Some theories on marriage - all feedback welcome

Let me not bookmark a third time, that'll be obnoxious even to me.

Anyone heard of attachment?

I'll agree that moving on is sometimes the healthy mode for both, and that unless people grow apace at approximately the same time, within reason, and keep communicating, attachment, or its absence, can be like, oh, slime on your foot. Sometimes staying is part of a long held compact acted out.

Sometimes moving on is adolescent. Sometimes it is a river of pain. Scenarios vary.

With any luck for me I'll flesh some thoughts out this go-round of this thread...

0 Replies

Osso, I look forward to whatever pearls of wisdom you care to share on this subject, at any time you care to share them, regardless of the number of times you bookmark it Laughing

0 Replies

Dunno about wisdom, but I've lots of observations.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

I suspect this won't be a popular position.

By the way, are you married?

Since we agree, we can have some fun countering claims that suggest happiness must come expressly from the "longer the relationship must equal the better the relationship" ideology.

Us Vancouverites need to stick together!

0 Replies

<bookmarking>

I've long wondered about marriage in the current world. I especially wonder about marriage for people who aren't interested in having kids. Seems that marriage is a good safe guard for children's sakes, mostly. I also think that marriage was good when women weren't making living wages.

But, for me, for example, to what end would marriage serve? I don't want kids, I will be making a good salary (when I am done with my master's degree). I have had housemates, but that gets tougher year by year (some people I could live with easily for a long time, but most I couldn't). I will eventually be able to live on my own. And, even further down the road, I could buy a place as well. Why marry?

Well, a I age I also realize that casual encounters are harder for me to accommodate and I have longer and longer stretches as a single woman. Marriage may provide a sense of security. The security provides a basis for emotional growth and intimate commitment. Even my gay brother is getting there before me.

One last thing. Long term commitments, whether they are marriage or other, provide a scaffold upon which people can build a better sense of themselves. Getting to know someone in such depth is something that only comes from marriage and/or raising a child, I think. This intimacy brings a whole host of rewards to the individual.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

<Long term commitments, whether they are marriage or other, provide a scaffold upon which people can build a better sense of themselves. Getting to know someone in such depth is something that only comes from marriage and/or raising a child, I think. This intimacy brings a whole host of rewards to the individual.

Long-term commitments can also provide a scaffold upon which to hang yourself or your partner. And I disagree with your second sentence... getting to know someone in such depths can come from other shared experiences... what about a couple who is living together but not married and has no kids? What about lifelong friends, who are married to others? I know what you're getting at, but it's such a limiting position to start from.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Since we agree, we can have some fun countering claims that suggest happiness must come expressly from the "longer the relationship must equal the better the relationship" ideology.

Us Vancouverites need to stick together![/quote]

I'm in... but we'll have to get back to this tomorrow - I have an early work call.

I forgot you were from Vancouver Smile

We'll have to discuss that. I was born and raised here, so this should be good!

0 Replies

Hi Mame,
I was born in Comox on Vancouver Island, we moved to Vancouver soon thereafter, Dad (now deceased sadly) was in the Canadian Air Force. Sleep well!

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

Well, here's my question: Why SHOULD marriage be for life? Is this religious-based or what?

People grow and sometimes they grow up or grow apart. Divorce isn't necessarily a bad thing; sometimes it's the only answer.

Why should we be expected to choose a career or a spouse and have only the one forever?

If you're no longer enamoured with your partner, there should be no shame in moving on.

The problem with this lies more in human nature than anything else.

What would be the impact on the lives of those involved if they married knowing that they would divorce in 10 or 15 years? It's a scenario that is, IMO doomed to fail. Not only would there be the divorce but I think you'd find that those divorces would be a whole lot uglier.

One of the premises that relationships are built on is mutual trust and sharing. If both people know that the relationship is going to end at some future date and everything they own is going to be divided up what prevents the "mine" and "your's" mindset from setting in? If only one partner decides that the relationship is going to end, what prevents them from "hoarding" and taking advantage of the other? (Not that this doens't happen now...) Do you label every item purchased during the relationship as to who gets it when the relationship disolves? What incentive is there for one person in that sort of a relationship to sacrifice on behalf of the other?

In most marriages today there is a "Your's, mine and our's" mentality where the "our's" is the major player. If the shift is to "Why should I plan on a life long commitment" then I'd expect the "Our's" to drop significantly and most everything becomes "Your's or Mine".

I don't see much shame in moving on when you are no longer enamoured with your partner. I do see a whole lot of shame in one of the partners making that decison on their own and using that to take advantage of the other - and that's the way is usually works.

0 Replies

I agree, fishin.

Personally, I don't differentiate much between "marriage" and "long-term relationship." I do in terms of rights -- I want gay people to have the same right as straight people, for example. And there are a host of things that are useful about being married, so it makes sense to me.

I don't think that means everyone should get married, though.

I also don't think everyone should be in a long-term relationship. Whatever works.

I'm just arguing against the idea that there is something inherently flawed or doomed in the idea of a ltr/ marriage.

0 Replies

Quote:

The most beautiful relationships I have ever had were none at all... free and fun, and this is how I have come to wish they all could be.

Lovers and parents are two different animals.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I'm just arguing against the idea that there is something inherently flawed or doomed in the idea of a ltr/ marriage.

I would go along with that... I didn't get that the first time 'round, sorry.

0 Replies

I re-read the first post to make sure (it's been a while!) and one thing that struck me on re-reading was that he was talking about the beginning of his relationship with his wife. He thought the increased excitement etc. was about the separation, but could have just been about the stage they were in.

Really interesting series of articles in the Science Times (NYT) last Tuesday, under the general heading of "desire." Remembered this one, went back and found it:

Quote:

Sexual behavior includes a lot more than sex. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, argues that three primary brain systems have evolved to direct reproductive behavior. One is the sex drive that motivates people to seek partners. A second is a program for romantic attraction that makes people fixate on specific partners. Third is a mechanism for long-term attachment that induces people to stay together long enough to complete their parental duties.

Romantic love, which in its intense early stage "can last 12-18 months," is a universal human phenomenon, Dr. Fisher wrote last year in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and is likely to be a built-in feature of the brain. Brain imaging studies show that a particular area of the brain, one associated with the reward system, is activated when subjects contemplate a photo of their lover.

The best evidence for a long-term attachment process in mammals comes from studies of voles, a small mouselike rodent. A hormone called vasopressin, which is active in the brain, leads some voles to stay pair-bonded for life. People possess the same hormone, suggesting a similar mechanism could be at work in humans, though this has yet to be proved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html

"Can last 12-18 months..." I think that's so important. How many times have we seen people post here with "I still love my wife/ husband but I'm not IN LOVE the way I used to be..."

0 Replies

Quote:

Romantic love, which in its intense early stage "can last 12-18 months," is a universal human phenomenon, Dr. Fisher wrote last year in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and is likely to be a built-in feature of the brain. Brain imaging studies show that a particular area of the brain, one associated with the reward system, is activated when subjects contemplate a photo of their lover.

Ok, that is a good point [one which I was already aware of, but the link is nice]. However, by inserting periods of separation, I think that this period could probably be reset and restarted...potentially extended it indefinitely.

0 Replies

I've tried that, stuh.
You can make it last three or four years, tops, before it starts to fade.

It's a chemical thing, meant to kick-start a relationship. In many people, the heart rate & blood pressure rise to levels that would be dangerous on a long-term basis. Our bodies couldn't take it if we were in such an excited state indefinitely.

The good news is...it can be replaced with another, longer-lasting type of attachment. One you can depend on.

0 Replies

As a Canadian in Vancouver it's a familiar enough understanding that common-law equates to marriage in the eyes of the law, government, employers and often enough friends and family too (Mame might confirm this).

However, the massive open arms immigration policy of the last 20 years has changed the demographic so radically that relatively few are now born and bred in the Vancouver area. As such, we now have potentially more conservative romantic idealizations from Asians, Eastern Europeans, East Indians, Iranians etc.

However as littlek's earlier post tends to confirm, major increases in autonomy, education, material wealth, lifespan can counteract the "till death do us part" idealization.

0 Replies

There is also a tendency here for partners to work in separate cities or even provinces in order for them both to be employed in their chosen profession.

0 Replies

Right I've forgotten about all that! I had tenants that did pretty much that for some years. The last I heard they bought a house together, had a kid (or two) and hubby found work closer to home.

I got the feeling their separations put different dynamics in place (better worse - who knows). He did not seem to mind as much as she did, but then she "wore the pants in the family".

0 Replies

Some theories on marriage - all feedback welcome

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know