|
Post by starlight07 on Dec 23, 2011 13:12:10 GMT -5
It can become a necessity in society. Marriage in itself can provide security on few levels.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 23, 2011 13:19:11 GMT -5
By all means give some examples, Star.
|
|
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Dec 23, 2011 13:34:21 GMT -5
My kids were to my first marriage...and that has created problems in subsequent relationships. There seems to be wounded ex partners and extra kids everywhere.... all of whom have their own jealousies to work through...Then are in-laws who may be, as mine were, extremely manipulative. Who do you put first...the new husband or the kids?...What if he puts his kids and ex wife before you? How is it ever going to work Dunno...been there, written the book...but have no answers Im afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Forever Sunshine on Dec 23, 2011 13:43:06 GMT -5
The kids always come first. Men/women come and go but kids are your kids for life.
|
|
|
Post by shirina on Dec 23, 2011 13:46:06 GMT -5
Honestly, ISA, I find romantic love to be the most hateful and destructive of all emotions. It causes rational people to make irrational decisions and almost always causes people you depend on to suddenly drop out of your life.
I find it destructive because the focus is placed on a singular individual, and because of that, friendships that are technically stronger and more meaningful are often tossed away for the sake of focusing on that one person. I have felt its wrath personally, and I've often said, "I'm lonely because no one else is."
I still desire companionship, camaraderie, and company, but it becomes increasingly hard to find as people pair off and fade into the ether. Then your old friends are always to "busy" ... until they start having romance problems. And then who do you think they call? Yep ... now suddenly you're needed again, at least until the problem is solved at which point they trot off and leave you hanging again.
Love is great when you're in it, but it sucks just a little bit when you're like me and enjoy the company of friends far more than the ridiculous complexities and rules of romance.
I have no end of "suitors," but it usually becomes apparent early on that I cannot give them what they want, which is exclusivity. I don't mean that I can't be faithful - believe me, I'm the last person who anyone has to worry about being unfaithful - but my friends are equally as important. I don't believe any one person can satisfy all of my social needs, but wounded pride and bruised egos get in the way of being able to say, "Hey, John, I enjoy doing X and you don't, so I'm going to hang out with my friend Jill who DOES enjoy X."
On top of that, I'm as asexual as a person can get without being clinically asexual. I just don't care about it, and that is a living hell for most men. As I said, good sex is the number one thing for a happy marriage, and here I am, damn near asexual. What do you think my odds are, now?
;D
|
|
|
Post by starlight07 on Dec 23, 2011 14:12:32 GMT -5
Marriage is a 'contract' Astro of many things between man and wife. It gives a sense of security that some may even call it false but I am not only speaking on behalf of one culture but in general. And if that contract is nullified then it comes with some form of consequence. lol, divorce isn't easy in most cases and why not...you can lose some share of property, business, shares, etc etc but this wouldn't happen exactly if it was cohabitation. That being one main example - that it is a contract. Many female authors have written work on women, marriages and society and how necessary marriage was at that time. Why should marriage be necessary then and not now? Albeit times have changed but securing that bond of man and wife and giving it a name hasn't. Marriage is still preferred than cohabitation and why? Does it provide stability of some degree? Here is some form of research - you can dismiss it but it's still something. www.jubilee-centre.org/uploaded/files/resource_344.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Dec 23, 2011 14:21:34 GMT -5
Sure...but....there are just so many who want in on the act.
Its important, even in a relationship to still have friends that share your interests...no man can meet all your needs. ...and for many couples sex isn't in their relationships....they have a marriage based on togetherness, trust and friendship.
|
|
|
Post by shirina on Dec 23, 2011 14:26:18 GMT -5
Like most other animals, humans are territorial; marriage is the human equivalent to a tomcat spraying a bush with urine or a baboon wiping its feces on a tree. It is our way of telling society, "This person is MINE, so hands off!"
I've found the amount of jealousy and the sense of ownership within relationships to be intolerable. The moment we mark our territory, we think we are entitled to demands and expectations from that person that we would never push on anyone else. I've had boyfriends get angry with me for not getting jealous, interpreting it as not caring. Wha? Seriously? I've screamed back at them, "I don't get jealous because I trust you, for God's sake. Is there some reason why I shouldn't?"
Words cannot even begin to describe the loathing I feel for the cheeky game-playing and emotional wrangling so many people seem to enjoy.
At any rate, marriage I'm sure works for those with the proper temperament for it, but it's not for everyone. The trouble is that society essentially forces it on everyone; the world is designed for couples, not singles. I have no doubt in my mind that many people get married just to avoid being alone ... and it IS a lonely world if you abstain from marriage.
|
|
|
Post by shirina on Dec 23, 2011 14:27:06 GMT -5
Hehe, not at my age, Spellbound. ;D
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 23, 2011 14:50:28 GMT -5
Well, Shirina, surely hate is more hateful than romantic love?... but anyway I agree with the above. It is sad when friends disappear from the social radar, however I think people gravitate in ways that are favourable to themselves so, in time, new friends are able to take the places of old ones. I sense that your objection is tainted somewhat with a bitterness brought about by those who have seemingly found their 'happy ever after'. This being the case I hope your objection will turn out to be a temporary one.
I refuse to believe it. You have not yet met the right gentleman is all!
Yes, and this is the correct target of your gripe methinks. This egotism causes insecurity, jealousy, possessiveness, and various other forms of craziness. Marriage, as it stands currently, is the institutionalisation of this craziness.
|
|
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Dec 23, 2011 14:56:25 GMT -5
Then go for an older guy.....they tend to calm down a bit.
|
|
|
Post by shirina on Dec 23, 2011 15:07:09 GMT -5
It used to be that way during my teens and early 20's, but it seemed once I hit 25, old friends drifted away and no one new entered my life. I still have friends, of course, but the intimacy in those friendships simply isn't there anymore. Distance, distractions, the "significant other," and kids eat so many slices of the pie that there's not much left for me.
I've been lucky in a sense that I have managed to find couples in somewhat non-traditional relationships that still allow socialization outside of the marriage, but once the kids arrived, that came to a screeching halt. I know they WANT to socialize with me - I just got a call yesterday from a high school friend who wanted me to come hang out with him for a week because the wife and kids were out of town - but that is SO rare these days.
Adults just don't socialize in the same way the youth do, and adults are far less trusting. As teens or young adults, we used to exchange numbers left and right. Adults always think you're a serial killer or child molester and guard everything overmuch. When you're young, a new person is a potential friend, but to an adult, you're a dangerous stranger until proven otherwise.
Not really, ISA, because I don't want what they have. The bitterness comes from not being able to have what I want. There doesn't seem to be much social freedom, but it's difficult to see that when you're playing by the rules.
I had the right one once.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 23, 2011 15:08:01 GMT -5
This is true, Star, but it is not clear whether and how this contract is conducive to social security.
Indeed the times they are a-changing, Star. I wouldn't place too much value on what many female authors have written about marriage - many authors have written about many things; it is possible to find support for practically any view one could possibly wish to entertain. In this case you will find that many female authors have also written against marriage.
Well, the second question is what I thought you were going to answer with your post there. To the first I suggest that abiding by convention is more important to many people than whether or not the convention is of any necessity or use. We see this time and time again with old religious conventions that are still practiced today - long after any practical value they might have once had has faded.
Thank you. The research was interesting but if it's alright I think I will dismiss the interpretation. The Jubilee Centre is a Christian think-tank devoted to "Encouraging Christians to shape society according to biblical principles" - hardly an independent source of opinion on marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Dec 23, 2011 15:23:18 GMT -5
I think we should tighten our morals somewhat. What I object to, is going out and about and getting hit on every 5 minutes by someone who wants to sleep with you for the price of a coke. ...and even the inference that because you are there.. they have the right to make that assumption. ....and if women weren't so easy we wouldn't have this problem......Bit more respect all round wouldn't go amiss I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by shirina on Dec 23, 2011 15:30:37 GMT -5
Yeah, Spellbound, I agree.
I have found that, by and large, in order to socialize as a single, the only two choices are going to bars/pubs or going to church. LOL!
You have to indulge in two opposite extremes, and neither one suits me. Bars, pubs, and clubs are filled with singles actively looking for a date or an easy lay. I've never had a relationship worth a damn that came from looking for one. The GOOD relationships just seem to "happen" through chance, serendipity, and synchronicity impossible to plan or create artificially. It either happens or it doesn't. People who try to "force" it at bars and clubs just aren't my cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by Forever Sunshine on Dec 23, 2011 15:56:16 GMT -5
It's up to the couple to set the boundaries clearly up front.
|
|
|
Post by Forever Sunshine on Dec 23, 2011 15:58:07 GMT -5
Yeah, Spellbound, I agree. I have found that, by and large, in order to socialize as a single, the only two choices are going to bars/pubs or going to church. LOL! You have to indulge in two opposite extremes, and neither one suits me. Bars, pubs, and clubs are filled with singles actively looking for a date or an easy lay. I've never had a relationship worth a damn that came from looking for one. The GOOD relationships just seem to "happen" through chance, serendipity, and synchronicity impossible to plan or create artificially. It either happens or it doesn't. People who try to "force" it at bars and clubs just aren't my cup of tea.
You sound like me! I hate sitting in bars and sitting in church is worse. LOL
I've always said if I meant to find someone, he'll take a wrong turn and end up at my front door asking for directions. It hasn't happened yet.
;D
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 23, 2011 16:08:57 GMT -5
Yes, this is sort of what I meant, Shirina. People can lose friends in a variety of ways - careers are another source of discontent here - but I think dealing with these kind of changes is part of being alive. I.e. I don’t think the personal ramifications of others’ righteous endeavours make for a strong rational argument against such endeavours, unfortunate though the rammifications may be.
Ok. The plot thickens.
|
|
|
Post by starlight07 on Dec 23, 2011 16:12:34 GMT -5
It's a contract to commitment generally speaking, Astro. A commitment/agreement that can include social security too. I cannot describe one specific one because it can be varied to individual's choices.
True say but I was specifically thinking about Jane Austen's time and what society was for women back then and how marriages were infact important and a necessity - 19th century I'm speaking - no way near the 1st or 7th century. Though times are changing they haven't changed much. Austen though she did include personal views on love but what she describes in her novels about marriage and society then that is true.
I don't think the convention of marriage has faded away or should do so. Like I've said it's a contract of many things. Marriage isn't useless as you've made it out. It gives the position one may wish to have in society. If it's a label one wishes to have then what is wrong being someone's wife rather than girlfriend?
I have more research that supports marriage between partners is a lot better than cohabitation but you'll find those agencies such as the National Marriage Project (NMP) having an agenda and to be honest I may agree with you when it comes to agenda/interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by shirina on Dec 23, 2011 16:33:08 GMT -5
What gets to me, I think, is that a lot of the friends I've lost over the years were more like me, but they caved into societal demands. I can tell they're not all that happy with their marital situations; it's not that they don't love their spouses, but the constraints to their freedom is making them miserable. Because I have rather masculine interests, many of my friends were guys because I found more commonality there than I did with other women. Most of my male friends, without exaggeration, got themselves involved with some major taskmasters and dragonladies. I have no idea why they would gravitate to these types when I know that isn't what they want. But far too many do what is expected of them, or they do it to avoid a fight, or because they are afraid of losing the relationship. But they do not put their hands in the shackles because they want to.
Yes, indeed.
|
|