked Wink
But aside from that random commentary, I believe that again, it depends completely on the couple.

Unfortunately though, I don't know enough about the rest of it (psychologically Razz) to comment much further >_>
0 Replies
 
vermiliongold
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 04:02 pm
Wow.

Where does one start with responding to your insights? Smile

I read it with great curiousity, though, because lately I find myself also questioning marriage, and if I may be blunt: WHY did we get married in the first place??

I will give background on my life so that you can base my answers accordingly.

I lived with my boyfriend for 7 years. We had a tragedy occur and in our grief process we both dealt differently, which led to a break-up. Then we got back together and married. We will never have children, and we are both financially independent... so, the NEED for marriage? Exactly. We did not NEED to get married. As for the spiritual aspect, I am more spiritual than he, which really means we just are not on the same page in that area, so WHY get married??? I don't know!!!! lol

I think a lot people get married blindly (which leads to a greater divorce rate). Really.... I mean, no one will ADMIT to this, but honestly, do they REALLY know what they are signing up for??? I didn't. I know my friends didn't, either because we talk about it all the time.

I don't know... it is hard to write anything down that will be coherent right now because I am actually a bit TOO close to this topic...lol. I know I have a soul that never rests and I want to experience so much more out of life than what it is turning out to be.... but does that mean I am selfish and uncaring? Or just living the wrong life? I don't think EVERYONE is MEANT to get married....
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 04:32 pm
Re: Some theories on marriage - all feedback welcome
indiana_jones wrote:
How about marriage from a legal standpoint? Again, religious or political beliefs aside (i know they are important - not trying to ignore these, only trying to get to the common denominator) - what does legally binding yourself to someone gain you, that you didn't have already? Some might say that it is your solemn promise to stay together. First, based on what we observe, is this kind of promise even practical? Second, why do we need to legally bind ourselves to make this promise? Shouldn't that level of trust be there already, even if not practical? Does something change the day after you get married? Do you love someone more because you have legally bound yourself to them? And, it seems, it's this legal binding that ultimately creates havoc when a decision to leave the marriage (whether jointly or singly decided..). It's a field day for lawyers in the business, and, in my observation (again, welcoming any other point of view, or cases) magnifies an already tough situation.


Interesting opening post with lots of things to consider. I've only highlighted this one paragraph from your original because here, IMO, you missed the boat.

The legal binding doesn't have much, if anything to do with one's promises or level of commitment - at least not while both people are still alive. What it DOES do is give the spouse the presumption of control over one's estate should they die.

If we, as a society, all agreed that one's estate was simply forefitted to some government entity when we each died it probably wouldn't matter much but there is a time-honored tradition of expecting each of us to make plans for our own loved ones in the event of our demise.

If a couple decides to have a child and one remains home as a primary care-taker both they and the child would be left with little if anything should the person with the income die. The legal commitment resolves that issue. When someone is single and childless and leaves property that isn't covered by a will there is a are clearly defined list as to who inherits the estate. The moment you marry that list changes and the spouse jumps to the very top of that list. (That addresses your "Does something change the day after you get married?" question.).

Some people might consider the fact that by marrying them are demonstrating your level of commitment to them by ensuring they would inherit your estate. i.e. your level of commitment to them is shown by the fact that you would leave them all of your cherished wordly possessions but, to me anyway, that would be a secondary thought process.

And yes, it does (or at least can) cause havoc when people decide to dissolve their marriage. But that havoc isn't any different than a large squabbling family trying to parse up their parents estate when they die.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 04:45 pm
I'm only halfway through, but there was recently an article about actually the much-repeated stats about divorce rates are not true. In fact, it's about 40%. Still not great, but...

What I found more interesting is that for college graduates, the rate was much lower. Something like 10%. Let me go try to find it...

Random comments before I do:

Quote:
Name one roommate you've ever had that you didn't get sick of? I cannot. What makes us think, that our spouse would be immune to that affect?


Sex. The great social lubricant.

Quote:
My question is, can a balance be found?


Of course.

Re: monogamy, do you have any stats on the "staggering occurrence?" It happens, to be sure, but "staggering"?

Quote:
I too see the signs today, in my marriage that might, and likely will, lead to separation being the solution, despite the fact, that many would say I married the greatest, most giving woman on the planet, and our relationship is like a well-tuned machine


Why "likely will"? It is completely understandable that the breakup of your parents' marriage would have such an effect on you. However, I think you might be trying to make larger societal points from a more narrow experience. "Likely will" seems like especially dangerous thinking, prime for self-fulfilling prophecy.

In terms of your numbered thoughts:

1.) Again I think this is a matter of individual preference. For many people, the very everyday, unremarkable details about a shared life are what makes marrage so satisfying. There was some study about the amount of endorphins released when a long-married couple merely held hands. (It was a lot.)

I do definitely think that people need to have their own lives and own identities within the marriage, but that doesn't have to be about physical separation. (This replies to #2 as well.)

3.) Heartily disagree with this one. What does it mean? Divorce laws and social mores are such that you can leave pretty much at any time. There are consequences, yes, but I can't imagine that there wouldn't be consequences otherwise. If one person wants to leave, and the other person doesn't want that person to leave, there will be consequences. Period. If both people are amenable to going their separate ways, then they can get a nice low-key divorce -- a bit of paperwork, nothing too terribly consequential.

I find the caged part especially annoying. If you think marriage is a cage, I can see why you have a problem -- but I think the problem is with viewing it as a cage, not marriage itself.

I'll go find the stats I referred to earlier.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2005 04:51 pm
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/18/science/19divo.chart.jpg

Quote:
Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think

By DAN HURLEY

Published: April 19, 2005

How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and campaign speeches.

The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In 2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that, with rates now declining, it probably never will.

The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced. Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch downward.

-snip-

Researchers say that the small drop in the overall divorce rate is caused by a steep decline in the rate among college graduates. As a result, a "divorce divide" has opened up between those with and without college degrees, said Dr. Steven P. Martin, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Maryland.

"Families with highly educated mothers and families with less educated mothers are clearly moving in opposite directions," Dr. Martin wrote in a paper that has not yet been published but has been presented and widely discussed at scientific meetings.

As the overall divorce rates shot up from the early 1960's through the late 1970's, Dr. Martin found, the divorce rate for women with college degrees and those without moved in lockstep, with graduates consistently having about one-third to one-fourth the divorce rate of nongraduates.

But since 1980, the two groups have taken diverging paths. Women without undergraduate degrees have remained at about the same rate, their risk of divorce or separation within the first 10 years of marriage hovering at around 35 percent. But for college graduates, the divorce rate in the first 10 years of marriage has plummeted to just over 16 percent of those married between 1990 and 1994 from 27 percent of those married between 1975 and 1979.

About 60 percent of all marriages that eventually end in divorce do so within the first 10 years, researchers say. If that continues to hold true, the divorce rate for college graduates who married between 1990 and 1994 would end up at only about 25 percent, compared to well over 50 percent for those without a four-year college degree.


As a college graduate who married a college graduate in 1996 (and we've been together since 1992), I find those numbers heartening.

One last quote from that article, which I think is very pertinent here:

Quote:
Joshua R. Goldstein, associate professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton's Office of Population Research, said the loss of detailed government data, coming at a time when divorce rates were at their highest, might have distorted not only public perception, but people's behavior.

"Expectations of high divorce are in some ways self-fulfilling," he said. "That's a partial explanation for why rates went up in the 1970's."


Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html
0 Replies
 
dupre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 10:24 am
From a cultural anthropological point of view, there are many different types of marraige. Of course there's bigamy, one man who has two or more wives. Usually he has to provide for them equally; they each get their own houses. And there's polyandry, my favorite!, one woman with two or more husbands. I'm trying to remember where this occurs, seems the community was in a constant state of warfare, so the men would share one wife. She would live with her brother; each would visit and leave his sword outside the door as a signal to the other husbands that he was visiting that night. When a child was born, the husbands would take turns picking it as their own. The child was raised by the brother / uncle, and the "fathers" acted more like uncles to the child.

I particularly like the set up where the women each have their own houses and the men live in age-sets communally, only visiting their wives periodically. The younger, unmarried men, live in age-sets and patroll the perimeter of the village for protection, and the children of a certain young age also live in age-sets in two communal, centrally located dwellings.

There's a line of thought that marraige was instituted to provide clear legitimacy of the first-born. With the beginning of the concept of private property, it became necessary to determine the progenitor, the first-born who would inherit the estate. The woman's virginity was most important because the man would want some guarrantee that he was leaving his estate, intact, to his someone with his genes. In some cultures, like in England high society of the past, once the heirs were clearly established, the woman could then take as many lovers as she wished.

It's been said that with the introduction of private property, women's status was lowered to that of private property, as a baby-making machine, or cattle.

Anyway, that would explain why she had to be chaste, and men's fidelity--for a long time anyway--was not required.

In some American Indian tribes, a man who acted and believed himself to be a female, could marry a man and perform the female household duties. That husband was also free to take a second wife.

I see our definition of marraige as changing. The age-old reason for marraige--the economic exchange of goods and services and money--are no longer needed. A man might pay child support and not marry the woman and still have his fatherly rights to be part of the child's life. We don't exchange so many head of cattle for a bride price.

When the Republicans said that marraige was good for our nation's economics, I really wondered. I mean, if nobody was married or lived together, then that would be so much more furniture and other things that each of us would have to buy. I see separate living as extremely good for the economy and probably extremely good for our mental health and physical well-being. Ask any police officer that has gone into a domestic dispute. They'd rather face the gates of hell ... and maybe they are!
0 Replies
 
dupre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 10:42 am
From a biological point of view, animals with a dichotamy between their sizes, like a male lion being so much larger than a female lion, usually have harems.

And male humans are slightly larger than female humans, so some believe that indicates a male's natural bent to having more than one female.

I can easily see why it would take more than one female to care for a man. Not because the male has the larger sexual appetite either. The truth is, in my opinion, that the woman has the larger appetite. But, it does take a lot of effort to care for one man and to run a household. I heartily applaud the families who have two generations of women running the household: gathering, sorting, washing and putting away the laundry; cooking three meals a day; taking out the trash; bringing in the groceries; vacuuming, mopping, sweeping the floors; dusting the furniture, washing the windows and mirrors; scouring the bathtubs and sinks and ovens; getting all the kids bathed, fed, helping with homework--all on a tight budget--and then to find time to make herself pleasantly presentable, have something interesting to say, be a good and sympathetic listener, soothe away her man's worried brow, and to also have the energy to give and receive intimate comforts ...

It takes two ... two women, that is.
0 Replies
 
Aurora Dark
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2005 10:10 pm
dupre wrote:
I heartily applaud the families who have two generations of women running the household: gathering, sorting, washing and putting away the laundry; cooking three meals a day; taking out the trash; bringing in the groceries; vacuuming, mopping, sweeping the floors; dusting the furniture, washing the windows and mirrors; scouring the bathtubs and sinks and ovens; getting all the kids bathed, fed, helping with homework--all on a tight budget--and then to find time to make herself pleasantly presentable, have something interesting to say, be a good and sympathetic listener, soothe away her man's worried brow, and to also have the energy to give and receive intimate comforts ...

That sounds more like slave labour, than a happy home existence... all day, housework, housework, housework, be presentable, be presentable? Shocked I'd expect the man of the house to take up at least -half- of that work...

Or perhaps I misunderstand this?
0 Replies
 
dupre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Apr, 2005 10:41 am
It IS slave labour.

And, it's been my experience with at least two men.

What these men don't know is, that if they want more spice in their love life, they need to pitch in so their mates can have a little energy left over for play.
0 Replies
 
fungi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 05:39 am
My relationship appears to be quite similar to Indiana's so I can relate to a lot of his post. I don't think it's inevitable that he or I will divorce. Having identified the major problem area (overfamiliarity), I think we are smart enough to work out a solution. As someone else mentioned, you can have separate lives, but still live together.

Why do we marry? Some people just want to make a statement to their friends and family that "this is the one for me". Although it's all artificial, it does somehow add another dimension to the relationship. Where we got married, the standard vows say something about "the continuation of society", which was interesting. And you have a nice party (although next time, I'll hire a wedding organizer... [only joking!]).

Thanks for the anthropological perspective, Dupre. IMO it's always valuable to look elsewhere to see how things are done.

Indiana: You have no kids yet, right? Me neither. Sometimes I wish we'd had them before the "signs" of marital problems showed up. Difficult decision to have kids when you know that things will be ten times harder than they are now...
0 Replies
 
escvelocity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 11:19 am
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

Children/Single parents:
(2000 except where noted)
Number of children in new divorces each year as of 1997: 1 million
Percentage of parents who had never married in 1998: Males: 35%
Females: 42%
Percentage of households which are family households: 68.8%
Percentage of households with their own children under 18: 33%
Percentage of married householders with kids: 24%
Percentage of family households with children with only one parent in 1998: 27%
Percentage of all households run by single moms: 9.2%
Percentage of all households run by single dads: 1.9%
Number of adults living in a home maintained by one or both parents in 1998: 22 million
Number of single parents: Males: 2.04 million
Females: 9.68 million
Estimated number of children involved in divorce in 1997: 1,075,000
Rate per 1,000 population children under 18 involved in divorce in 1997: 16.8
Children under 18 years of age living with just one parent in 1998: 20 million (28%)
Percentage of children under 18 years of age living with both parents (2002): 69%
Percentage of children under 18 years of age living with mother only (2002): 23%
Percentage of children under 18 years of age living with father only (2002): 5%
Percentage of children under 18 years of age living with neither parent (2002): 4%
Percentage of children in single-parent homes living with their mother in 1998: 84%
Percentage of children living with single parents for whom no other adults were present in the household in 1998: 56%
Children under 18 living in the household of their grandparents in 1998: 4 million (6%)
Total families in which the child lived with two parents in 1997: 25.6 million
Total single fathers maintaining their own household: 1.786 million
Total single fathers living in the home of a relative: 240,000
Total single fathers who are divorced: 913,000
Total single fathers never married: 693,000
Total single fathers who were separated in 1997: 260,000
Total single fathers raising one child: 1,300,000
Total single fathers raising four or more children: 55,000
Total single mothers maintaining their own household: 7.571 million
Total single mothers living in the home of a relative: 1.633 million
Total single mothers who are divorced: 3.392 million
Total single mothers never married: 4.181 million
Total single mothers raising one child: 5.239 million
Total single mothers raising four or more children: 475,000
Percentage of children (by race) living in two-parent households in 1998: White: 74%
Black: 36%
Hispanic: 64%
Percentage of children living with one parent who lived with a divorced parent in 1997: 38%
Percentage of children living with one parent who lived with a never-married parent in 1997: 35%
Percentage of children living with one parent who lived with a separated parent in 1997: 19%
Percentage of children living with one parent who lived with a widowed parent in 1997: 4%
Percentage of children living with one parent whose spouse lived elsewhere because of business or some other reason in 1997: 4%
Percentage of children in two-parent households whose parents were college graduates in 1998: 29%
Percentage of children in single-parent households whose parents were college graduates in 1998: 9%
Percentage of children with single parents (by gender) earning under $12,500 in 1998: Living with fathers: 17%
Living with mothers: 41%
Single-parent children living in metropolitan areas in 1997: 14.5 million
Single-parent children living in cities with populations of 1 million or more in 1997: 9.2 million
Percentage of births which were to unmarried women in 1997: 32%
Percentage of same-sex female householders with kids in 1998: 17%
Percentage of women with kids before marriage who were divorced within 10 years as of 1995: 50%
For US Census Bureau data on child support for custodial parents, please click here.
In 1996, children of divorce were 50% more likely than their counterparts from intact families to divorce.
In 19 states reporting custody in 1997: 72% of custody were awarded to the wife, 9% were awarded to the husband. In 16% joint custody was awarded. Parents who are awarded and receive child support have higher incomes.
Fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of homeless/runaway children, 85% of children with behavior problems, 71% of high school dropouts, 85% of youths in prison, well over 50% of teen mothers.
0 Replies
 
escvelocity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 12:12 pm
Sorry for all those stats....
What i want to say is that if we lived in a world where couples just had relationships, and had no responsibility towards one anouther what so ever. It would be the women left holding the bag, and then the man would be able to pick and choose when he would be a providor for his family?
I'm sorry but i think men just need to learn to be able to think about ppl other than themselves.
As far as other cultures where the men have more than one wife, harems so to speak. are these the same cultures that have male dominated sociaties. where the women are treated like property,"cattle". Alot of these women have even been forced into marraige at a very young age, and become property of their husbands, and as far as the american indian cultures, of men having second wifes. That occured when the brother of a man had passed away, and no one spoke for her for marraige. the brother would have the responcibility of taking care of his wife and child. Yes it would be considered a second wife if he was already married. And yes she would have been responcible for wifely duties. like meals and such. but not nessasarily in the bedroom. And she still was allowed to seek her own relationship.
I honestly think that if marraige was obsolete, that more men would choose to shun responcibility towards offspring. for the same reasons they wouldn't want to be married. Because taking care of their kids would inhibit them from being able to the things they want to do in their lives. They would have to actually put someone other than themselves first. You know most marraiges end after children are involved. And with out the demand for monogamy, there would be alot more single parent homes out there. also we do have a community net for helping ppl take care of their kids....its called welfare. you pay it, i pay it...anyone who pays taxes pays it.
0 Replies
 
claire 40
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 01:27 am
escvelocity hit the nail on the head. Even when we have monogamous marriages which are supposed to help keep families together, when one spouse decides they can't handle it anymore the family is split into two households. Typically the woman gets left holding the bag and the man gets to go back to being single (for the most part). I still do all the things I did before and now I do all my husband's jobs too. The only time he has to do anything is every other weekend when the homework's already done, the chores are done, the baseball, football, etc. practices are done. He just has to do the fun stuff like go to the movies or take them to dinner. The whole system is a mess as far as I'm concerned. But I have gotten off the original topic.

I think that if there are already signs in a marriage that there may be a problem then by all means fix it. Go to marriage counseling or a workshop. Find out how to be better spouses. Have some independent interests. I wouldn't, however, purposely spend weeks away from home just so you will miss each other again. That doesn't work if you're angry before you leave or if you decide that it's a lot more fun to be irresponsible. It's always more fun to just hang with the guys than it is to worry about house payments, bills, kids, etc.

Young, immature love is very different from the deep, lasting love of a lifetime. Young love is the exciting, lustful kind of love while you're still learning about each other. Eventually it grows into a deeper, almost spiritual, love which also is combined with respect, admiration and cherishing each other and the life you've built. I still believe in this kind of love.
0 Replies
 
duce
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 12:56 pm
Marriage involves committment.
Your theory does not give much to that "lifelong" notion.

Unfortunately, the family unit in mass #'s has demised. Society has suffered greatly for it's loss.

and then as you mentioned, there is that child rearing thing again...

I think your definition of LOVE must be looked at. IF one really loves and is committed--Marriage is a GOOD deal -- alll way round.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Some theories on marriage - all feedback welcome
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 03:21:31