Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,563 Posts
Marriage is not synonymous with love, or family....you can have those without it.

Marriage is basically a means to lock yourself with someone so you're forced to exhaust every means to make a relationship work. Back when contraceptives did not exist it was useful as the couple essentially was tied to the children they fucked into existence.
It's falling out of favour is because

1) It ultimately is a control tool born from cultures where women are essentially little more than glorified appliances, and only serves to perpetuate that mentality.
2) It is antithetical to humanity's promiscuous and fickle nature.
3) Such an arrangement lends itself to complacency and abuse.
4) The current political and economical state of the world makes it unconscionable to have children anyway.
5) We've had time to observe the detrimental effects marriage has on the participants and children, and deemed them not worth whatever benefit marriage could offer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jansen

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Marriage is not synonymous with love, or family....you can have those without it.

Marriage is basically a means to lock yourself with someone so you're forced to exhaust every means to make a relationship work. Back when contraceptives did not exist it was useful as the couple essentially was tied to the children they fucked into existence.
It's falling out of favour is because

1) It ultimately is a control tool born from cultures where women are essentially little more than glorified appliances, and only serves to perpetuate that mentality.
2) It is antithetical to humanity's promiscuous and fickle nature.
3) Such an arrangement lends itself to complacency and abuse.
4) The current political and economical state of the world makes it unconscionable to have children anyway.
5) We've had time to observe the detrimental effects marriage has on the participants and children, and deemed them not worth whatever benefit marriage could offer.


I agree that you can have love without marriage and yes, without marriage we all have our own families that we ourselves did not make. I agree that marriage adds some barriers to breaking a relationship thus pushing couples to exhaust other options before separating. Yes, marriage did serve a convenient purpose in ensuring parents were tied to their children.

1. I think it's a bit extreme to call marriage a "control tool". It certainly served those kinds of political and financial uses throughout history (At least in high-class society), but the perception and attitude behind marriage has changed to where that is no longer the case. I also think you're making the assumption that people experienced marriage in a negative way in the past and I don't think we have the knowledge to make that judgement accurately. I don't believe that a woman who takes care of domestic tasks is a "glorified appliance" anymore than I believe that a man who works to feed his family is a "work horse". I think they were respectable sacrifices and specializations that our families made to ensure our happiness for the future.

2. Humans have an ability to be both loyal and disloyal. I think if any cheating is done, it's probably more likely outside of a marriage than inside one, but I haven't researched this. However, if human nature is promiscuous and fickle, and you think that's a bad thing, then having people learn to be more loyal and non-fickle in order to have a loving marriage is actually a good thing rather than just throwing the concept of marriage away (I'm making the assumption that you don't particularly like marriage based on your reasons for its decline).

3. I can understand how it might lend to complacency. After you're together with one person for so long I imagine it takes away the incentive to strive for attractiveness in order to attract a mate. However, I think that people have an ability to motivate one another and sometimes someone else's presence is all you need to feel inspired to be a better person and grow together. As for abuse, I'm not sure what you mean.

4. If you're referring to the virus, then agreed. These are uncertain times, but in the grand scheme of history, it has never been a better time to have children. We are living in the most peaceful, technologically advanced, and stable time period of all human history. Yes, things are not perfect and I do believe we are at somewhat of an important time in history, but I don't think it's as bad as your statement might imply.

5. I'm not sure what you mean here. I haven't looked into this in a while so you'll have to forgive my making an unsubstantiated assertion here, but I believe that there are studies that have shown children who grow up with married parents fair much better than children from unmarried couples. I also think it's worth pointing out the implied presumption that people ultimately make their decisions on a rational basis. I think there's evidence to suggest the opposite.

This is all of course making the assumption that marriage is on the decline which at least according to this link appears to be correct [https://www.statista.com/statistics/195951/marriage-rate-in-the-united-states-since-1990/], but if I could propose other reasons for this decline, I would tie it to a decline in religiosity amongst the populace and changing attitudes towards marriage not being a negative thing, but being something that is not as important or something that can be pushed till later in life.

Lastly, I think we're speaking of marriage in very logical terms, but it's more than that. It's the ultimate commitment and bond that ushers forth life and family. It's to say that regardless of the challenges that you want to stick with that one person and tie yourselves to them in so many different ways. I am not married, but I would be severely flattered if someone would want to do that with me considering how imperfect we all are.




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,563 Posts
I agree that you can have love without marriage and yes, without marriage we all have our own families that we ourselves did not make. I agree that marriage adds some barriers to breaking a relationship thus pushing couples to exhaust other options before separating. Yes, marriage did serve a convenient purpose in ensuring parents were tied to their children.

1. I think it's a bit extreme to call marriage a "control tool". It certainly served those kinds of political and financial uses throughout history (At least in high-class society), but the perception and attitude behind marriage has changed to where that is no longer the case. I also think you're making the assumption that people experienced marriage in a negative way in the past and I don't think we have the knowledge to make that judgement accurately. I don't believe that a woman who takes care of domestic tasks is a "glorified appliance" anymore than I believe that a man who works to feed his family is a "work horse". I think they were respectable sacrifices and specializations that our families made to ensure our happiness for the future.
It started as a means to lock in a woman as humans switched to sedentary living . The ring basically was a deterrent , and women were shamed to hell and back if they strayed, but mistresses were always a foregone conclusion for men, especially the more powerful ones. It also was a way to use women as bargaining tools and create political leverage, and this was literally the only purpose women had in politics.

If you don't see that as a control tool, I have a bridge to sell you.

2. Humans have an ability to be both loyal and disloyal. I think if any cheating is done, it's probably more likely outside of a marriage than inside one, but I haven't researched this. However, if human nature is promiscuous and fickle, and you think that's a bad thing, then having people learn to be more loyal and non-fickle in order to have a loving marriage is actually a good thing rather than just throwing the concept of marriage away (I'm making the assumption that you don't particularly like marriage based on your reasons for its decline).
Like I said, I have a bridge to sell you.

Promiscuity ensures genetic diversity. Fickleness ensures a person is constantly exploring new options and stimuli and upgrading. They're neither good nor bad, they just are. Seeing them as undesirable is just romanticism when you really think about it.


3. I can understand how it might lend to complacency. After you're together with one person for so long I imagine it takes away the incentive to strive for attractiveness in order to attract a mate. However, I think that people have an ability to motivate one another and sometimes someone else's presence is all you need to feel inspired to be a better person and grow together. As for abuse, I'm not sure what you mean.
Have you ever even spoken to a divorcee?

It's not uncommon to lock yourself into a relationship with someone that basically does a 180 after the vows are exchanged and becomes abusive/violent. My mother had to deal with that shit, her parents didn't allow her back home because she was now her husband's responsibility so she was stuck being a servant to a massive, bigoted asshole that knocked her up twice and wouldn't contribute a dime to the rearing of the kids afterwards.

4. If you're referring to the virus, then agreed. These are uncertain times, but in the grand scheme of history, it has never been a better time to have children. We are living in the most peaceful, technologically advanced, and stable time period of all human history. Yes, things are not perfect and I do believe we are at somewhat of an important time in history, but I don't think it's as bad as your statement might imply.
What's the weather like in La La Land?

Environment, economics and politics are on the decline and we can already find traces of plastic in a variety of wildlife these days. We're in a man made extinction event. The US has gone to pot and the aftermath of Corona is not going to be pretty. Depression and mental illness are on the rise and widespread globally. If we unpack this, the thread is effectively derailed.

5. I'm not sure what you mean here. I haven't looked into this in a while so you'll have to forgive my making an unsubstantiated assertion here, but I believe that there are studies that have shown children who grow up with married parents fair much better than children from unmarried couples. I also think it's worth pointing out the implied presumption that people ultimately make their decisions on a rational basis. I think there's evidence to suggest the opposite.
Kids from families where parents opt to "stay together for the kids" tend to have more psychological issues than those from divorced parents.

This is all of course making the assumption that marriage is on the decline which at least according to this link appears to be correct [https://www.statista.com/statistics/195951/marriage-rate-in-the-united-states-since-1990/], but if I could propose other reasons for this decline, I would tie it to a decline in religiosity amongst the populace and changing attitudes towards marriage not being a negative thing, but being something that is not as important or something that can be pushed till later in life.

Lastly, I think we're speaking of marriage in very logical terms, but it's more than that. It's the ultimate commitment and bond that ushers forth life and family. It's to say that regardless of the challenges that you want to stick with that one person and tie yourselves to them in so many different ways. I am not married, but I would be severely flattered if someone would want to do that with me considering how imperfect we all are.


The magical thinking is really strong here.
If you need a ring and a ceremony to make you stick with someone through thick and thin, maybe you're polishing a turd as far as bonds are concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jansen

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
It started as a means to lock in a woman as humans switched to sedentary living . The ring basically was a deterrent , and women were shamed to hell and back if they strayed, but mistresses were always a foregone conclusion for men, especially the more powerful ones. It also was a way to use women as bargaining tools and create political leverage, and this was literally the only purpose women had in politics.

If you don't see that as a control tool, I have a bridge to sell you.



Like I said, I have a bridge to sell you.

Promiscuity ensures genetic diversity. Fickleness ensures a person is constantly exploring new options and stimuli and upgrading. They're neither good nor bad, they just are. Seeing them as undesirable is just romanticism when you really think about it.




Have you ever even spoken to a divorcee?

It's not uncommon to lock yourself into a relationship with someone that basically does a 180 after the vows are exchanged and becomes abusive/violent. My mother had to deal with that shit, her parents didn't allow her back home because she was now her husband's responsibility so she was stuck being a servant to a massive, bigoted asshole that knocked her up twice and wouldn't contribute a dime to the rearing of the kids afterwards.



What's the weather like in La La Land?

Environment, economics and politics are on the decline and we can already find traces of plastic in a variety of wildlife these days. We're in a man made extinction event. The US has gone to pot and the aftermath of Corona is not going to be pretty. Depression and mental illness are on the rise and widespread globally. If we unpack this, the thread is effectively derailed.


Kids from families where parents opt to "stay together for the kids" tend to have more psychological issues than those from divorced parents.



The magical thinking is really strong here.
If you need a ring and a ceremony to make you stick with someone through thick and thin, maybe you're polishing a turd as far as bonds are concerned.
I find it awkward how it's believed that every woman experienced marriage like this. There's not really anything I can do to show otherwise because we are not basing our perception on anything tangible here. Yes, using marriage as a political tool is quite controlling but that's besides the point considering even if it was like that in the past (which again, we're assuming everyone experienced it this way), it is no longer that way. So to use this point as an explanation for why marriage is declining in an age where marriage is not used a political tool, misses the mark in my opinion.

Also, I don't understand this bridge thing.

Monogamy ensures that the offspring is well cared for and ensures that those children can then grow up and have children of their own rather than struggling through life. If you think about this, there's nothing romantic about that either. We are flexible beings, thus using innate promiscuity as a reason for the decline in marriage doesn't really hold up because we also have an innate monogamous nature. Unless, you would like to make the argument that we are more promiscuous than monogamous in which case I'm skeptical because there are plenty of people who stay together and remain faithful.

I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I didn't realize this was a personal topic.

Yes, environmentally we need to do a better job. Economics is really a tale of ups and downs, I'm not too concerned there. Politics is politics, so I'm not sure what you mean by "decline". It's not really the first time in history that the world has experienced a political climate like ours. But yes, we should leave it there.

I'm not claiming marriage is magic and will solve all issues and I'd imagine kids from happily married couples are better off than kids from divorced parents.

I don't think people who are truly in love need marriage, I agree with the sentiment, but I still think marriage can have value and its bond is only as strong as the people forge it to be.

I apologize if I have given you the impression that my thinking is magical. I don't wish to waste your time. Thank you for your consideration of my points.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
Despite rising numbers not all marriage end up in divorce and broken children.

With the advance of sciences, psychology, personality theories, society dynamics between genders, the logic shall be that both genders understand and respect each other better now, giving improved chance for marriage to survive the test of time.

That should be the aim because in every research in this planet, in general married people are happier than those who are single. Giving the notion that unless drastic genetical and physical modification toward homo sapiens has been done, one of the their purpose in life is still to mate and produce offsprings. And contractual bonding in the form marriage is the only, so far, better way to improve the chance of success for highly complex and competitive species called human.

There will always be failures, outliers. But those are not and shall never be the norm.

Sent sans PC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,486 Posts
OP, also consider looking outside your own culture for a partner. I know a lot of traditional-minded people who have happy relationships with those who come from more traditionalist cultures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,940 Posts
It's a financial contract, which is supposed to ensure children for the man, and resources for the woman. In the end it provides resources for the woman, not always the children for the man. By "children for the man", I mean : the knowledge for the man that the children are his and not some other man's. The only way for a long time, for this to be ensured, was sadly to shame women so they don't stray. Now there are paternity tests, but that's not everywhere ; where I am it is illegal unless the mother is okay with it, which is insanely stupid, and the reason why the shaming is still around.

That's a couple of people now who are mentioning that women have been objects, but they're not the only ones being used as objects in that contract. Men get used as wallets for the mother's lifestyle and kids. It's still the case, it's still expected, it's still enforced in courts nowadays. So let's be honest and let's stop complaining about it happening mainly to women. Women have always been fine with it because they got what they wanted out of it, AND in most societies they had the decisive power in the household, whereas men had the decisive power outside of the household. It wasn't just chores and nothing to compensate for it. And women getting what they want out of it is still the case, that's why generally people who actively want to marry are women more than men.

And then there are lies, fairy tales. Like marriage being about love like OP believes. It's not about love, never was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
In the end it provides resources for the woman, not always the children for the man.

I don't believe this is necessarily a rule. As culture changes, women have begun taking much of the financial burden. Also, women are not guaranteed resources. After a divorce for example, women are much worse off, usually ending up as a working single mother that must raise and provide for children on her own. If she does receive money, it is no replacement for a loving husband.

For men, I'm not sure what the data is, but I'd imagine that men who marry are better off in ensuring their paternity than men who do not.

So the idea that women have a guaranteed net positive and men have a guaranteed net negative I believe misses the mark.


Now there are paternity tests, but that's not everywhere ; where I am it is illegal unless the mother is okay with it, which is insanely stupid, and the reason why the shaming is still around.
I don't want to derail the thread, but why do you believe it's illegal and what effects do you think widespread paternity tests would have?

That's a couple of people now who are mentioning that women have been objects, but they're not the only ones being used as objects in that contract. Men get used as wallets for the mother's lifestyle and kids. It's still the case, it's still expected, it's still enforced in courts nowadays. So let's be honest and let's stop complaining about it happening mainly to women. Women have always been fine with it because they got what they wanted out of it, AND in most societies they had the decisive power in the household, whereas men had the decisive power outside of the household. It wasn't just chores and nothing to compensate for it. And women getting what they want out of it is still the case, that's why generally people who actively want to marry are women more than men.

And then there are lies, fairy tales. Like marriage being about love like OP believes. It's not about love, never was.

I don't believe we have the necessary knowledge to conclude that marriage was experienced in the way you're making it out. I don't believe men got married feeling like work horses or that women got married feeling like house slaves. I think more accurately, people got married and the environment at that time made specialization a realistic method of approach.

I don't recall any laws that ensured a woman had domestic control over her husband and home matters.

I believe women generally think higher of marriage than men not because of some selfish calculation on their part but because growing up women come to believe through media, stories, etc. that marriage is their big day and the most happiest time of their life. Thus, it's only natural that women will be more excited towards it than men.

Attitudes towards love are diverse. I believe the Greeks separated the various kinds of love into different categories. What brings people together is love, even if that kind of love is something we might see as less ideal in our modern world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,563 Posts
I find it awkward how it's believed that every woman experienced marriage like this. There's not really anything I can do to show otherwise because we are not basing our perception on anything tangible here. Yes, using marriage as a political tool is quite controlling but that's besides the point considering even if it was like that in the past (which again, we're assuming everyone experienced it this way), it is no longer that way. So to use this point as an explanation for why marriage is declining in an age where marriage is not used a political tool, misses the mark in my opinion.
If you want to believe exceptions are the norm, knock yourself out.


Also, I don't understand this bridge thing.
I find your outlook disingenuous, out of touch with reality and stinking of normalized misogyny.

Monogamy ensures that the offspring is well cared for and ensures that those children can then grow up and have children of their own rather than struggling through life.
Ideally. In general all it does is trap two people together, and force them to marinate in each other's toxicity until they're numb to it, rationalizing it as love. Exposure to this toxicity affects the offspring accordingly. Men are not culturally encouraged to nurture families, as this is seen as feminine, and they never have been. So to say marriage is the best setup for child rearing rather than a simple control tool is just nonsense. It's social entrapment.

If you think about this, there's nothing romantic about that either. We are flexible beings, thus using innate promiscuity as a reason for the decline in marriage doesn't really hold up because we also have an innate monogamous nature. Unless, you would like to make the argument that we are more promiscuous than monogamous in which case I'm skeptical because there are plenty of people who stay together and remain faithful.
Romance is kind of a pretty recent concept, far from being a natural human tendency.

The size of human genitalia with respect to their body and the short time males need to orgasm in general suggests early human beings relied on sperm competition, so I'm not sure where you get the idea humans are innately monogamous. It's a culturally programmed preference, not a biological one.

And true monogamy is a western trend more than anything else, it's not often heard of in aboriginal cultures.


I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I didn't realize this was a personal topic.
If you want to use that as an excuse to disregard any arguments I might bring up, suit yourself.

Yes, environmentally we need to do a better job. Economics is really a tale of ups and downs, I'm not too concerned there. Politics is politics, so I'm not sure what you mean by "decline". It's not really the first time in history that the world has experienced a political climate like ours. But yes, we should leave it there.
There's a 12 year deadline before climate change becomes irreversible, and if Corona's any indication, measures will only be implemented half-assedly and there's talks of the aftermath of Corona rivaling the Great Depression.

Plus these days both parents need to work in order to make enough to sustain the nuclear family fantasy. It's kinda why nannies are insanely expensive to hire. What is the point of having a child just to delegate their upbringing? A checklist?

I'm not claiming marriage is magic and will solve all issues and I'd imagine kids from happily married couples are better off than kids from divorced parents.
Marriage is absolutely no guarantee the resulting relationship is happy or healthy, and "better off" is pretty subjective. You could be well cared for materially, but psychologically crippled by absent parents.

I don't think people who are truly in love need marriage, I agree with the sentiment, but I still think marriage can have value and its bond is only as strong as the people forge it to be.

I apologize if I have given you the impression that my thinking is magical. I don't wish to waste your time. Thank you for your consideration of my points.
Can have value is not the same as having inherent value. I understand why people do it, I just see it as bringing more harm than good in general .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,397 Posts


I believe women generally think higher of marriage than men not because of some selfish calculation on their part but because growing up women come to believe through media, stories, etc. that marriage is their big day and the most happiest time of their life. Thus, it's only natural that women will be more excited towards it than men.
Wouldn't say that is the reason, or that women are more likely to think higher of it than men. Though, it is curious how the 'marriage industry' operates and how families spend large amounts of money on weddings.

Money has been mostly absent from this discussion - at least, insofar as a lack of money/financial concerns often prevents couples from marrying even when they want to marry. I'd wonder how much of that decline is due to financial considerations (just like how the average age for purchasing a first home is rising, along with higher incidence of never owning one at all).

Related to that... in the 'modern, cosmopolitan world', there are not very widely recognized cultural rites - and the few that exist are morphing or being eliminated (for instance, leaving home at 18 after graduating high school for Americans). Marriage (whether monogamous or polygamous or polyandrous) has, ubiquitously through human history, been a milestone for passage into adulthood and a central part of civic and/or family life (which is one reason marriage equality movements carry so much weight). The sort of breakdown occurring in American/Western culture for these kinds of rites could usher positive changes, but without any suitable replacement, a clear expectation for one's role in a family, society, or some affirmation of a place among one's people, the change appears to have more deleterious effects than liberating ones.

I mean, we made 'adulting' into a verb spoken with trepidation, and the US government keeps raising the age that a parent can legally claim their child as a dependent. That is only two of many of the stark signs for the diminished expectations for maturity in coming-of-age Westerners (and many other societies following suit).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
If you want to believe exceptions are the norm, knock yourself out.



I find your outlook disingenuous, out of touch with reality and stinking of normalized misogyny.


Ideally. In general all it does is trap two people together, and marinate in each other's toxicity until they're numb to it, rationalizing it as love. Exposure to this toxicity affects the offspring accordingly. Men are not culturally encouraged to nurture families, as this is seen as feminine, and they never have been. So to say marriage is the best setup for child rearing rather than a simple control tool is just nonsense. It's social entrapment.



Romance is kind of a pretty recent concept, far from being a natural human tendency.

The size of human genitallia with respect to their body and the short time males need to orgasm in general suggests early human beings relied on sperm competition, so I'm not sure where you get the idea humans are innately monogamous. It's a culturally programmed preference, not a biological one.

And true monogamy is a western trend more than anything else, it's not often heard of in aboriginal cultures.



If you want to use that as an excuse to disregard any arguments I might bring up, suit yourself.


There's a 12 year deadline before climate change becomes irreversible, and if Corona's any indication, measures will only be implemented half-assedly and there's talks of the aftermath rivalling the Great Depression.

Plus these days both parents need to work in order to make enough to sustain the nuclear family fantasy. It's kinda why nannies are insanely expensive to hire. What is the point of having a child just to delegate their upbringing? A checklist?


Marriage is absolutely no guarantee the resulting relationship is happy or healthy, and "better off" is pretty subjective. You could be well cared for materially, but psychologically crippled by absent parents.


Can have value is not the same as having inherent value. I understand why people do it, I just see it as bringing more harm than good in general .
I don't think we have the information to conclude what this "norm" is.

This frankly does not add to the discussion.

It depends on the people involved and your claims of generality are unsubstantiated and needlessly pessimistic. Claims about culture are hard to address and I'm not sure where you're getting this perception that men are not "culturally encouraged to nurture families" from. There is a heavy biological incentive for men to invest in their offspring and doing that is seen as anything but feminine.

I don't know how recent you believe romance is (It's debatable), but I don't think it matters because even recent cultural or biological changes have real effects that can be just as or even more impactful than things from our distant past.

Not all organs of an organism are formed the way they are for competition. Sometimes organs are evolved to serve a specific purpose better than previously. Some organs are the way they are due to some evolutionary link from the past. Explaining a particular physical phenomena based on one explanation fails to consider a lot of variables and considering we do not have a time machine, I think these are questions that will largely be left unanswered. Culture and biology co-evolves and if monogamy is largely a cultural force, then it is no less legitimate than a biological one because culture forms the social environment in which biology evolves. Based on human tendencies to form pair bonds and maintain those bonds is an indicator that we are monogamous as well at least.

I believe there are plenty of non-Western cultures that also had and have monogamous marriages. The Asian world in particular comes to mind but I'm not knowledgeable in that area.

Not at all.

There is always talk.

Well yes, marriage, kids, etc. all require some planning. I still see it better than having kids out of wedlock, being a single parent, being divorced, etc. But as I have already said, it's not guaranteed, but nothing in life is.

You're free to make that value judgement for yourself, but I think your methodology of supporting that perspective is flawed and perhaps that in itself is just my opinion.

Anyways, I can foresee that we will simply go in circles here so perhaps a focus on arguable points would be best as opposed to making general claims that we do not have sufficient information to confirm or deny. If anything we are probably both right in specific situations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Wouldn't say that is the reason, or that women are more likely to think higher of it than men. Though, it is curious how the 'marriage industry' operates and how families spend large amounts of money on weddings.

Money has been mostly absent from this discussion - at least, insofar as a lack of money/financial concerns often prevents couples from marrying even when they want to marry. I'd wonder how much of that decline is due to financial considerations (just like how the average age for purchasing a first home is rising, along with higher incidence of never owning one at all).

Related to that... in the 'modern, cosmopolitan world', there are not very widely recognized cultural rites - and the few that exist are morphing or being eliminated (for instance, leaving home at 18 after graduating high school for Americans). Marriage (whether monogamous or polygamous or polyandrous) has, ubiquitously through human history, been a milestone for passage into adulthood and a central part of civic and/or family life (which is one reason marriage equality movements carry so much weight). The sort of breakdown occurring in American/Western culture for these kinds of rites could usher positive changes, but without any suitable replacement, a clear expectation for one's role in a family, society, or some affirmation of a place among one's people, the change appears to have more deleterious effects than liberating ones.

I mean, we made 'adulting' into a verb spoken with trepidation, and the US government keeps raising the age that a parent can legally claim their child as a dependent. That is only two of many of the stark signs for the diminished expectations for maturity in coming-of-age Westerners (and many other societies following suit).
Yes it certainly is a an unsubstantiated claim that women think higher of marriage than men in general and that on top of that, women have a higher opinion of it due to the various influences I mentioned. However, based on my personal experiences talking with women face to face, they have all explained their opinions of marriage this way (of it being the biggest day of a woman's life, something very amazing and beautiful, etc.). Yes, I recognize that my personal experience is not evidence that all women think this way. I am however curious to hear what you believe on the matter if you disagree with my assessment: Do you think men or women have a higher opinion of marriage and why? As for the marriage industry, that's a factor I'm sure and I agree that it probably plays a part in the amount of money spent on marriages, however even before our more modern conceptions of marriage, there was usually some type of payment to the families involved, so even if the money today is paid for in terms of the ceremony, some money has always been paid for a marriage in some shape or form, although I wouldn't be surprised if we're actually paying more nowadays.

I think that people can get married with very little costs so I don't think that would hold two people back who love one another from getting married, but I think it's a good point especially if the ceremony itself is so important, but I'm not sure.

Yes, I agree, although I'm curious to hear why you think this deterioration is occurring?

Thank you for your perspective and nice to meet you!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
The sort of breakdown occurring in American/Western culture for these kinds of rites could usher positive changes, but without any suitable replacement, a clear expectation for one's role in a family, society, or some affirmation of a place among one's people, the change appears to have more deleterious effects than liberating ones.
I always see that marriage institution as the product of civilization advance throughout thousands of years of mind evolution and wisdom of humanity. It is not like a one sided idea construction which do no consider the interests of both party, men and women. The idea that borne out of necessity. i.e: human baby is born heavily premature, it need more than ten of years of nurturing for the baby into its own independence, ready to compete in the complex society dynamics.

As we modern human know, long term relation do need some kind of contract and covenant, to secure every party involved in their common purpose/interest. Modern human already know that contractual pair bonding in any kind/form are established everywhere in this planet even in the remotest and smallest tribe, in most of duration since we migrated out of Africa. Modern human also know that babies which do not develop in the (balance) existence of both parent tend to grow up problematic.

In short, so far I can say that pair bonding in the form of marriage may not be the perfect way BUT as long as we can not devise the newer and better way then we should be wise in avoiding its demise. We need to utilize our flair as thinking animal to improve things, rather than destroying things.
 

·
Registered
INTP / ILI-Ni
Joined
·
126 Posts
My outlook on this is as follows. I don't believe in God or the afterlife, evolution is a thing and I'm just another species of animal struggling to survive & evolve. For that reason spreading my genes and wining at life is imperative. Failing to do so makes me an evolutionary dead end. Whatever means I have to create progeny and give them a better chance at surviving long enough for them to do the same is good. Love is an evolved instinct geared towards this. Monogamy is a requirement in species where the parents have to stick together long enough for the offspring to be viable. In humans that is almost 2 decades. Parents who cant manage this leave their offspring with disadvantages. In the end its always survival of the fittest, just have to make sure thats my genes. As long as marriage serves this purpose its what I'll do.

I have good examples in my life, my parents have been happily married for 35 years. They are like best friends. My mother did divorce her first husband tho.
 

·
Charge'n Thru The Night
Joined
·
14,213 Posts
I'm only 19, so I can't say that I know much about life; yet something that really bothers me about our time is how much marriage is seen as something you probably shouldn't do. I understand that it can romanticized far too much and that it's far from perfect. However, whenever I see videos about why marriage is a bad idea, they always describe how it ties people down and takes away freedom. Shouldn't this be the opposite of what real love is? Whenever I think of someone ideal to marry, they would be a best friend, someone I trust beyond anything. It makes me depressed when I hear people say that you should never stay with someone forever and that love is just a false concept that isn't worth anything. Is my opinion in the minority? (I should mention that I'm not in a relationship right now, this is just my general opinion).
If you look at most people out there... a huge amount of people will eventually get married... It is taking people more time to get there.
 

·
Beer Guardian
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ
Joined
·
15,369 Posts
@sweetblasphemy

I hadn't noticed. Perhaps because around half of the marriages end in divorce, and a lot of younger generations have experienced their families being split up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
Marriage isn't an inherently bad thing, and most people will end up married at some point. I think more what's happening recently is more people are becoming aware that marriage isn't necessary. It might be right for most people, but it isn't for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,940 Posts
I don't believe this is necessarily a rule.
No it's not a rule.

As culture changes, women have begun taking much of the financial burden.
Some* of the financial burden, let's not get too excited here. The biggest chunk of it is still taken by men. This is why men choose better paying careers, and thus as a demographic are paid better than women as a demographic are (not because of some sexist pay gap). They choose those careers mainly because they need to provide for their family. And men are judged, not just by society, but by their wives, primarily, on how much they can provide. When women talk about liking "ambitious" men, ultimately it comes down to that : "can his career financially support me and my potential children ?" Some are more honest than that about it, and they are few, some other, you only discover what "ambitious" means when they decide to file for divorce when it's one of their main reasons.

Also, women are not guaranteed resources. After a divorce for example, women are much worse off, usually ending up as a working single mother that must raise and provide for children on her own. If she does receive money, it is no replacement for a loving husband.
I disagree here, they pretty much are. 3 out of 4 divorces end up having the man pay alimony/child support to the woman. Money is very much a replacement for a "loving husband", unless said husband's career can allow her her to have the lifestyle she wants ; the reason being Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Financial security comes before intimacy, companionship, family, and after physiological needs (food, water, clothing, shelter).
Let's also remember that around 70% of divorces are initiated by women. If they are much worse off after, maybe those specific ones should have been considering that aspect before leaving. And look, they have their reasons, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but their financial situation should be something to consider before filing for divorce, especially when women also get full custody of the children 80% of the time.

I'll be honest here, of all things about this topic, I really do not want to hear about how hard it is to be a single mother. They generally are the ones filing for divorce, they generally are the ones wanting to have full custody, and ending up getting it, they generally benefit for alimony or child support, and they then complain that it's hard because they're realizing that providing for a child is actually hard, and that now they have to do that alone on top of everything else, and want compassion for it. I'll have compassion for the few exceptions that have lost their husband to illness, accidents… general death of the husband. But those who chose bad, unstable men, or for those who chose to leave perfectly decent men, or those who got left alone or who left because they cheated, I'm going to have to delight myself in their self-inflicted misery and guilt, and reserve both my sympathy and my empathy for people who deserve it.

For men, I'm not sure what the data is, but I'd imagine that men who marry are better off in ensuring their paternity than men who do not.
Possibly, yes. That is the whole point of the contract on the man's side, so I'd hope so. It's still not always the case, just like women are not always guaranteed financial security. It happens.

So the idea that women have a guaranteed net positive and men have a guaranteed net negative I believe misses the mark.
The net positive for women is pretty much guaranteed, there are exceptions, but let's not kid ourselves here ; the net negative for men is not guaranteed, however it remains much more of a coin flip than for women.


I don't want to derail the thread, but why do you believe it's illegal and what effects do you think widespread paternity tests would have?
Why it's illegal, I have no idea. Wanting a paternity test currently is equivalent to the man asking his wife : "I trust you, but can I please verify that you haven't cheated on me, and that I'm not raising another man's child ?". Some women will get offended regardless of if they have another man's child or not, some will not care, and the definite cheaters, will say no and pretend to be part of the first category, "didn't do it but offended regardless so no you can't test for paternity". So the why, I don't know. Honestly it could be argued that if, following a certain narrative, men have been monopolizing power away from women since forever, you'd think they'd have legalized things in their favor in that regard by now. But this isn't the case, and I genuinely wonder why it's still like that, am starting to think it might be because it benefits women to keep men in the dark.

As for the effect widespread tests would have… Right know, there is no incentive to stay faithful other than personal values and judgment, and we all know what the result can be when we trust that. Tests being illegal promotes promiscuity. Women can cheat, and then refuse any paternity test being suggested/demanded. Making tests not only legal, but also mandatory at the baby's birth, and DEFINITELY NOT up to the woman will, would stop that. The baby is given birth, a day to recover, and then the test occurs before anyone comes out of the hospital, and there's no issue… unless. Unless the woman has something to hide, in which case, she will personally have a problem, and will deserves anything coming her way other than financial support.


I don't believe we have the necessary knowledge to conclude that marriage was experienced in the way you're making it out. I don't believe men got married feeling like work horses or that women got married feeling like house slaves. I think more accurately, people got married and the environment at that time made specialization a realistic method of approach.
Let me clarify. I don't think it was experienced that way either. I'm saying that if someone wants to argue that women have always been sexual objects, which some people are doing in this thread, then I will argue that men have always been walking wallets, financial objects. And very likely there would be no counter argument to that, because the latter has definitely always been factually true despite people in that situation not feeling that way, while the former would be debatable from case to case. And even if the former was strictly true, then it would make things only equal.

I do agree that the environment, and I will add biology too, made, and still makes marriage a realistic and pragmatic approach to raising children (although if the relationship is solid between the parents marriage's only benefit is financial, but if money is nowhere near to being a problem, not getting married is probably much more reasonable. I think I have mentioned that in another post from maybe a year ago, but here goes. The wife of one of my friend is a feminist who has been advocating quite vocally for everything that feminists fight for, including, for the sake of this discussion, the abolition of gender roles. Then she had her first child, and as soon as the child was born, she put everything on pause. She was writing her PhD in law, which she stopped doing, to recover, and then to raise the child. She had absolutely no issue whatsoever putting her ideology aside for the good of the child. She realized that it would be better to stay at home, while my friend was providing enough resources for 3 mouths (which if things were reversed, she would complain about doing all the work I'd bet money on that). Then she had another child. Still a stay-at-home mom. Two years later, she finished writing her PhD, is now a lawyer. That's a good 4 years pause during which they "went back" to traditional gender roles, despite her being vocal about wanting them to disappear. It was quite something to witness that from an external point of view, the dissonance was incredible. And they could very much have waited for 1-2 years to have kids too, and have him be a stay-at-home dad, and her be the breadwinner, because as a lawyer, I'd bet she makes more than he does. You'd think this would be an attractive alternative for her, but… no. She probably had reasons, which are really that she wants 1) to be the one raising the children, and 2) to stay attracted to him, which she won't be if he's a stay-at-home dad. I don't like to bring up anecdotal experiences, but this one is supposedly a woman of convictions, and she put those aside because she got brought back to reality.

Point is, when environment and biology exert constraints, we all quickly go back to things that are deemed "unhealthy", "bad", "unfair" by ideologues, but that also incidentally have helped us prosper to the point we are now. Because without that we wouldn't have gone much further than caves.

I don't recall any laws that ensured a woman had domestic control over her husband and home matters.
Nor of any laws that made women objects or slaves I'm sure. Laws are not so easy to come by in history and archaeology, I'm pretty sure everyone here is not talking about laws, me included. I'm personally arguing from and with anecdotal memory about less anecdotal things because I'm not a lawyer, and everyone else is doing that, because they're not lawyers either. The one thing I'm certain about is that paternity tests are illegal in my country, I remember it because it's a recent and significant information. Everything else is using one's ability to argue coherent points.


I believe women generally think higher of marriage than men not because of some selfish calculation on their part but because growing up women come to believe through media, stories, etc. that marriage is their big day and the most happiest time of their life. Thus, it's only natural that women will be more excited towards it than men.
Yes, it's mainly fairy tales. For the most part there aren't calculations, I agree, but it's definitely all selfish, on both sides. Women start "counting" when they feel dissatisfied in their personal situation, that helps them choose whether or not they want to stay in the marriage ; men start counting when they start realizing they are getting fucked over at a demographic level, before, during, or after their own personal experience ; we don't count the same things. But the fairy tales are definitely problematic here. For women to be married is a deam, for men, it's work.
 
21 - 40 of 68 Posts
Top