Marriage without love?

Re-read, not much to add.

Jes' point (which I agree with) is not so much that length is a perfect indicator, but what indicator would be better?

(Deciding to stay in a marriage and deciding to change careers are different enough as to render that analogy useless -- which seems to happen with you and analogies fairly often... ;-))

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

The variable there is whether the two people are happy with the frequency of sex, not the frequency of sex, itself.

You miss my point and why I said "(all other things staying the same)".

Chumly wrote:

Firstly given the common-law argument you would be talking about less and less of a sample hence decreasing accuracy.

sozobe wrote:

No, the sample being talked about is *divorces* -- not the existence of marriages in the general population.

You miss my point as the divorces are a function of the existence of marriages, less marriages = less statistical overall sample accuracy.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Jes' point (which I agree with) is not so much that length is a perfect indicator, but what indicator would be better?

To make an argument that something has merit because you see nothing better does not justify the argument.

sozobe wrote:

(Deciding to stay in a marriage and deciding to change careers are different enough as to render that analogy useless -- which seems to happen with you and analogies fairly often... ;-))

If you are going to critique the analogy (which is fine) you would need to explain why and how it fails so that I may counter. Now I really do have to go, it's been very cool chatting!

0 Replies

Hmm. I see what you're saying with that last one (statistical sample), but the number of people who are going to get married (and divorced) is still going to be enormous enough that the veracity of studies won't be particularly impacted.

I already quoted what I disagreed with re: sex, not really any point to miss.

Quote:

As to the amount of sex (for examlpe), if they are "ill, disabled or just not in the mood" the relationship will suffer and hence will be less successful (all other things staying the same).

By using "they" you indicate that both people are experiencing this. That was also how Jes used it when it first came up. Yet you say that the relationship WILL suffer. Why, if it is by mutual preference?

Take four people, A, B, C, and D. A and B prefer to have sex 5 X a day. C and D prefer to have sex once a week.

If A and B get married, they have sex 5 X a day, and they're happy. That's a successful marriage.

If C and D get married, they have sex once a week, and they're happy. That's a successful marriage.

If A and C or B and D get married, they won't have sex as often as A/B wants OR they'll have sex way more than C/D wants. That's an unsuccessful marriage.

The way you phrased it, it sounds like you think C and D have a less successful marriage than A and B. I disagree.

0 Replies

Not just how you phrased what I just quoted, but this, too:

Chumly wrote:

Success:

Amount of sex

0 Replies

I am dubious that most couples either assessed individually or together would intentionally want to be to sick and/or too fat and/or too busy etc. and hence rarely have sex if they could magically change that by pushing a magic button, I would argue that their relationship suffers from this lack and is lessened with the following already ascribed possible caveats:

"(all other things staying the same)" i.e. their love does not increase just because thier sex decreases

"Many people still stay together for convenience, habit, fear, ignorance, finances, because they don't want the hassles, etc. Also many of the impetuses I just mentioned get rationalized and romanticized into belief systems that the relationship is more successful than it really is"

0 Replies

Quote:

I am dubious that most couples either assessed individually or together would intentionally want to be to sick and/or too fat and/or too busy etc. and hence rarely have sex if they could magically change that by pushing a magic button, I would argue that their relationship suffers from this lack and is lessened with the following already ascribed possible caveats:

"(all other things staying the same)" i.e. their love does not increase just because thier sex decreases

Look at all the pretty strawmen!

Nobody said their love increases because their sex decreases. What I am saying is simple -- the amount of sex deemed optimal is DIFFERENT from couple to couple.

Nobody said that people would or wouldn't want to have a higher sex drive -- just that people DO have a variety of sex drives, and finding someone with a compatible sex drive is more important to happiness than having a lot of sex, period.

Therefore the amount of sex, itself, is not a valid indicator of happiness.

C and D can be just as happy as A and B.

0 Replies

Strawmen do not play a part in the common scenario I am espousing. You miss my point.

You appear to arguing a romanticized idealized scenario in which things sexually always stay the same from the time people meet and/or both parties are in perfect agreement sexually if and/or when the sexual dynamics lessen/change for whatever reason.

This is hardly the case in the real world, it's vastly more common that there is firstly disappointment/frustration (and understandably so as there is loss) and then resignation (what else is one to do) and finally rationalization (we make up for it in other ways).

0 Replies

No, I'm arguing something much more simple: whether, as you posited, the AMOUNT of sex is a good measure of a successful marriage.

It isn't.

0 Replies

You cannot take one item out of context to make an argument that that is what I am stipulating. I did not say "the AMOUNT of sex is a good measure of a successful marriage". Also note what I compare the below items to

Chumly wrote:

Success:
Amount of sex
Amount of love
Amount of laughs
Amount of intimacy
Amount of friendship
Amount of attraction
Amount of companionship

I assert that all the above things are indeed very measurable in the relative individual sense as compared to one's idealizations and/or past/past present relationships. If you either have a good memory and/or keep a dairy it would not be hard to do as long as you have a least some semblance of rationality and individual objectivity.

0 Replies

Hi soz,

Very cool and gives me lots to think about, I really must go and I thank you very much indeed! Shoot I forgot to add that I made a typo some time ago:

"I assert that all the above things are indeed very measurable in the relative individual sense as compared to one's idealizations and/or past/past present relationships."

should read

"I assert that all the above things are indeed very measurable in the relative individual sense as compared to one's idealizations and/or past/present relationships."

Sorry about any confusion that may have arisen!

0 Replies

Well, sure they're measurable or at least somewhat measurable, assuming everyone is honest in their diaries. When I was practicing, I used to take depositions of people who were claiming loss of consortium, and I can tell you that most claimants probably exaggerrated the frequency of sex and men nearly always claimed it was more frequent than their wives did. This doesn't necessarily mean a lie -- more likely it's selective truth or forgetting or the like, but the thing of it is, we live in a society where it's still considered best if a man has sex. A lot. And he's somehow seen as less than a man if he doesn't want it. A lot.

And, who's to say that these are good measurements, anyway? You could give me 50 kisses but I'm not going to have the same reaction as if my husband kisses me once. 50 laughs? Well, we all know that there are degrees of same.

The point I'm trying to make is that while there are measurements, they aren't really verifiable, they may not be accurate, they may not weight properly and, bottom line, they may not even matter. Who's to say that your (or mine, or soz's or Queen Elizabeth II's, for that matter) standards are the ones that matter? I hardly think my standards for a good relationship mean anything to you unless you and I are in a relationship together. And we aren't, unless you're not telling me something. Smile

0 Replies

Hi jespah,

That is why I kept on about "the relative individual sense as compared to one's idealizations and/or past/past present relationships." And kept eschewing the absolute & quantifiable/qualifyable from a group sense. But that in no way one means one cannot judge one's own success over time.

That is also why I raised the question as to whether success can be equated with a relationship's longevity given it's subjective nature: "A seven year relationship/marriage can quite easily be more successful than a 10 year relationship/marriage." & I also say "There is in fact a very valid argument that due to our increased life span, birth control, material wealth and (relatively) open-minded society, it is entirely natural that serial monogamy would be one successful result."

Also you are quite right that the male perspective of success will differ from the female and also (as you & I pointed out) honesty plays a big part. My reference to honesty: "Also many of the impetuses I just mentioned get rationalized and romanticized into belief systems that the relationship is more successful than it really is, by the subjective set of criteria as listed prior."

0 Replies

Marriage without love?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know