What do you think is the underlying cause of the high divorce rate? I'm in my 20s and I'm simply afraid of getting married given the current statistics. Specifically, I fear a situation in which I get divorced and my wife gets custody of the children and I'm basically shut out, though I'm still liable to fork over a substantial amount of money to support them. Is marriage simply a dying institution?
Here is Time Magazine's recent article on the state of American marriage:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908243,00.html
Is this about looking for excuses to not propose? ;D tehehe just kidding!
Heh David, no. But I do get a lot of comments from my mother about when I'll get married, or comments along the lines of "I know a nice young lady..."
My parents relationship ended in divorce, and my mother can't stand my father. But I'm so like my father (even having his gestures) that I'm concerned that I'll end up being loathed in a similar fashion. On the other hand, perpetual bachelorhood seems depressing. :(
Quote from: -abe- on October 04, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
What do you think is the underlying cause of the high divorce rate? I'm in my 20s and I'm simply afraid of getting married given the current statistics. Specifically, I fear a situation in which I get divorced and my wife gets custody of the children and I'm basically shut out, though I'm still liable to fork over a substantial amount of money to support them. Is marriage simply a dying institution?
You're sure not an optimistic soul. Have some faith in yourself and your future partner. I've been married 40 years, and each year has been outstanding. All you have to do is make a good choice and not screw it up.
My son Alex is on his second marriage and it's not doing well at all. His problem has been getting married for all the wrong reasons. Funny thing is that it's the only area of his life where he makes stupid decisions.
Women initiate 70% of all divorces. I wonder how many of the men these women were married to were initially optimistic, BD. ;D
Quote from: -abe- on October 04, 2009, 12:31:31 PM
On the other hand, perpetual bachelorhood seems depressing. :(
Only if you make it that way. 8)
Quote from: -abe- on October 04, 2009, 01:01:33 PM
Women initiate 70% of all divorces. I wonder how many of the men these women were married to were initially optimistic, BD. ;D
I imagine many of the women were optimistic as well, but then after the marriage they find out what the miserable S.O.B. is really like. 75% of my father's four wives initiated their divorces. I just can't understand why my mother never made it 100%.
Well, I've never made any sort of study of it, but I've been married twice and a lot of people that I've known intimately have been divorced too. IMO, it's because we are culturally trained to be 'me first', and people these days tend to not be willing to make concessions for someone else's benefit, not even our spouse's. It is so easy to get a divorce that people tend to view it as a first resort instead of a last one. My first marriage lasted 5 years. My second has lasted 25, and I attribute it to a totally different attitude on my part. Not to mention that my wife's attitude is also a lot different from my ex's. :-\
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Musica Antiqua Amsterdam / Koopman - Hob 14 08 Divertimento in C for Keyboard 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato
QuoteWhat do you think is the underlying cause of the high divorce rate?
Remarriage.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 04, 2009, 05:53:37 PM
Well, I've never made any sort of study of it, but I've been married twice and a lot of people that I've known intimately have been divorced too. IMO, it's because we are culturally trained to be 'me first', and people these days tend to not be willing to make concessions for someone else's benefit, not even our spouse's.
Dude, you need to embark on a journey of spiritual discovery!
Need a mood ring?
Quote from: -abe- on October 04, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
What do you think is the underlying cause of the high divorce rate? I'm in my 20s and I'm simply afraid of getting married given the current statistics. Specifically, I fear a situation in which I get divorced and my wife gets custody of the children and I'm basically shut out, though I'm still liable to fork over a substantial amount of money to support them. Is marriage simply a dying institution?
I've never been divorced, so I don't think I can talk about the underlying cause(s) of the divorce rate. I have been married for 22 years, so I think I can say something about what it takes to keep a marriage going.
-First of all, don't be in too great a hurry to get married. Finish growing up. Try to marry a person who has also grown up. Marriage between adults works better than marriage between adolescents.
-Try to marry someone who shares many of your values and your view of what life is about. This means you have to know what those values and views are!
-Have realistic expectations of what marriage will be like. Don't expect that it will always be easy, pleasant, peaceful. Go into a marriage prepared to do a lot of work, talking, negotiating, compromising, changing.
-Get your own financial house in order, and have some serious discussions about finances and financial management with your intended. I think disagreements about money cause a lot of marital friction.
-Decide in advance what "for better or for worse" means to you. Are there situations that would cause you to want a divorce? A lot of people say that infidelity of a spouse would be the breaking point for them. I've told my husband he can't get out of this that easily! Although I hope I never have to, I'm prepared to weather a storm like that without bailing out.
-Be able to be happy alone, to have a meaningful life alone. Don't marry someone with the idea that she will make you happy or make your life meaningful.
-Learn how to discuss "hot topics" before they become arguments or problems. If your family didn't give you good models of how to do this, find somewhere to learn.
If I'm making this sound like a lot of work, well, I guess it can be sometimes. But most things worth doing take a fair amount of work. Part of the trick is to marry someone you're willing to do all this work with! It is true, the statistics are pretty grim, but I think that if a lasting and successful marriage is important to you, and you are willing to work to achieve it, you can be in whatever percentage minority it is that has a successful marriage. I wish you all success and happiness when you are ready.
But it's worth it though, right? :P
My parents were happily married for 43 years and the marriage ended with the death of my father. As the oldest of 5 kids I wondered what magic kept them together and after Dad's death I broached the subject with Mum. After a two year engagement during which they spent a lot of time negotiating how they were going to run a family they finally tied the knot on August 25th 1950. Both of them knew where they stood in the relationship and how they were going to handle the problems that marriage threw at them but they had made a solid commitment that would be very hard to break. Mum told me of some times when there was friction and things got a bit wobbly but their initial pledge was their guiding light and we as kids never saw any conflict.
One thing they decided on was how they were going to bring up children and how they would handle any disagreement regarding this - behind the closed door of their bedroom where we kids would never get a sniff of disharmony.
The other thing I noticed was that their love was never an openly demonstrative thing but the hub of their relationship. They grew with each other and as each change happened learned to accommodate it as part of the relationship.
After Dad died Mum had a number of offers of new relationships but nobody could replace him. Remarkably, Dad was unremarkable and this worthy of note. He was just a kind, caring and compassionate human being who never did anything that the media would consider noteworthy. But in concert with Mum he raised five solid citizens who share and espouse his values.
I suppose that what I'm saying is that today it's a throwaway society - if it doesn't work, get rid of the old model and procure a new one. All I can say to young people who contemplate marriage - make sure you and your partner are in total agreement about your values and have a plan for coping with adversity in your relationship.
There is a great song by Christie Moore that encapsulates all of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_surYSjPZQA
The underlying cause of divorce is marriage. 0:)
Quote from: -abe- on October 04, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
What do you think is the underlying cause of the high divorce rate? I'm in my 20s and I'm simply afraid of getting married given the current statistics. Specifically, I fear a situation in which I get divorced and my wife gets custody of the children and I'm basically shut out, though I'm still liable to fork over a substantial amount of money to support them. Is marriage simply a dying institution?
To be more direct than above:
Gurn Blanston is quite right. You live in a solipsistic era, where almost everyone is a center of the universe, and therefore almost nobody else is as important as you are.
Check freeway driving habits: "
I can break the speed limits and weave in and out of traffic and cut people off because where
I am going is more important than where you are going."
Apply this principle to marriage and you see the problem! Certainly the idea that "my personal happiness" is the basis of my life is another way of analyzing the problem. The religious idea that
self-sacrifice can be a life's purpose, (living for the family and not just for yourself, even when things sour), has faded. My grandfather stayed with my grandmother despite her mental breakdowns, even when in a delusion she beat him with a broom while he lay on the floor during a heart attack.
That was loyalty and self-sacrifice!
People marry each other, but do not know each other. They believe in the image they see, and often that is something else as reality.
Confronted with that, and not being able to handle it, they divorce.
Luckily I am happily married for 27 years now, because we know who we are.
What is the cause of the high divorce rate? -
lack of commitment and advanced immaturity.
dj
Have your 20's be your "ME" years. Don't rush. Wait until you are in your 30's to get married and have children.
Quote from: Wendell_E on October 04, 2009, 05:43:28 PM
I imagine many of the women were optimistic as well, but then after the marriage they find out what the miserable S.O.B. is really like.
Yes, of course it has to be the man's fault. Women cannot possibly be held accountable for anything, like, ever. The real reason women it is women who initiate divorce most of the times is that the laws are skewed entirely on their favor. They get custody of the children almost by default barring extreme situations and with that generally comes alimony as well. Why bother even be married when you can have all the benefits of marriage without any of the responsibilities? Now, the realities of single parent (generally single mother) households are beginning to rear their ugly heads but nobody appears to notice:
http://www.divorcereform.org/crime.html
Society is falling apart because selfish, spoiled women have been made to believe they can have their cake and eat it too. Its a neat deal for the powers to be because not only do the courts get a nice percentage from the proceedings but the family becomes essentially property of the government.
Quote from: Wendell_E on October 04, 2009, 05:43:28 PM
I imagine many of the women were optimistic as well, but then after the marriage they find out what the miserable S.O.B. is really like.
I've never bought the notion that men can hide their true nature until after the wedding. Somtimes people make poor decisions that insightful observation would have negated.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 05, 2009, 05:07:28 AM
Have your 20's be your "ME" years. Don't rush. Wait until you are in your 30's to get married and have children.
0:)
The inability to compromise is the biggest reason for the high divorce rate. Technically, I could be wrong, but I'd bet my house I'm pretty damn close.
:)
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 05, 2009, 05:07:28 AM
Have your 20's be your "ME" years. Don't rush. Wait until you are in your 30's to get married and have children.
I don't subscribe to the chronological age theory. Different persons mature at different rates.
Quote from: Bulldog on October 05, 2009, 09:33:19 AM
I don't subscribe to the chronological age theory. Different persons mature at different rates.
The underlying idea of "get over The Me Period," though . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2009, 09:46:54 AM
The underlying idea of "get over The Me Period," though . . . .
If a woman could get over the "me" period she would no longer be a woman. The me is a feminine state of being, the I being the masculine.
I dunno... I think I'm pretty tough to get over...
Sometimes, a pronoun is just a pronoun.
Speaking as one who has been divorced twice (and has no intention of remarrying), I would say that people get divorced because they can. As a legal matter, divorce is no longer as onerous as it once was, and it no longer carries the social stigma it once did. (It used to be a given, for example, that a divorced man could never become president.) We are an opportunistic species, and if an out presents itself, it makes more sense to take it rather than remain in a position that has become unbearable. It might not be a question of solipsism or the collapse of civilization, as Cato proposes. The durability of unhappy marriages in the past was not necessarily proof of greater commitment. Once you made a mistake, you were stuck with it, and you made the best of it with clandestine affairs, separate rooms and plain old bickering. The history books are full of failed marriages that went on much too long.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2009, 10:17:19 AM
Sometimes, a pronoun is just a pronoun.
And a cigar is just a cigar.
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 05, 2009, 10:30:39 AM
And a cigar is just a cigar.
(http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/28weeks.jpg)(http://open.salon.com/files/monica_lewinsky1251160247.jpg)
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 05, 2009, 10:29:57 AM
Speaking as one who has been divorced twice (and has no intention of remarrying), I would say that people get divorced because they can. As a legal matter, divorce is no longer as onerous as it once was, and it no longer carries the social stigma it once did. (It used to be a given, for example, that a divorced man could never become president.) We are an opportunistic species, and if an out presents itself, it makes more sense to take it rather than remain in a position that has become unbearable. It might not be a question of solipsism or the collapse of civilization, as Cato proposes. The durability of unhappy marriages in the past was not necessarily proof of greater commitment. Once you made a mistake, you were stuck with it, and you made the best of it with clandestine affairs, separate rooms and plain old bickering. The history books are full of failed marriages that went on much too long.
No where in this there is any mention of
family. There in lies the problem me thinks. Somebody riddle me this: why bother get married in the first place?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 05, 2009, 11:03:29 AM
No where in this there is any mention of family. There in lies the problem me thinks. Somebody riddle me this: why bother get married in the first place?
Not every couple produces or can produce children. And the interest of children are not necessarily served by the parents staying together.
Marriage today what is what in the business world would be called a high-risk partnership. The failure rate may be high, but the successes are that much greater. See
Marriage: A History by Stephanie Coontz.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 05, 2009, 11:03:29 AMNo where in this there is any mention of family. There in lies the problem me thinks.
In the Time Magazine article at the beginning of the thread, most of the article concerned changing perception of marriage in America, asking questions like "is marriage actually necessary if the family unit exists," and noting that kids from two-parent households generally out-perform kids from single-parent households. It doesn't really talk about
why the institution of marriage has apparently lost value, beyond answering the question of why infidelity occurs - which has already been answered innumerable times.
Is the concept of marriage separable from the concept of family? While the article doesn't actually provide the follow through, it sure looks like it's saying that that separation is the sources of marital discontent.
Quote from: Dana on October 05, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
In the Time Magazine article at the beginning of the thread, most of the article concerned changing perception of marriage in America, asking questions like "is marriage actually necessary if the family unit exists," and noting that kids from two-parent households generally out-perform kids from single-parent households.
So, a kid that has two parents who absolutely despize each other stay together for the sake of the children, and abuse is going on? I have a hard time believing kids growing up in this environment would perform better than if the parents split up.
Dude, chill out. It's a generalization. Note the use of the word "generally." I don't think your proposed scenario would be considered typical.
Quote from: Dana on October 05, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
Is the concept of marriage separable from the concept of family? While the article doesn't actually provide the follow through, it sure looks like it's saying that that separation is the sources of marital discontent.
No, what they[re saying is that the separation is the a source of
divorce. Discontent is different issue. The point of my first post was that you can be discontented and still stay together. It's a fallacy that marriages lasted in the odl days because they were successfui.
The premise of Coontz's book, mentioned above, is that marriage has become personally more fulfilling (that is, among those who are successful at it) while losing its value as a social institution. It has only been withing the last couple hundred years, she says, that marrying for "love" has become common. So I would guess the answer is yes. Marriage, as a human institution, is adaptable and can be separated from family or just about anything else. I think the surest way to kill it would be to insist that it function as it did a hundred years ago.
I also have trouble with regarding children as little more than academic performance units, but that's a question for an education thread ...
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 05, 2009, 12:25:18 PM
So, a kid that has two parents who absolutely despize each other stay together for the sake of the children, and abuse is going on? I have a hard time believing kids growing up in this environment would perform better than if the parents split up.
You don't seem to understand what statistics are made of. You might want to consult a dictionary.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 05, 2009, 01:24:38 PM
You don't seem to understand what statistics are made of. You might want to consult a dictionary.
I made the comment, specifically to emphasize that regardless of statistics, they do not tell the whole story. You know that as well as anyone else JdP.
Quote from: secondwind on October 04, 2009, 08:37:36 PM
I've never been divorced, so I don't think I can talk about the underlying cause(s) of the divorce rate. I have been married for 22 years, so I think I can say something about what it takes to keep a marriage going.
As usual, your analysis is excellent. I especially agree with shared values, compromise and just stubborn commitment.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 05, 2009, 02:09:41 PM
I made the comment, specifically to emphasize that regardless of statistics, they do not tell the whole story.
No, they do in fact tell the whole story, you are just too stubborn to admit it, like everybody else. It is a fact that the quality of child rearing has been decreasing dramatically ever since single parenthood has become epidemic. It is a fact children received a far better upbringing when marriages didn't brake on a whim. What you said on the other hand is fantasy.
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 05, 2009, 12:35:23 PM
The premise of Coontz's book, mentioned above, is that marriage has become personally more fulfilling (that is, among those who are successful at it) while losing its value as a social institution.
Which is based on the author's own wishful thinking rather reality. And even then, if the price for personal fulfillment is the degradation of society then that price is just too damn high. Leave it to a woman to think in terms of "personal fulfillment" rather then duty.
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 05, 2009, 12:35:23 PM
Marriage, as a human institution, is adaptable and can be separated from family or just about anything else
Nonsense of course. Marriage, as an institution, was created
precisely to regulate family matters. Without the latter the first ceases to have any meaning.
Here's another essay about the decline of marriage, this time from an individual's perspective.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce
Do note that the writer's husband sounds like a nice guy, yet the writer grows to dislike him anyway. It's as if she's rebelling at the fact that he's a "modern" husband who treats her like an equal and does the dishes and everything.
QuoteA lot of people say that infidelity of a spouse would be the breaking point for them.
Because trust, once broken, is extremely hard to restore. It's not so much that the spouse had sex with someone else (though that's generally not a great idea!), but rather, the betrayal that accompanies that act which destroys the marriage. It takes a great deal of work to restore trust, far more work to restore it once it's broken than it takes to establish it initially. It is hard to have a close relationship with someone who is untrustworthy.
QuoteHave your 20's be your "ME" years. Don't rush. Wait until you are in your 30's to get married and have children.
Something to be said for that, but no guarantee. I first married when I was in my mid-30s, and married for the second time when I was 50.
QuoteThe real reason women it is women who initiate divorce most of the times is that the laws are skewed entirely on their favor. They get custody of the children almost by default barring extreme situations and with that generally comes alimony as well.
Alimony?? Where? Alimony may have been ordered at one time, but I have never heard of anyone of my generation getting it, outside of perhaps celebrity divorces.
The reason women initiate divorce is because they now have the economic power to do so; they no longer have to stay in a bad marriage because they can't afford to leave it.
Which states in the US do not favor joint custody over sole custody? I'm in a state which definitely favors joint custody. Perhaps 40, 50 years ago, women were favored in custody issues, but that certainly isn't the case now where I live (and even 50 years ago, one needed to prove unfitness of the other parent to win sole custody in my state).
QuoteThe durability of unhappy marriages in the past was not necessarily proof of greater commitment.
Word.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 05, 2009, 12:25:18 PM
So, a kid that has two parents who absolutely despise each other stay together for the sake of the children, and abuse is going on? I have a hard time believing kids growing up in this environment would perform better than if the parents split up.
This begs the question how two people get together who "despise" one another. Unresolved childhood trauma, the unconscious needs to work them out in the present do not go away with replacement relationships. In fact, the mistakes are compounded and the children suffer much more than if attempts are made to heal.
On the whole, I'm really impressed with the responses to this discussion. It's nice to know that musicians have sensible attitudes about family values.ZB
Quote from: owlice on October 05, 2009, 09:29:10 PM
Alimony?? Where? Alimony may have been ordered at one time, but I have never heard of anyone of my generation getting it, outside of perhaps celebrity divorces.
Many people still do, maybe they just don't talk about it. According to a recent article, "the number of American
men [emphasis mine ;D] receiving alimony has climbed, from 7,000 in 1998 to 13,000 last year, according to U.S. Census Bureau data". No doubt there are many times that many women receiving alimony.
The full article: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/role-reversal-wives-angry-paying-alimony/Story?id=8662940&page=1 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/role-reversal-wives-angry-paying-alimony/Story?id=8662940&page=1)
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 05, 2009, 12:25:18 PM
So, a kid that has two parents who absolutely despize each other stay together for the sake of the children, and abuse is going on? I have a hard time believing kids growing up in this environment would perform better than if the parents split up.
As Frank Burns put it in an episode of
M*A*S*H: "My parents never divorced. I'd have come out better coming from a broken home".
I would say the fact that women stay the same after the age of 16.
QuoteI would say the fact that women stay the same after the age of 16.
Huh? ???
QuoteBecause trust, once broken, is extremely hard to restore. It's not so much that the spouse had sex with someone else (though that's generally not a great idea!), but rather, the betrayal that accompanies that act which destroys the marriage. It takes a great deal of work to restore trust, far more work to restore it once it's broken than it takes to establish it initially. It is hard to have a close relationship with someone who is untrustworthy.
Absolutely true. And that is why I said it is something people should try to come to grips with before marrying--difficult, when one is young and in love (or, let's face it, any age and in love), when in the starry-eyed romantic phase of a relationship such a betrayal seems impossible. I think it could reduce the divorce rate, if only by reducing the marriage rate, if people asked questions like this in advance. Is this someone I am willing to forgive if he betrays me in the worst possible way? Is this someone I am willing to ask to forgive me if I betray him in the worst possible way? (Not sure which role would be more painful, actually.) Is this someone whose diapers/catheter/feeding tube I'm willing to tend when he no longer knows who I am? Is this someone I want to have tending to my diapers/catheter/feeding tube when I no longer know who he is? And so on. Not fun questions, but without considering them seriously, people have no idea what the old words of the vow "for better or worse, in sickness and in health" really mean, and the words "till death do us part" mean little more than "as long as you are still acting like the person I thought I married and I still feel about you the way I did when we first fell in love" or "until one us us screws up really badly or becomes hideously physically unappealing". The "till death do us part" style of marriage may not be for everyone, it may not be a goal everyone even wants to strive for. I'm just saying that if that is the kind of marriage the young man wants, you have to consider the potential costs in advance and be willing to take them on.
Quote from: owlice on October 05, 2009, 09:29:10 PM
Alimony?? Where?
Mental slip. I meant child support.
Quote from: owlice on October 05, 2009, 09:29:10 PM
The reason women initiate divorce is because they now have the economic power to do so; they no longer have to stay in a bad marriage because they can't afford to leave it.
Yes, now they can just get the government to support them (plus whatever they can siphon away from their former husbands), which is what i said. They get to fulfill their desires to have children without having to face any of the obligations of being mothers and wives.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 05, 2009, 06:23:09 PM
Which is based on the author's own wishful thinking rather reality. And even then, if the price for personal fulfillment is the degradation of society then that price is just too damn high. Leave it to a woman to think in terms of "personal fulfillment" rather then duty.
Nonsense of course. Marriage, as an institution, was created precisely to regulate family matters. Without the latter the first ceases to have any meaning.
Excellent analysis, as usual --- leaving aside the anger, the lack of real data, and the misogyny, of course.
It's no surpise my take would be the opposite of yours: If "society" is so fragile that it demands widepread personal misery as the price for its continuaton, then that price is too damned high. And why is it only women who are blamed for putting personal fulfillment over duty? Perhaps because, in our phallocentric world, women's duty is just another tool for men's personal fulfillment.
Some might be interested in this article: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/misreporting-on-divorce/
Wendell, I don't know that the number is "many." With six states NOT reporting data, there were 767,455 divorces in the US in 2008. (Source: http://www.edivorcepapers.com/divorce-statistics/divorce-statistics-2008.html) 13,000 men getting alimony, even assuming all of those were awarded alimony last year (not a safe assumption), is a very very small percentage. I don't know ANY women who receive alimony, although there must be some (or more than some), if men are receving it.
QuoteI meant child support.
...
plus whatever they can siphon away from their former husbands
...
They get to fulfill their desires to have children without having to face any of the obligations of being mothers and wives.
If they are getting child support, it means they are raising children, which is definitely NOT opting out of their obligations as parents.
And I find it interesting -- but not surprising -- that you see child support as something that is siphoned away from former husbands. Fathers shouldn't have to support their children? Is that where you are going with that? Do you know where that leads? To that place you don't like: government having to support the children who are financially abandoned by a parent.
Alimony is, or should be, based on need and equity. In the fifties, when stay-at-home moms were the rule, it was assumed that a woman living alone was not economicaly viable and needed support. In an age when women work, this is no longer the case. My first wife earned more than I did, and as my lawyer told me, alimony was out of the question. Some couples, too, prefer to make a clean break and leave the marriage with no more than what they brought into it. In both my divorces, my wives and I decided just to walk away. Duty never entered into it, since there were no children in either case.
The problems arise over the value of communal property, which is sold so that the proceeds can be split. people lose omes and valued possessions. My Charles Ives autograph came on the market because the previous owner was going through a divorce and he needed to turn it into cash. I probably could have made a stink over my (second) ex's home, which she inherited while we were married and living there, but her parents worked hard for it all their lives, and demanding half the value after just seven years would have been little more than piracy.
Gee, all this talk of failed relationships is making me nostalgic. Ah, for the days of bickering, bitterness and staying out till all hours because I was afraid to go home ...
Quote from: owlice on October 06, 2009, 08:56:30 AM
If they are getting child support, it means they are raising children
No, they are
nurturing children, they are not raising them. Only a father can raise a child.
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 06, 2009, 08:11:35 AM
If "society" is so fragile that it demands widepread personal misery as the price for its continuaton, then that price is too damned high.
Except people are far, far more miserable today then they were then. Once again, your point is built on a false premise. Traditional families brought happiness. Today to find an happy couple is to stumble upon a statistical miracle.
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 06, 2009, 08:11:35 AM
And why is it only women who are blamed for putting personal fulfillment over duty?
Because duty and self-sacrifice are masculine traits, femininity is inherently ego-centric.
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 06, 2009, 08:11:35 AM
And why is it only women who are blamed for putting personal fulfillment over duty?
Because the very idea of "personal fulfillment" is anathema to a masculine conception of reality. Fulfillment is a passive trait. To be "fulfilled" implies lack of motion, which is an unbearable condition for a man. Only women think in terms of personal fulfillment because their destiny in life is to
be. A man's destiny is to create, and he is happiest when engaged in action.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 06, 2009, 10:17:55 AM
Because duty and self-sacrifice are masculine traits, femininity is inherently ego-centric.
Interesting. :D What about hermaphrodites?
QuoteCheck freeway driving habits: "I can break the speed limits and weave in and out of traffic and cut people off because where I am going is more important than where you are going."
Hahahahahaha
drive in a foreign country and you will find Americans to be quite polite and courteous on the roads. In other places being constantly cut off is expected, and traffic laws don't exist as long as there isn't a cop behind you.
QuoteExcept people are far, far more miserable today then they were then.
Data which supports this, please. Thanks.
QuoteBecause duty and self-sacrifice are masculine traits, femininity is inherently ego-centric.
Data which supports this, please. Thanks.
QuoteA man's destiny is to create, and he is happiest when engaged in action.
And yet, La-Z-Boys exist. Hmmmm....
Quote from: -abe- on October 04, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
What do you think is the underlying cause of the high divorce rate?
Stupidity. Are you stupid? I doubt it.
Quote from: MN Dave on October 06, 2009, 12:24:13 PM
Stupidity. Are you stupid? I doubt it.
A little harsh, Dave. :-\ I know lots of folks who've been divorced--none of them stupid. They may have been a bit ignorant of what they were getting into and how to make it work, but certainly not stupid. :(
Quote from: secondwind on October 06, 2009, 12:27:00 PM
A little harsh, Dave. :-\ I know lots of folks who've been divorced--none of them stupid. They may have been a bit ignorant of what they were getting into and how to make it work, but certainly not stupid. :(
Okay. Ignorance! ;D
Quote from: secondwind on October 06, 2009, 12:27:00 PM
A little harsh, Dave. :-\ I know lots of folks who've been divorced--none of them stupid. They may have been a bit ignorant of what they were getting into and how to make it work, but certainly not stupid. :(
Well, thank you, secondwind. I consider my first marriage a tragedy. My second was a disaster. And even as mature as I was when I tok my vows, I couldn't forsee how it would turn out. It's better for everyone that it ended.
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 06, 2009, 12:29:03 PM
Well, thank you, secondwind. I consider my first marriage a tragedy. My second was a disaster. And even as mature as I was when I tok my vows, I couldn't forsee how it would turn out. It's better for everyone that it ended.
Sorry for your losses and your pain. It's got to be awful when something that starts with such high hopes and expectations crashes and burns like that. I married quite late because I didn't have a lot of faith in marriage as an institution or myself as "marriage material", yet I figured a divorce would just about kill me. Fortunately, by the time I did marry I could at least choose pretty well, and I knew myself and my weaknesses well enough to be up-front with my intended. None of that is a guarantee, of course, but it helped. If I had married any younger than I did, I expect I'd be divorced by now just because I wasn't really capable of making that kind of commitment.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 06, 2009, 10:17:55 AM
Except people are far, far more miserable today then they were then. Once again, your point is built on a false premise. Traditional families brought happiness. Today to find an happy couple is to stumble upon a statistical miracle.
Finding you commenting on happiness is a truly bizarre predicament.
Do you yourself have a family? I can't picture how such an extreme narcissist could ever produce or nurture one.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 06, 2009, 10:17:55 AM
Because duty and self-sacrifice are masculine traits, femininity is inherently ego-centric.
I don't know the US case, but the Romanian society before 1950 has produced very fine examples of duty-bound and self-sacrificing women, wives and mothers which were not statistical anomalies but the norm. They got through two world wars and the very harsh times of the Communist takeover with a moral rectitude and a spiritual fortitude which attracted the admiration and appraisal of all men. They raised their children in the utmost respect of the old values. It is only after Communism took a firm grip on power and did everything to obliterate this generation (in the strictly physical sense, filling the gaols and forced-labor camps with its members, men and women alike) that things started to degenerate to the present level.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 06, 2009, 10:04:28 AM
No, they are nurturing children, they are not raising them. Only a father can raise a child.
Obviously this nonsense raises the question, how about you?
Quote from: -abe- on October 05, 2009, 07:16:03 PM
Here's another essay about the decline of marriage, this time from an individual's perspective.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce
Do note that the writer's husband sounds like a nice guy, yet the writer grows to dislike him anyway. It's as if she's rebelling at the fact that he's a "modern" husband who treats her like an equal and does the dishes and everything.
What a solipsistic rant. Narcissists like her should not get married. They are anyway too much in love with themselves.
Quote from: secondwind on October 06, 2009, 12:27:00 PM
A little harsh, Dave. :-\ I know lots of folks who've been divorced--none of them stupid. They may have been a bit ignorant of what they were getting into and how to make it work, but certainly not stupid. :(
Well, but along the lines of there being different kinds of intelligence, I think we're missing the fact that there is a great variety of stupidity out there.
So the same person can exhibit
both a band of dazzling intelligence,
and a swath of nerve-curdling stupidity.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 06, 2009, 10:17:55 AM
Because duty and self-sacrifice are masculine traits, femininity is inherently ego-centric.
Now, you see, that goes to show how anonymous IDs can mislead. I had fallen into the misprision that you are male; but my error on this head had been made clear, by this remark.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2009, 05:56:45 AM
Now, you see, that goes to show how anonymous IDs can mislead. I had fallen into the misprision that you are male; but my error on this head had been made clear, by this remark.
Nicely played, sir!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2009, 05:54:25 AM
Well, but along the lines of there being different kinds of intelligence, I think we're missing the fact that there is a great variety of stupidity out there.
So the same person can exhibit both a band of dazzling intelligence, and a swath of nerve-curdling stupidity.
Well, I guess I would say that otherwise intelligent people are nevertheless capable from time to time of doing really stupid things. Or, I might say, we all have our blind spots--and according to the old saying, love is blind.
In terms of different kinds of intelligence, I think it is true that there is a kind of inter-personal intelligence that is in short supply. A lot of us who know how to do many other things (score well on standardized tests, achieve advanced academic degrees, etc.) don't know much about how to communicate with other people on a personal and emotional level, and that is what is needed to make a relationship work. While it's true that some are endowed by nature with more of this gift than others, it is also true that, like any other skill, it can be improved with training and practice.
Quote from: secondwind on October 07, 2009, 07:05:10 AM
Well, I guess I would say that otherwise intelligent people are nevertheless capable from time to time of doing really stupid things. Or, I might say, we all have our blind spots--and according to the old saying, love is blind.
In terms of different kinds of intelligence, I think it is true that there is a kind of inter-personal intelligence that is in short supply. A lot of us who know how to do many other things (score well on standardized tests, achieve advanced academic degrees, etc.) don't know much about how to communicate with other people on a personal and emotional level, and that is what is needed to make a relationship work. While it's true that some are endowed by nature with more of this gift than others, it is also true that, like any other skill, it can be improved with training and practice.
Entirely agree.
Quote from: secondwind on October 07, 2009, 07:05:10 AM
Well, I guess I would say that otherwise intelligent people are nevertheless capable from time to time of doing really stupid things. Or, I might say, we all have our blind spots--and according to the old saying, love is blind.
People in love are 1) not necessarily candid about themselves (they're selling themselves after all) 2) they tend to idealize the person they're after. This can make for nasty surprises later on.
Quote from: Herman on October 07, 2009, 07:30:21 AM
People in love are 1) not necessarily candid about themselves (they're selling themselves after all) 2) they tend to idealize the person they're after. This can make for nasty surprises later on.
Very true. A friend of mine calls this the Prince/Princess Charming phase of the relationship. It is a good argument in favor of long engagements.
People should live with each other for a period of time and have sex, before deciding to get married.
I suspect most people getting a divorce have done so.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 05, 2009, 05:07:28 AM
Have your 20's be your "ME" years. Don't rush. Wait until you are in your 30's to get married and have children.
This seems to be the current received wisdom on the topic, and as such I think it overlooks a number of issues which waiting to marry can create. I appreciate that waiting until your 30s allows you to mature, know yourself, and know others better. But there are some downsides:
- Both spouses will have become used to either remaining alone, sleeping around, or starting a new relationship whenever things get difficult.
- Part of the message this sends is that marriage is inherently less satisfying than being unmarried, and therefore should be postponed as long as possible.
- Marriage requires large changes to your expectations and priorities. People in their 20s are far more flexible than people in their 30s. In your 30s you start off with more of the wrong habits (see bullets above), and are less able to change.
- Since others have already selected first, your choices are fewer.
- If you want to have children, waiting until your thirties to think about marriage forces you to thread the needle. You have to 1) Find and marry the right person. 2) Give the marriage enough time to know it will work. and then 3) Start trying to conceive. While conception for healthy people in their 20s is all you can do to avoid, it can take some time once a woman is in her 30s. The later they wait, the longer it can take. Several women my wife knows have inadvertently waited too long, and now are extremely unlikely to ever have children. Also, risk factors for pregnancy increase at earlier ages than I think most people realize. Starting at 36, my wife's OBGYN said they have to do extra tests. Pregnancies at 40 or over are considered "geriatric pregnancies".
So while people shouldn't rush into marriage until they are mature enough to do so, waiting has its own issues. Perhaps better advice would be to "grow up" by your early 20s, find the right person, get married around mid 20s and then wait say 5 years before trying to get pregnant.
Quote from: Redbeard on October 07, 2009, 11:38:50 AM
- Part of the message this sends is that marriage is inherently less satisfying than being unmarried, and therefore should be postponed as long as possible.
Isn't this a fact? ;D
;)
Quote from: Redbeard on October 07, 2009, 11:38:50 AM
This seems to be the current received wisdom on the topic, and as such I think it overlooks a number of issues which waiting to marry can create. I appreciate that waiting until your 30s allows you to mature, know yourself, and know others better. But there are some downsides:
- Both spouses will have become used to either remaining alone, sleeping around, or starting a new relationship whenever things get difficult.
- Part of the message this sends is that marriage is inherently less satisfying than being unmarried, and therefore should be postponed as long as possible.
- Marriage requires large changes to your expectations and priorities. People in their 20s are far more flexible than people in their 30s. In your 30s you start off with more of the wrong habits (see bullets above), and are less able to change.
- Since others have already selected first, your choices are fewer.
- If you want to have children, waiting until your thirties to think about marriage forces you to thread the needle. You have to 1) Find and marry the right person. 2) Give the marriage enough time to know it will work. and then 3) Start trying to conceive. While conception for healthy people in their 20s is all you can do to avoid, it can take some time once a woman is in her 30s. The later they wait, the longer it can take. Several women my wife knows have inadvertently waited too long, and now are extremely unlikely to ever have children. Also, risk factors for pregnancy increase at earlier ages than I think most people realize. Starting at 36, my wife's OBGYN said they have to do extra tests. Pregnancies at 40 or over are considered "geriatric pregnancies".
So while people shouldn't rush into marriage until they are mature enough to do so, waiting has its own issues. Perhaps better advice would be to "grow up" by your early 20s, find the right person, get married around mid 20s and then wait say 5 years before trying to get pregnant.
Though my life has been far from a picture of sensibilty and sagacity, these were my thoughts too. I just didn't think I was the right person to make these comments. Two things seem to be cardinal: for most people flexibility wanes as they live longer by themselves. And fertility does get problematic after age thirty.
Quote from: Redbeard on October 07, 2009, 11:38:50 AM- Marriage requires large changes to your expectations and priorities. People in their 20s are far more flexible than people in their 30s. In your 30s you start off with more of the wrong habits (see bullets above), and are less able to change.
I can't speak about 30-year-olds, but I think you're giving 20-somethings a lot of credit. I know two couples who are divorced and aren't 30 yet. In one of these cases, the couple were best friends for years, decided to marry, and then got divorced in less than a year. Now they're back to being best friends and do a whole lot of stuff together, and still have a lot of affection for each other... Marriage just wasn't the answer. It's a huge adjustment.
Quote from: Dana on October 07, 2009, 01:11:56 PMMarriage just wasn't the answer. It's a huge adjustment.
I didn't intend to argue that adjustment to marriage is easy. In fact, I'm arguing exactly the opposite. I'm not aware of any psychologists who argue that major lifestyle changes get easier as you get older. By the same token, the military prefers young recruits so they can more easily mold their minds. None of this is to say that everyone in their 20s is ready to get married, or that people can't change their mindsets, habits, etc much later in life. People can always change so long as they are still alive. But it does get harder.
Quote from: Redbeard on October 07, 2009, 01:39:48 PMPeople can always change so long as they are still alive. But it does get harder.
The question, therefore, is whether it's easier to adjust when you're older and know what you're adjusting to (but less able to adjust), or younger and are armed with all the enthusiasm that youth brings (but you often have no idea what you're getting into). Either decision carries risks, and I guess it depends on the person.
And, of course, we're all talking like the timing is something that we have control over :P
Quote from: Dana on October 07, 2009, 03:14:42 PM
And, of course, we're all talking like the timing is something that we have control over :P
Very true. But this is my point on the problem with telling people to "Wait until you are 30 to think about it". Given the biological reality (especially for women), this is a bit like telling someone to wait until the last minute to leave for the airport; there is no margin for error. I know people who waited until their 30s and everything worked just fine. But I've seen others watch their options disappear in a way they never anticipated. I think the advice is especially problematic because when you are in your 20s you already think you have all the time in the world. Only after the fact do you recognize how quickly time passes by.
Quote from: Dana on October 07, 2009, 01:11:56 PMIn one of these cases, the couple were best friends for years, decided to marry, and then got divorced in less than a year. Now they're back to being best friends and do a whole lot of stuff together, and still have a lot of affection for each other...
BTW, tell your friend to stop chasing her and find someone else. She isn't going to change her mind.
That was my first impression to, but I think that in this case, it actually is a mutual desire to like each other and never ever under any circumstances live together.
Quote from: Dana on October 07, 2009, 01:11:56 PM
I can't speak about 30-year-olds, but I think you're giving 20-somethings a lot of credit. I know two couples who are divorced and aren't 30 yet. In one of these cases, the couple were best friends for years, decided to marry, and then got divorced in less than a year. Now they're back to being best friends and do a whole lot of stuff together, and still have a lot of affection for each other... Marriage just wasn't the answer. It's a huge adjustment.
And the king and the queen went back to the green,
But you can never go back there again . . . .
Q: What is the cause of the high divorce rate?
A: I'm not married and never have been married, but I grew up with two great parents who have now been married for 40 years. Americans' ideas today of marriage are totally different than they were 40 years ago obviously, but I think people are way too sensitive these days. People get into one little argument and they want a divorce or they simply just get "tired" of their spouse after so many years. Most people today don't know what truelove is and if they do, then they're one of the few that are blessed.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 02, 2011, 05:56:11 PM
Q: What is the cause of the high divorce rate?
A: I'm not married and never have been married, but I grew up with two great parents who have now been married for 40 years. Americans' ideas today of marriage are totally different than they were 40 years ago obviously, but I think people are way too sensitive these days. People get into one little argument and they want a divorce or they simply just get "tired" of their spouse after so many years. Most people today don't know what truelove is and if they do, then they're one of the few that are blessed.
A lot of platitudes along the lines of "it was all better in the golden days gone by." You can't look into the collective minds of millions of people and simplify their attitudes to such extent. Why dig up this silly thread? What throws the statistics off IMHO is that most people who divorce once will divorce again. The divorce rates for second and third marriages are much higher than for first marriages.
Quote from: Mensch on February 03, 2011, 08:55:15 AM
A lot of platitudes along the lines of "it was all better in the golden days gone by." You can't look into the collective minds of millions of people and simplify their attitudes to such extent. Why dig up this silly thread? What throws the statistics off IMHO is that most people who divorce once will divorce again. The divorce rates for second and third marriages are much higher than for first marriages.
For many reasons, spiritual and practical, I do not believe people should get 'married'
at all, (whilst without a doubt holding high regard for those who have made their marriage last - they didn't need to marry though, it was always going to be there)... When the one to love arrives in your life, you know soon enough. Obligations and metaphysical vows are not necessary in love. Love takes care of these things itself. A promise in private and in depth about the giving of ones self is all thats necessary, but such promises come about through the nature of true love anyway. Real love does not need pieces of paper and ceremonies to verify it. It is a ceremony in life itself.
The reason for so many Divorces is twofold.
1. People get married. ;D
2. People have a shallow society understanding of the nature of real love.I have been married once. I still talk to my ex-wife, but our spirits no longer connect.
I have been in love once, (but not to the person I married). Dreadfully so. But that love was only one way, and I was under no illusions to that.
And I love Beethoven.
That is why I believe what I do. ???
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 10:00:15 AM
For many reasons, spiritual and practical, I do not believe people should get 'married' at all, (whilst without a doubt holding high regard for those who have made their marriage last - they didn't need to marry though, it was always going to be there)...
But it sure is nice to get the tax and legal benefits of marriage. And be honest: a wedding is a wonderful event if you have the right guest list.
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 10:00:15 AM
For many reasons, spiritual and practical, I do not believe people should get 'married' at all, (whilst without a doubt holding high regard for those who have made their marriage last - they didn't need to marry though, it was always going to be there)... When the one to love arrives in your life, you know soon enough. Obligations and metaphysical vows are not necessary in love. Love takes care of these things itself. A promise in private and in depth about the giving of ones self is all thats necessary, but such promises come about through the nature of true love anyway. Real love does not need pieces of paper and ceremonies to verify it. It is a ceremony in life itself.
The reason for so many Divorces is twofold.
1. People get married. ;D
2. People have a shallow society understanding of the nature of real love.
I have been married once. I still talk to my ex-wife, but our spirits no longer connect.
I have been in love once, (but not to the person I married).
I always find it amusing when a person who has failed in marriage offers his views why folks should not get married. Your basic mistake was entering a loveless marriage. Why did you do that?
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 10:00:15 AM
For many reasons, spiritual and practical, I do not believe people should get 'married' at all, (whilst without a doubt holding high regard for those who have made their marriage last - they didn't need to marry though, it was always going to be there)... When the one to love arrives in your life, you know soon enough. Obligations and metaphysical vows are not necessary in love. Love takes care of these things itself. A promise in private and in depth about the giving of ones self is all thats necessary, but such promises come about through the nature of true love anyway. Real love does not need pieces of paper and ceremonies to verify it. It is a ceremony in life itself.
The reason for so many Divorces is twofold.
1. People get married. ;D
2. People have a shallow society understanding of the nature of real love.
I have been married once. I still talk to my ex-wife, but our spirits no longer connect.
I have been in love once, (but not to the person I married). Dreadfully so. But that love was only one way, and I was under no illusions to that.
And I love Beethoven.
That is why I believe what I do. ???
If you do find true love, getting married certainly solves certain practical problems regarding disposition of property, inheritance, custody and guardianship of children, etc.
Beyond that, marriage provides a milestone in a relationship, where the two people involved declare to themselves and to each other that they are ready to make the ultimate commitment.
Many people get married for the wrong reasons, and always have. I suspect one factor in the increase in divorce rate is the fact that people, particularly women, have more economic and social freedom than in the past.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 03, 2011, 10:09:18 AM
If you do find true love, getting married certainly solves certain practical problems regarding disposition of property, inheritance, custody and guardianship of children, etc.
Beyond that, marriage provides a milestone in a relationship, where the two people involved declare to themselves and to each other that they are ready to make the ultimate commitment.
Well put, and I'd say that the "ultimate commitment" is what marriage is all about. Folks who are in love but do not make the ultimate commitment are little chickens. ;D
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 10:00:15 AM
I do not believe people should get 'married' at all
Hmm. A bit presumptuous and bitter?
Quote from: Bulldog on February 03, 2011, 10:08:33 AM
I always find it amusing when a person who has failed in marriage offers his views why folks should not get married. Your basic mistake was entering a loveless marriage. Why did you do that?
Because for most of my life
a shallow society understanding of the nature of real love was all I had. I do not consider my only marriage a failure. It was a tremendous teacher.
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 03:08:21 PM
Because for most of my life a shallow society understanding of the nature of real love was all I had. I do not consider my only marriage a failure. It was a tremendous teacher.
I fail to see how this leads to your conclusion that people should not get married, full stop.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 03, 2011, 03:15:06 PM
I fail to see how this leads to your conclusion that people should not get married, full stop.
It is not this which singularly leads me to the conclusion that people should not get married, full stop. The reasons for not getting married belongs more to a different forum or a different thread. From a purely statistical standpoint, not getting married means not getting divorced.
QuoteTODD: Hmm. A bit presumptuous and bitter?
Not presumptuous. I have offered only my own observation and experience. And you misspelled 'better'. :P
I just think that society has so muddled its value systems, and Marriage, like square shaped houses, doesn't fit with the dynamics of the World, or the way the World has 'opened up'. ???
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 04:10:22 PMNot presumptuous. I have offered only my own observation and experience.
Yep, presumptuous. Your experience is yours only and offers no real basis for suggesting what people "should" or "should not" do when it comes to relationships.
Quote from: Todd on February 03, 2011, 05:19:57 PM
Yep, presumptuous. Your experience is yours only and offers no real basis for suggesting what people "should" or "should not" do when it comes to relationships.
I accept your posit. For one who dislikes preaching, I sure do a lot of it myself.
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 05:26:26 PM
I accept your posit. For one who dislikes preaching, I sure do a lot of it myself.
Self awareness. An important trait to take into a marriage. ;D
Quote from: Bulldog on February 03, 2011, 10:14:05 AM
Well put, and I'd say that the "ultimate commitment" is what marriage is all about. Folks who are in love but do not make the ultimate commitment are little chickens. ;D
Utter BS. Formal or legal marriage is just a piece of paper with attendant conveniences and legal benefits. Two people in love don't have to marry to fulfill that love and truly live it. My wife and I never intended to marry and only did so, 11 years ago and after 2 years of living together, because we decided to move to a different country and the paperwork is so vastly simpler with that other piece of paper in our hands. We are and have been extremely happy together; getting married didn't change it.
Quote from: petrarch on February 03, 2011, 07:00:42 PM
Utter BS. Formal or legal marriage is just a piece of paper with attendant conveniences and legal benefits.
It can be much more than the above, but it appears you aren't of a mind to take it any further.
It is just as well no-one of us on this thread are all married to each other.
We would have divorced by now.
Quote from: petrarch on February 03, 2011, 07:00:42 PM
Utter BS. Formal or legal marriage is just a piece of paper with attendant conveniences and legal benefits. Two people in love don't have to marry to fulfill that love and truly live it. My wife and I never intended to marry and only did so, 11 years ago and after 2 years of living together, because we decided to move to a different country and the paperwork is so vastly simpler with that other piece of paper in our hands. We are and have been extremely happy together; getting married didn't change it.
You can take the attitude that you will be with your love as long as you are happy together, or you can take the attitude that you will make it your mission and commitment to build a happy life together. That is the distinction as I see it, piece of paper or no piece of paper.
Reason; people have sex before marriage.
Quote from: abidoful on February 03, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Reason; people have sex before marriage.
My Driving Instructor told me this too.
I am thinking about that now. Interesting....
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 09:55:50 PM
My Driving Instructor told me this too.
I am thinking about that now. Interesting....
No sex but in marriage- that's very logical and that's how our "moral designer meant it".
Quote from: abidoful on February 03, 2011, 10:15:13 PM
No sex but in marriage- that's very logical and that's how our "moral designer meant it".
???
:-X
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 03:08:21 PM
Because for most of my life a shallow society understanding of the nature of real love was all I had.
I don't think that blaming society at large for a personal failure is the way to go. You don't marry the society, but another flesh-and-blood person with her/his own personality and character, just like you. If things don't go well then there's something wrong in this mixture, not in the society.
Quote from: John on February 03, 2011, 04:10:22 PM
From a purely statistical standpoint, not getting married means not getting divorced.
Just like not being born means not dying, therefore the cause of the high rate of deaths by car crashes or heart failure is that people have children. ;D
John, I'm sorry but your theories don't make any sense at all. :D
Quote from: Florestan on February 04, 2011, 12:36:58 AM
I don't think that blaming society at large for a personal failure is the way to go. You don't marry the society, but another flesh-and-blood person with her/his own personality and character, just like you. If things don't go well then there's something wrong in this mixture, not in the society.
Just like not being born means not dying, therefore the cause of the high rate of deaths by car crashes or heart failure is that people have children. ;D
John, I'm sorry but your theories don't make any sense at all. :D
Hello fellow Rangstrom lover Andrei!
Thank you for your views.
They do not correspond with what I've already said.
I do not blame anyone for anything. It was me and my partner at that time who got married. It was me and my partner that got divorced. The marrige was not something we should have done, and we both accept that. Both of us feel we learned a great deal, and we had a beautiful wee boy. When divorce is mentioned, everybody cries failure and it's not always necessarly so.
I am not blaming society. Thats would seem to be a very weak cop out indeed, it's not the argument I was trying to make I am saying that I was not emotionally mature enough to understand the level of truth which powers two people who are truly in love to the VERY END, the same badly prepared mindset which is near viral in Society today. Of course 'Society' isn't to blame. That is more the talk of someone at student age, and I'm sorry my blethers were interpreted that way.
QuoteJust like not being born means not dying,
Yes
Quotetherefore the cause of the high rate of deaths by car crashes or heart failure is that people have children.
??? If you say so... ???
We do not sign papers to live or die. We do for marriage, which I advocate is an unnecessary social arrangement for people who truly love each other.
Thank you Andrei, I do enjoy a spirited debate. :)
Quote from: John on February 04, 2011, 02:49:12 AM
Hello fellow Rangstrom lover Andrei!
Awrite! :)
QuoteI do not blame anyone for anything. It was me and my partner at that time who got married. It was me and my partner that got divorced. The marrige was not something we should have done, and we both accept that. Both of us feel we learned a great deal, and we had a beautiful wee boy. When divorce is mentioned, everybody cries failure and it's not always necessarly so.
I am not blaming society. Thats would seem to be a very weak cop out indeed, it's not the argument I was trying to make I am saying that I was not emotionally mature enough to understand the level of truth which powers two people who are truly in love to the VERY END, the same badly prepared mindset which is near viral in Society today. Of course 'Society' isn't to blame. That is more the talk of someone at student age, and I'm sorry my blethers were interpreted that way.
Well, I did interpret them rather along this line, but your explanations above cleared it up for me. I don't argue your stance anymore. 0:)
Quote
We do not sign papers to live or die. We do for marriage, which I advocate is an unnecessary social arrangement for people who truly love each other.
Actually, what kind of marriage are you talking about? Civil or religious?
Quote
Thank you Andrei, I do enjoy a spirited debate. :)
You haven't seen anything yet, my friend. ;D :P
Quote from: Bulldog on February 03, 2011, 08:00:10 PM
It can be much more than the above, but it appears you aren't of a mind to take it any further.
That's the whole point. It already was and still is so much more, having a piece of paper made no difference.
Quote from: petrarch on February 03, 2011, 07:00:42 PM
Utter BS. Formal or legal marriage is just a piece of paper with attendant conveniences and legal benefits. Two people in love don't have to marry to fulfill that love and truly live it. My wife and I never intended to marry and only did so, 11 years ago and after 2 years of living together, because we decided to move to a different country and the paperwork is so vastly simpler with that other piece of paper in our hands. We are and have been extremely happy together; getting married didn't change it.
If I may add to that... perhaps living together for a while before marriage is a good way of figuring out whether marriage is actually a good idea. In my case, my wife and I had been living together for 5 years before we got married 6 years ago. But for that same reason this:
Quote from: abidoful on February 03, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Reason; people have sex before marriage.
is complete nonsense. It's perfectly good and healthy to have sex in a committed relationship before marriage as part of figuring out whether you are actually compatible enough for marriage. Jumping into a marriage with someone with whom you have not yet established that level of intimate trust is a crapshoot and more likely to be a cause of problems later on.
Quote from: John on February 04, 2011, 02:49:12 AM
We do not sign papers to live or die. We do for marriage, which I advocate is an unnecessary social arrangement for people who truly love each other.
No, but for good reasons (including privacy), you can't for example just allow anyone on a good faith claim of "I'm his girlfriend" to come in and see you when you're in a coma in hospital, or make custodial decisions about your children in your absence, or automatically inherit jointly owned property without a tax bill being due, etc. without some evidence of formalization of what would otherwise be a relationship, the seriousness and commitment to which cannot be well judged by 3rd parties who would need to verify it in the above cases. For my recent US citizenship application I just went through the process of proving to the USCIS that I am indeed married to my wife. That was difficult enough. Imagine how much harder it would be to prove your love and commitment to the authorities for such purposes if you didn't at least have some document formalizing the relationship.
Quote from: Mensch on February 04, 2011, 07:34:09 AM
this:
Quote from: abidoful on February 03, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Reason; people have sex before marriage.
Quote from: Mensch on February 04, 2011, 07:34:09 AM
is complete nonsense. It's perfectly good and healthy to have sex in a committed relationship before marriage as part of figuring out whether you are actually compatible enough for marriage. Jumping into a marriage with someone with whom you have not yet established that level of intimate trust is a crapshoot and more likely to be a cause of problems later on.
I think it is the exact opposite way around from what you are saying; I would say jumping in BED without having trust will cause major issues :o :o :o Many get bruised for starting sexual relationships too early. I think this is just becouse lewdness is considered normal/natural while the view of sex belonging to marriage is not. Our age is very sex-oriented and young people don't have that safety what you get from realizing that sex belongs to marriage- instead they feel this pressure of starting having sex.
Before I became a Christian, and God's laws on sexual chastity suddenly became clear to me, I had a long sexual relationship with a girl while we weren't married. After it ended I have had a long and painful recovery. The way I figure it, you meet someone, fall in love, start dating and getting to know each other before enterting in a marriage and starting that intimate sexual love life. Sex is something very special thing meant exclusively between two people in the safe surroundings of a marriage.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 11:41:47 AM
Sex is something very special thing meant exclusively between two people in the safe surroundings of a marriage.
I strongly disagree. While I agree that marrying the one you love is a good thing (I have done this myself), I also believe good sexual chemistry and a healthy sexual relationship is important. I think one should have sex before they get married, to see if they are compatible in that sense.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 11:41:47 AM
I think it is the exact opposite way around from what you are saying; I would say jumping in BED without having trust will cause major issues :o :o :o Many get bruised for starting sexual relationships too early. I think this is just becouse lewdness is considered normal/natural while the view of sex belonging to marriage is not. Our age is very sex-oriented and young people don't have that safety what you get from realizing that sex belongs to marriage- instead they feel this pressure of starting having sex.
Just because I reject one extreme doesn't mean I subscribe to the other extreme. Rejecting the ferklempt traditional sexual mores doesn't mean indulging in total promiscuity. Obviously you can't just jump in bed with anyone. Yes, trust has to be there and you have to have the emotional maturity to handle a) a relationship and b) a sexual relationship. Still, you actually have to experience the sexual relationship to see whether it works. It makes no sense to hitch your fate to another person for life before having figured out whether you're really compatible on all levels.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 11:41:47 AM
Before I became a Christian, and God's laws on sexual chastity suddenly became clear to me, I had a long sexual relationship with a girl while we weren't married. After it ended I have had a long and painful recovery. The way I figure it, you meet someone, fall in love, start dating and getting to know each other before enterting in a marriage and starting that intimate sexual love life. Sex is something very special thing meant exclusively between two people in the safe surroundings of a marriage.
The reason for your previous relationship having ended badly has nothing to do with your having had sex before marriage, I am quite certain of that. And being married to someone isn't in and of itself going to make the sex or the relationship better, nor will following "god's laws" prevent breakup when at least one of you realizes something isn't working in a satisfactory fashion.
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 04, 2011, 11:45:16 AM
I think one should have sex before they get married, to see if they are compatible in that sense.
What is exactly being "compatible sexually"? That is horseshit. Women and men have very competible parts, that's all you need.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
What is exactly being "compatible sexually"? That is horseshit. Women and men have very competible parts, that's all you need.
Maybe that attitude is why your previous relationship didn't work out so well?
Quote from: Mensch on February 04, 2011, 11:55:20 AM
Maybe that attitude is why your previous relationship didn't work out so well?
Hah---that was kind of nasty :o :o :o
But I can take a joke.
What I mean is that being "sexually compatible" is shit. Sex is just an incredibly intimate dimension of the love affair between man and woman and you can't separate it to something mechanical "sexual compatibality".
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 12:03:00 PM
Hah---that was kind of nasty :o :o :o
But I can take a joke.
What I mean is that being "sexually compatible" is shit. Sex is just an incredibly intimate dimension of the love affair between man and woman and you can't separate it to something mechanical "sexual compatibality".
You misunderstood both of us by thinking that we meant "something mechanical". Yes, sex is incredibly intimate. It is deeply emotional and there has to be the right chemistry and attraction and fulfillment. Just because you have the right types of genitalia doesn't mean that these needs will be met. Also, the use of aforementioned parts needs to be practiced. You both need to be of the requisite maturity and have the necessary patience for each other in the beginning if you're new to this. Otherwise only frustration will ensue.
Quote from: Mensch on February 04, 2011, 12:04:48 PM
You misunderstood both of us by thinking that we meant "something mechanical". Yes, sex is incredibly intimate. It is deeply emotional and there has to be the right chemistry and attraction and fulfillment. Just because you have the right types of genitalia doesn't mean that these needs will be met.
MECHANICALLY, the genitalia all you need for sex between man and woman and that's my point. So let's not rush with it and let's leave it to marriage, I say.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 12:11:14 PM
MECHANICALLY, the genitalia all you need for sex between man and woman and that's my point. So let's not rush with it and let's leave it to marriage, I say.
I got your point the first time around. It's still wrong. Lovemaking is about a lot more than insemination. If it were, there are now simpler, less time consuming ways of accomplishing that. But unlike good sex they don't build relationships well. Maybe one day you'll realize that. Again, I don't mean to be nasty, but having had one broken relationship doesn't exactly make you an expert on successful relationships, does it?
What basically majes an expert? My brother who has been with five women, but always broke up, gee maybe his an expert then? But when I think what bruises it has caused... BTW, why are you guys always raising your eybrows when ever God is being mentioned? Maybe ypou know better than God then whats good for people? He just meant it for marriage and thats it. The rest is fornication.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 01:39:53 PM
What basically majes an expert? My brother who has been with five women, but always broke up, gee maybe his an expert then?
Note that I said
successful relationships.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 01:39:53 PM
BTW, why are you guys always raising your eybrows when ever God is being mentioned?
Because an argument from scripture only has persuasive effect if your audience consists entirely of believers, which isn't the case with GMG's diverse audience. Accordingly, other arguments tend to be more persuasive in general.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 01:39:53 PM
The rest is fornication.
Lol
You fornicators!(http://www.preparednesspro.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/angry-man-photo-co-janehellermlblogscom.gif)
;D
Seriously, though, I think the world would work better if everyone took pills to completely eliminate sexual desire, so there would be no attraction at all between people, and then if people want to make a kid for some odd reason (and want to raise them), they could artificially inseminate and then sign government paperwork to make it legal (if they make the qualifications to be able to raise them financially and stuff). And no, I'm not kidding. I know no one would approve of that, but, I'm just saying, I think I would be better...
Quote from: Greg on February 04, 2011, 06:05:44 PM
Seriously, though, I think the world would work better if everyone took pills to completely eliminate sexual desire, so there would be no attraction at all between people, and then if people want to make a kid for some odd reason (and want to raise them), they could artificially inseminate and then sign government paperwork to make it legal (if they make the qualifications to be able to raise them financially and stuff). And no, I'm not kidding. I know no one would approve of that, but, I'm just saying, I think I would be better...
Did you perchance read Les Particles élémentaires (the Elementary Particles) by Michel Houellebecq? Sounds like you'd like it.
Quote from: Mensch on February 04, 2011, 06:31:00 PM
Did you perchance read Les Particles élémentaires (the Elementary Particles) by Michel Houellebecq? Sounds like you'd like it.
Never heard of it- but after reading the plot summary, it sounds very interesting! :D Nice that someone out there has the same idea, at least- thanks for the recommendation.
Quote from: Greg on February 04, 2011, 06:05:44 PM
Lol
You fornicators!
(http://www.preparednesspro.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/angry-man-photo-co-janehellermlblogscom.gif)
That guy has same 'hairstyle', same shape of head, same goatee as me. What a frightful experience.
I seem to have missed this old thread.
Who says the divorce rates are "high"? By what standard?
However, marriage certainly has been changing, particularly since the Industrial Revolution and the rise of wage labor, and the Enlightenment with its ideals of freedom and equality. However, it took a long time to arrive at equality between men and women.
People tend to live longer nowadays. There is more time to get tired of each other.
Many women work and can afford to leave a bad marriage.
Here's an interview with the noted historian of marriage, Stephanie Coontz:
http://www.onpointradio.org/2005/06/a-history-of-marriage
She does not give too much advice on marriage, but sometimes she shows some of the things that research suggests.
http://stephaniecoontz.com/articles/article19.htm
Quote from: Mensch on February 04, 2011, 01:48:38 PM
Note that I said successful relationships.
But basically
succesfull relationships and
unsuccesfull relationships are
ended relationships so where's the difference I wonder ::)
Quote from: Greg on February 04, 2011, 06:05:44 PM
Seriously, though, I think the world would work better if everyone took pills to completely eliminate sexual desire, so there would be no attraction at all between people, and then if people want to make a kid for some odd reason (and want to raise them), they could artificially inseminate and then sign government paperwork to make it legal (if they make the qualifications to be able to raise them financially and stuff). And no, I'm not kidding. I know no one would approve of that, but, I'm just saying, I think I would be better...
Too bad your parents didn't live in such a society... ;D :P
Seriously now, this is the same as with those arguing for the reduction of world population: it's always other people that are redundant, never themselves...
Quote from: Florestan on February 04, 2011, 11:44:17 PMSeriously now, this is the same as with those arguing for the reduction of world population: it's always other people that are redundant, never themselves...
You don't get it, Greg considers himself redundant. :P
Quote from: John on February 04, 2011, 07:28:37 PM
That guy has same 'hairstyle', same shape of head, same goatee as me. What a frightful experience.
I thought he looked like you when I saw it. :D I didn't choose it because of that- just conveyed the whole pointing and yelling thing perfectly. :D
Quote from: Florestan on February 04, 2011, 11:44:17 PM
Too bad your parents didn't live in such a society... ;D :P
Might have been better... ::)
Quote from: petrarch on February 04, 2011, 06:14:11 AM
That's the whole point. It already was and still is so much more, having a piece of paper made no difference.
Glad to hear your marriage is going so well. 8)
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 11:41:47 AM
I think it is the exact opposite way around from what you are saying; I would say jumping in BED without having trust will cause major issues :o :o :o Many get bruised for starting sexual relationships too early. I think this is just becouse lewdness is considered normal/natural while the view of sex belonging to marriage is not. Our age is very sex-oriented and young people don't have that safety what you get from realizing that sex belongs to marriage- instead they feel this pressure of starting having sex.
Before I became a Christian, and God's laws on sexual chastity suddenly became clear to me, I had a long sexual relationship with a girl while we weren't married. After it ended I have had a long and painful recovery. The way I figure it, you meet someone, fall in love, start dating and getting to know each other before enterting in a marriage and starting that intimate sexual love life. Sex is something very special thing meant exclusively between two people in the safe surroundings of a marriage.
Just keep in mind that others might have different views. By the way, you sure seem to have "safety" on the brain.
Scarpia wrote: "you can take the attitude that you will make it your mission and commitment to build a happy life together."
I think this is exactly right. If two people are committed to building a happy life together, regardless of what life throws at them, and work to fulfill that commitment, I think it likely their marriage will be successful. I had a sister-in-law who said, at a tough time in her marriage, that if she believed in divorce... but she doesn't, neither does her husband, so they HAD to work through the difficulties.
Some people are not willing to truly commit -- to be there when the other is sick, for example, to share fully. They are willing to get married, but that deep level of commitment isn't there. Sex before or after marriage is as relevant as the people involved wish it to be. If truly committed, sex gets worked out, just as other things do. I know happily married people who did not have sex before marriage, and divorced people (me, for example) who did.
I think some people also expect too much of marriage. They go into it thinking they will always have someone to do [whatever] with, they will never feel loneliness, never have to look elsewhere for simple friendship, that marriage will always be as exciting as courtship. I think that asks too much of the institution.
But hey, what do I know?! I've been married, and divorced, twice. I still like my first husband; he's a good guy. We did not have a good marriage; perhaps if we had sought help sooner with its difficulties, our marriage would have lasted. It was not a stable situation, and having stability for our son was more important than staying married; we are both very committed to parenting our child. (It annoys the kid how much his mom and dad talk, in fact, because the kid cannot divide and conquer!)
Quote from: Bulldog on February 05, 2011, 12:40:53 PM
Just keep in mind that others might have different views.
As is usual with between people. That what makes life so interesting :)
Quote from: Bulldog on February 05, 2011, 12:40:53 PM
By the way, you sure seem to have "safety" on the brain.
Or, my vocabulary is kind of restricted.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 11:12:30 PM
But basically succesfull relationships and unsuccesfull relationships are ended relationships so where's the difference I wonder ::)
Huh? Since when?
Quote from: Mensch on February 07, 2011, 08:52:41 AM
Huh? Since when?
Well,
relationsihps; that's plural. So unless the relationship ended in your partners death, that wasn't very succesfull relationship if it ended.
Quote from: abidoful on February 07, 2011, 09:08:42 AM
Well, relationsihps; that's plural. So unless the relationship ended in your partners death, that wasn't very succesfull relationship if it ended.
So by your definition O.J. Simpson had a very successful relationship with his wife Nicole Brown Simpson?
Quote from: Scarpia on February 07, 2011, 09:11:59 AM
So by your definition O.J. Simpson had a very successful relationship with his wife Nicole Brown Simpson?
Duh----no he did not.
Quote from: abidoful on February 07, 2011, 09:08:42 AM
Well, relationsihps; that's plural. So unless the relationship ended in your partners death, that wasn't very succesfull relationship if it ended.
Are you just trying to be obtuse? Let me spell it out: Someone who has had trouble maintaining a long term relationship has little business giving advice on how to do just that.
Quote from: Mensch on February 07, 2011, 09:44:11 AM
Are you just trying to be obtuse? Let me spell it out: Someone who has had trouble maintaining a long term relationship has little business giving advice on how to do just that.
:o :o :o :o
Yes, I got the "message".
But IMO you are just being plain rude; I was sharing my own experience on the matter (in the style of, "been there, seen that") and you come and throw it on my face...?
See, I broke off with my ex and that hurt, for a long time. So all I'm saying it's TERRIBLE, don't do that. Decide to commit yourself and get married and dont have sex before you can commit yourself to a marriage or otherwise stay a bachelor. I'm not perfect and that's exactly why you should take my advise; don't do the same mistake as I did.;) ;) ;) ;)
Quote from: abidoful on February 07, 2011, 11:37:43 AM
Yes, I got the "message".
But IMO you are just being plain rude; I was sharing my own experience on the matter (in the style of, "been there, seen that") and you come and throw it on my face...?
See, I broke off with my ex and that hurt, for a long time. So all I'm saying it's TERRIBLE, don't do that. Decide to commit yourself and get married and dont have sex before you can commit yourself to a marriage or otherwise stay a bachelor. I'm not perfect and that's exactly why you should take my advise; don't do the same mistake as I did.;) ;) ;) ;)
I know what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be rude, but you are wilfully misreading my posts. If you are talking about
*one* bad relationship you've had, you simply aren't in a position to make judgments or recommendations on the whole issue of human conjugal relationships. The statistician would say that your *one* relationship is an extremely unrepresentative sample from which to draw any meaningful conclusions. Whatever went wrong between the two of you doesn't entitle you to make the sorts of sweeping generalizations that you make. As you've seen from merely the few responses in this thread alone, there are plenty of people who have had completely different experiences than you have.
Quote from: abidoful on February 07, 2011, 11:37:43 AM
Yes, I got the "message".
But IMO you are just being plain rude; I was sharing my own experience on the matter (in the style of, "been there, seen that") and you come and throw it on my face...?
See, I broke off with my ex and that hurt, for a long time. So all I'm saying it's TERRIBLE, don't do that. Decide to commit yourself and get married and dont have sex before you can commit yourself to a marriage or otherwise stay a bachelor. I'm not perfect and that's exactly why you should take my advise; don't do the same mistake as I did.;) ;) ;) ;)
Did you become super-religious after that bad relationship?
Quote from: Scarpia on February 07, 2011, 11:58:17 AM
Did you become super-religious after that bad relationship?
I don't consider myself super-religious but yes, I found God after that relationship.
It's funny but in God I found True Love :)
Quote from: Mensch on February 07, 2011, 11:57:09 AM
I know what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be rude, but you are wilfully misreading my posts. If you are talking about *one* bad relationship you've had, you simply aren't in a position to make judgments or recommendations on the whole issue of human conjugal relationships. The statistician would say that your *one* relationship is an extremely unrepresentative sample from which to draw any meaningful conclusions. Whatever went wrong between the two of you doesn't entitle you to make the sorts of sweeping generalizations that you make. As you've seen from merely the few responses in this thread alone, there are plenty of people who have had completely different experiences than you have.
Well
Mench, my experiences on the matter just (for me) confirms the word of God.
I'm wondering couple of things;
1. If there are only few responses in this thread how can there be at the same time "plenty of people who have had different experience than I have"?
2. What do you mean when you write me "wilfully misreading your posts". I was replying to the original question of this thread.
3. What does exactly title in your opinnion to make "sweeping generalizations"or the right to have an opinnion?
I'm tired of this nitpicking with you- let's end it and let's end it cordially; I don't want to get into a debate that's just too bothersome after long days at work ;)
Quote from: abidoful on February 09, 2011, 11:51:13 AM
Well Mench, my experiences on the matter just (for me) confirms the word of God.
My experiences confirm that I made a fantastic marriage choice over 40 years ago. Then again, maybe I just lucked out.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 09, 2011, 11:59:14 AM
My experiences confirm that I made a fantastic marriage choice over 40 years ago. Then again, maybe I just lucked out.
I'm happy for you.
It's good that I didn't get married with my ex; we had so difficult relationship.
Maybe we could have got it working but at that stage we just didn't have any motivation, we were so worn out- both of us.
And it's great to have a life of your own and not the be dependent in the wrong way (in the fashion of neighboring addiction-is there such a word? ) from some one.
Quote from: abidoful on February 09, 2011, 11:51:13 AM
1. If there are only few responses in this thread how can there be at the same time "plenty of people who have had different experience than I have"?
Maybe I wasn't clear: the diversity of opinion and experience among even just the few responses here show that your experience is not representative, because a variety of others are possible. Hence, to draw prescriptive conclusions from your unique experience would be to misdiagnose a large spectrum of human experience that just happens not to have been your personal experience.
Quote from: abidoful on February 09, 2011, 11:51:13 AM
2. What do you mean when you write me "wilfully misreading your posts". I was replying to the original question of this thread.
It means you present my position as something that it is not despite my clear statements. E.g., because I argued against religious fundamentalist sexual repression, you automatically assumed I condone the opposite extreme of unrestrained sexual promiscuity, which isn't the case. Of course it's easier to argue against an extreme you find disagreeable than to parse through a nuanced and balanced position that can't be as easily fought with sheer dogma...
Quote from: abidoful on February 09, 2011, 11:51:13 AM
3. What does exactly title in your opinnion to make "sweeping generalizations"or the right to have an opinnion?
Nothing. Sweeping generalizations are by nature facile and do injustice to the variety of life out there. Anybody is entitled to an opinion. But if you air it publicly, you have to accept that people will point out the wrong assumptions and holes in your argumentation.
Quote from: Mensch on February 09, 2011, 12:23:11 PM
You have to accept that people will point out the wrong assumptions and holes in your argumentation.
But what was "wrong" in my argumentation? I understand a disagreement but It seems you are biased couse I mentioned God....And I'm not being dogmatic. All the problem I had was you saying that I am somehow disqualified to say anything becouse af my breakup :-X
Marriage doesn't mean much these days. There have been couples together for more than 50 years who have never been married. Marriage is a prison. The only way out legally is divorce, whereas if you weren't married, you can just leave. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
Quote from: abidoful on February 09, 2011, 12:41:00 PM
But what was "wrong" in my argumentation? I understand a disagreement but It seems you are biased couse I mentioned God....And I'm not being dogmatic. All the problem I had was you saying that I am somehow disqualified to say anything becouse af my breakup :-X
You had a relationship that ended badly, you adopted a philosophy which said your prior relationship was evil and has (according to your account as I read it) resulted in having no relationships. It is not clear to me that your new philosophy is a practical improvement. It sounds like a self-defense mechanism.
Quote from: abidoful on February 09, 2011, 12:41:00 PM
But what was "wrong" in my argumentation? I understand a disagreement but It seems you are biased couse I mentioned God....And I'm not being dogmatic. All the problem I had was you saying that I am somehow disqualified to say anything becouse af my breakup :-X
What he said:
Quote from: Scarpia on February 09, 2011, 12:48:23 PM
You had a relationship that ended badly, you adopted a philosophy which said your prior relationship was evil and has (according to your account as I read it) resulted in having no relationships. It is not clear to me that your new philosophy is a practical improvement. It sounds like a self-defense mechanism.
It has nothing to do with a bias against religion. Your argument simply isn't logical. It goes like this:
A. I had a bad relationship.
B. I had premarital sex.
C. Therefore: All sexual relationships outside of marriage are inherently bad.
C does not follow logically from A & B, as illustrated by the fact that many of us here in the forum had and stlil have perfectly wonderful relationships despite having had (or still having) premarital sex. You're jumping from a singular, personal experience to generalizing about the entire human population. It's an inductive logical fallacy known as "hasty generalization" (http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/hasty.htm). God has got nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 12:46:20 PM
Marriage is a prison.
Whether or not it is depends on the people involved and what they make of it. If you decorate your home like a prison and put bars in front of the window and lock yourself inside and throw away the key, it IS a prison. But that's your own damn fault. Nobody locked you in there, nor did the house have to be turned into a prison.
Quote from: abidoful on February 04, 2011, 01:39:53 PM
BTW, why are you guys always raising your eybrows when ever God is being mentioned? Maybe ypou know better than God then whats good for people? He just meant it for marriage and thats it. The rest is fornication.
Well, that's easy. You introduce an authority which you presume to be infallible. So in essence you're saying (even while you're saying rather dumb and naive things), God thinks just like me, so what's the point of arguing with me?
And I believe there are pretty reliable data indicating marriage or long term relationships work best if there has been some sexual experimentation before making the big commitment. Some people have the appropriate genitals but are not terribly compatible. This doesn't mean sleeping around like there's no tomorrow - though I know plenty of cases where these people have eventually married well and happily too.
Life isn't all black or white.
Quote from: Mensch on February 09, 2011, 01:02:04 PM
Whether or not it is depends on the people involved and what they make of it. If you decorate your home like a prison and put bars in front of the window and lock yourself inside and throw away the key, it IS a prison. But that's your own damn fault. Nobody locked you in there, nor did the house have to be turned into a prison.
I'm not married and don't intend on marrying. Marriage doesn't mean anything anymore. If you love somebody, then you don't need a piece of paper saying that you do. The only way out of marriage is through lawyers and the legal system. Why put yourself through all the headache? Marriage is a pitfall. You'll understand my point-of-view soon enough.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 02:13:09 PM
Marriage doesn't mean anything anymore. [...] You'll understand my point-of-view soon enough.
BS.
I held that point of view when I was 19.
Marriage--if you mean it--makes a huge difference. Without that commitment, you don't stick through the difficult stuff and work it out...and then you miss the personal growth only that brings and the depth of relationship only that earns.
And even those with no common sense will find that research overwhelmingly supports the benefit of marriage for children.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 02:13:09 PM
I'm not married and don't intend on marrying.
And I would be very hesitant to fix you up with a woman. :D
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 02:13:09 PM
Marriage doesn't mean anything anymore.
Obviously, it means quite a lot, which is why those who are denied marriage are working so hard to try to gain it.
Just because you think it doesn't mean anything doesn't make it so.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 09, 2011, 03:09:42 PM
BS.
I held that point of view when I was 19.
Marriage--if you mean it--makes a huge difference. Without that commitment, you don't stick through the difficult stuff and work it out...and then you miss the personal growth only that brings and the depth of relationship only that earns.
And even those with no common sense will find that research overwhelmingly supports the benefit of marriage for children.
Marriage may work for some, but not many. Yours will fail. Just give it time.
Quote from: owlice on February 09, 2011, 03:53:47 PM
Obviously, it means quite a lot, which is why those who are denied marriage are working so hard to try to gain it.
Just because you think it doesn't mean anything doesn't make it so.
So naive, you continue to think that.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 09, 2011, 03:39:28 PM
And I would be very hesitant to fix you up with a woman. :D
Not every woman wants marriage. There are many of them who have failed at it and just want somebody who's honest. You don't have to be married to care deeply about somebody.
I, at one point, wanted to get married, but now, it just seems kind like a childish idea more than anything. Like I said, I don't need a piece of paper to make a commitment to someone. If she wants to be with me and I her, then only naturally will we move into together. So many people think they have to get married, when the reality is that love conquers all. You don't need to be married to love someone. If you think you do, then you're only fooling yourself.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 05:19:53 PM
Marriage may work for some, but not many. Yours will fail. Just give it time.
You've really gone over the top!!! Time for you to move on, maybe further revise your Debussy-Ravel poll. ;D
Quote from: Bulldog on February 09, 2011, 05:36:42 PM
You've really gone over the top!!! Time for you to move on, maybe further revise your Debussy-Ravel poll. ;D
Perhaps you are right, Bulldog. David told me my opinion was BS, which perhaps to him it was, but there were better adjectives to use I think. He led me to my comments by not accepting that not everybody shares his holier-than-thou attitude about marriage. If calling my personal beliefs BS makes him sleep better at night then he can knock himself out, I'll continue to think the same thing I always thought which marriage is a prison sentence. Love happens with or without marriage. All I'm saying is you don't have to be married to have a true, honest, and committed relationship with someone.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 05:30:20 PM
I, at one point, wanted to get married, but now, it just seems kind like a childish idea more than anything. Like I said, I don't need a piece of paper to make a commitment to someone. If she wants to be with me and I her, then only naturally will we move into together. So many people think they have to get married, when the reality is that love conquers all. You don't need to be married to love someone. If you think you do, then you're only fooling yourself.
there is a big difference between the view that "I'll find someone who I love, and that's great, and if we don't love each other any more we will be free to move on" and the view that "I will make it my business to create a happy life with this person, and if there are difficulties they will be surmounted, full stop." That is a marriage, paper or no paper.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 09, 2011, 03:09:42 PM
Marriage--if you mean it--makes a huge difference. Without that commitment, you don't stick through the difficult stuff and work it out...and then you miss the personal growth only that brings and the depth of relationship only that earns.
Well, if that were true, there wouldn't be a significant divorce rate. Many married people don't work it out, just like many unmarried people. Even though at some point "they meant it"
QuoteAnd even those with no common sense will find that research overwhelmingly supports the benefit of marriage for children.
and they like it.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 09, 2011, 06:00:02 PM
there is a big difference between the view that "I'll find someone who I love, and that's great, and if we don't love each other any more we will be free to move on" and the view that "I will make it my business to create a happy life with this person, and if there are difficulties they will be surmounted, full stop." That is a marriage, paper or no paper.
That's not the point I'm making, Scarps. The point I'm making is you don't need a piece of paper to be in a committed, loving, healthy relationship. Like I said, love triumphs over everything.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 09, 2011, 06:00:02 PM
there is a big difference between the view that "I'll find someone who I love, and that's great, and if we don't love each other any more we will be free to move on" and the view that "I will make it my business to create a happy life with this person, and if there are difficulties they will be surmounted, full stop." That is a marriage, paper or no paper.
However, very few people over age 35, with kids, look at their relationships in the former way, if only for economic reasons. I cannot help but notice that the pressures of one's economic situation (which, for most modern people, are pretty serious) have hardly entered the picture.
I'm single and I'm glad I am. Some people go through life thinking they have to be with somebody all the time even if they end being totally wrong for them. Not me. If the time comes that I meet a woman that I'm attracted to intellectually (physical attraction doesn't last too long and it's not really important in the long run IMHO), then I'll pursue a relationship, until then, it's not on my priority list.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 06:10:31 PM
I'm single and I'm glad I am. Some people go through life thinking they have to be with somebody all the time even if they end being totally wrong for them. Not me. If the time comes that I meet a woman that I'm attracted to intellectually (physical attraction doesn't last too long and it's not really important in the long run IMHO), then I'll pursue a relationship, until then, it's not on my priority list.
I think that physical attraction is always important. 8)
Quote from: Bulldog on February 09, 2011, 06:44:38 PM
I think that physical attraction is always important. 8)
:P
At first it is, but isn't the most important thing.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 06:47:20 PM
:P
At first it is, but isn't the most important thing.
I never said it was "most important". By the way, why do you keep harping on the notion that physical attraction eventually dissipates.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 09, 2011, 06:53:18 PM
I never said it was "most important". By the way, why do you keep harping on the notion that physical attraction eventually dissipates.
I never said it eventually dissipates. All I'm saying is that without an intellectual connection, you have nothing.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 06:54:47 PM
I never said it eventually dissipates. All I'm saying is that without an intellectual connection, you have nothing.
How would you define the intellectual connection? At this point, I have no idea what you're referring to.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 09, 2011, 06:58:19 PM
How would you define the intellectual connection? At this point, I have no idea what you're referring to.
A mental connection is what I'm talking about. She knows you from the inside and you know her from the inside. You both connect with similar ideas, thoughts, you both know what the other person has gone through in their life to get them to where they are today, etc.
If marriage is a prison then I'm throwing away the keys...
Mirror Image, marriage may not mean anything to you, but it does NOT hold that marriage does not mean anything. It means a great deal to many others, including those who cannot enter into it. There are people fighting for the right to marry; some of these people are raising children together, and want the protections that marriage brings to a family.
You may claim that a piece of paper is meaningless, but I have found that there are many pieces of paper which mean a great deal.
No one has said people cannot enter into a loving relationship without marriage -- gay couples in many places, for example, bear this out -- but please do not try to claim for others that marriage is meaningless. It clearly isn't, or they wouldn't marry.
If 50% of marriages end in divorce, it means that 50% of marriages don't.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 02:13:09 PM
If you love somebody, then you don't need a piece of paper saying that you do.
That's a strawman. Marriage is not about a piece of paper sanctioning love.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 06:05:25 PM
The point I'm making is you don't need a piece of paper to be in a committed, loving, healthy relationship. Like I said, love triumphs over everything.
That might be true but the argument can easily be turned upside-down: a committed, loving and healthy relationship has nothing to fear from a piece of paper, has it? If love triumphs over everything, then marriage is no obstacle for it. ;D
We need an angry loners thread ;)
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 06:05:25 PM
That's not the point I'm making, Scarps. The point I'm making is you don't need a piece of paper to be in a committed, loving, healthy relationship. Like I said, love triumphs over everything.
If I had to pick one simple answer, I'd say the highlighted notion above is the reason for the high divorce rate in the US. The notion that if you find your true love it will automatically work. In the long term it only works if there is effort and committement, and that is what marriage is, piece of paper or no piece of paper. If you are committed to such a relationship the official sanction (the piece of paper) is an advantage, since various legal rights and privileges come along with it which are of practical importance.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 10, 2011, 05:25:50 AM
If I had to pick one simple answer, I'd say the highlighted notion above is the reason for the high divorce rate in the US. The notion that if you find your true love it will automatically work. In the long term it only works if there is effort and committement, and that is what marriage is, piece of paper or no piece of paper. If you are committed to such a relationship the official sanction (the piece of paper) is an advantage, since various legal rights and privileges come along with it which are of practical importance.
QFT. Curiously enough, the
ueber-Romantic slogan quoted above comes from someone who, judging by his musical tastes, doesn't have much use for Romanticism. :P
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 09, 2011, 07:01:07 PM
A mental connection is what I'm talking about. She knows you from the inside and you know her from the inside. You both connect with similar ideas, thoughts, you both know what the other person has gone through in their life to get them to where they are today, etc.
That's actually not a very good recipe there, MI. If you are too similar, you may end up boring each other to death. A relationship is far more successful if you complement each other and can kindle each other's interests in new things that any one of you individually was not aware of. There was a recent research piece I can't find now that suggested that couples stay together for as long as the partner can keep meaningfully enriching the other person's life experience. If you're too similar I don't see how that would work for very long.
The US divorce rate doubled between 1950 and 1980 (television a factor? along with post-war women's lib?) but has declined steadily since (decreasing stigmatization of unmarried mothers?). http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2011, 07:56:50 AM
The US divorce rate doubled between 1950 and 1980 (television a factor? along with post-war women's lib?) but has declined steadily since (decreasing stigmatization of unmarried mothers?). http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
I don't have the scientific data to back it up, but my guess is rather the destigmatization of single women in their late 20s and onwards, as well as their emancipation in the sense of being able to sustain a career on their own. Women are now no longer dependent on men to provide for them financially and are no longer pressured into marriages by age 30. I know so many older women of my parents' and grandparents' generations who lived their lives in miserable marriages because they were getting "old" and were still single and so were pressured into marrying the next guy who came along. I bet that generation accounts for the significant surge in divorces between 1950 and 1980 as divorce got de-stigmatized. That pressure to marry by age 30 at the latest doesn't seem nearly as strong any more as it used to be.
One of the biggest reasons that people divorce today is money. I'd have to look it up, but I'd be willing to bet it's the #1 reason. Part (all?) of it comes down to values again: keeping budgets or not, spending or not, saving or not, how to track money or not, etc. Most people do not spend enough time on this before getting married. It is impacted by who earns more (control), roles of each, debt or assets each may bring to the table, cost of the wedding, etc. Lack of agreement and openness on this can kill a marriage very fast...
Quote from: ukrneal on February 10, 2011, 08:13:03 AM
One of the biggest reasons that people divorce today is money. I'd have to look it up, but I'd be willing to bet it's the #1 reason. Part (all?) of it comes down to values again: keeping budgets or not, spending or not, saving or not, how to track money or not, etc. Most people do not spend enough time on this before getting married. It is impacted by who earns more (control), roles of each, debt or assets each may bring to the table, cost of the wedding, etc. Lack of agreement and openness on this can kill a marriage very fast...
Actually, I recall seeing a survey recently that showed that the absolute No.1 reason for divorces is one party absolutely not being able to deal with the obnoxious, overbearing in-laws, and the other side refusing or unable to properly choose between spouse and parents. :D
Quote from: ukrneal on February 10, 2011, 08:13:03 AMOne of the biggest reasons that people divorce today is money. I'd have to look it up, but I'd be willing to bet it's the #1 reason. Part (all?) of it comes down to values again: keeping budgets or not, spending or not, saving or not, how to track money or not, etc. Most people do not spend enough time on this before getting married. It is impacted by who earns more (control), roles of each, debt or assets each may bring to the table, cost of the wedding, etc. Lack of agreement and openness on this can kill a marriage very fast...
Quote from: Mensch on February 10, 2011, 08:24:17 AM
Actually, I recall seeing a survey recently that showed that the absolute No.1 reason for divorces is one party absolutely not being able to deal with the obnoxious, overbearing in-laws, and the other side refusing or unable to properly choose between spouse and parents. :D
Actually. it boils down to a very simple and inescapable fact: relationships in general and marriages in particular do not operate in a social vacuum, romantic --- or rather teenage-ish --- sloganeering about love conquering all notwithstanding. Yes, marriage
is a social arrangement --- and all those who scorn it should ask themselves why is it that basically each and every civilized society under the sun felt the need to institute it, under one form or another. To discard the collective experience and wisdom of centuries of historical evolution in the name of "true love which doesn't need a piece of paper to be true" may be an attractive stance for an immature mind, but it betrays either complete misunderstanding, or plain ignorance, of what society is about in the first place.
Love? Very well and most commendable. But how about raising children? How about earning money for a living? How about "keeping budgets" and "spending"? How about coping with "obnoxious, overbearing in-laws"? How about integrating love in the society in which one lives? Or maybe "love which conquers all" doesn't bother to stoop to such materialistic preoccupations? Granted, these are much less pleasant things than gazing at each other in rapture, or reaching the heights of sexual ecstacy, or exchanging informed comments about Ravel's music --- yet they are hard, harsh and inescapable facts of life which must be faced and worked through by any
adult human being worth this name.
History is full of "true lovers" whose love was supposed to "triumph over everything" and instead ended in disaster not only for both of them but also for others as well --- in this respect, a free relationship is no less prone to danger and failure than a marriage. Actually, we discuss only data about marriage failure, but I wonder: are there any statistics about the fate of non-marriage relationships? Divorces are recorded because they are official; how about unrecorded "divorces", i.e. broken "free relationships"? I'd suspect they are much more frequent than divorces...
Quote from: Florestan on February 10, 2011, 12:58:56 PM
Actually. it boils down to a very simple and inescapable fact: relationships in general and marriages in particular do not operate in a social vacuum, romantic [...]
Love? Very well and most commendable. But how about raising children? How about earning money for a living? How about "keeping budgets" and "spending"? How about coping with "obnoxious, overbearing in-laws"? How about integrating love in the society in which one lives?
A relationship is always a work in progress that requires both partners to be active participants all of the time. The moment you become passive, you effectively give up on the relationship. The social context, whether or not you want to raise children, or whatever obstacles you may face, is immaterial. The main challenge is to be constantly working on the relationship, which means constantly continuing to discover yourself and your partner. Re: the obnoxious and overbearing in-laws, that too is an outside challenge that both must cope with. The one by working to find an accomodation with the in-laws, the other by emancipating him/herself from his/her parents and drawing clear borders that show the parents that they do not have controlling voting rights within this relationship. Because of the nature and level of emotional baggage from child-parent relationships, this is often very difficult to do. It may be one of the most difficult challenges for couples, hence the leading cause of divorce, ahead of financial troubles. You don't realize that when you marry, to some extent you marry the entire family that comes attached to your spouse even if he/she is very different from his/her parents.
Quote from: Mensch on February 10, 2011, 01:11:34 PM
A relationship is always a work in progress that requires both partners to be active participants all of the time. The moment you become passive, you effectively give up on the relationship.
Sounds like too much of a pain... :-\
Quote from: Greg on February 10, 2011, 05:46:39 PM
Sounds like too much of a pain... :-\
Everything that is worthwhile takes time and effort. Such is life.
Quote from: Greg on February 10, 2011, 05:46:39 PM
Sounds like too much of a pain... :-\
Yes, slouching in front of a television as your life passes you buy is a much better life strategy. ::)
Quote from: Scarpia on February 11, 2011, 08:39:18 AM
Yes, slouching in front of a television as your life passes you buy is a much better life strategy. ::)
Sure, that is the only other alternative. I completely implied that.
Quote from: Greg on February 11, 2011, 08:42:07 AM
Sure, that is the only other alternative. I completely implied that.
;D You just have given Scarpia his knock-out.
But is investment in a relation really the only way of having a meaningful life? Sounds rather as a waste to me. What about creation, what about listening to music, what about giving shape to your own life?
Henk
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 09:00:41 AM
;D You just have given Scarpia his knock-out.
But is investment in a relation really the only way of having a meaningful life? Sounds rather as a waste to me. What about creation, what about listening to music, what about giving shape to your own life?
Henk
Could be anything. I probably find the most satisfaction in learning, for example. A lot of people put the whole meaning of their existence into relationships, which is kind of sad.
Quote from: Greg on February 11, 2011, 08:42:07 AM
Sure, that is the only other alternative. I completely implied that.
Sorry if I was out of bounds,, but after your frequently repeated plan to attain happiness by chemically induced suppression of sexual desire, you seem to be taking apathy to the level of an art form. :P
Quote from: Greg on February 11, 2011, 09:05:45 AM
Could be anything. I probably find the most satisfaction in learning, for example. A lot of people put the whole meaning of their existence into relationships, which is kind of sad.
That is a bit bizarre. What is there to being human, except the relationships we have? I can see an objection to focusing entirely on
one relationship, but where can you find meaning
except in relationships? I certainly find learning satisfying, but what is the point of learning if you don't share it with other people?
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 09:00:41 AM
;D You just have given Scarpia his knock-out.
But is investment in a relation really the only way of having a meaningful life? Sounds rather as a waste to me. What about creation, what about listening to music, what about giving shape to your own life?
Henk
Humans are social animals. We're just coded that way. There is no way of escaping it. If you don't learn how to build meaningful long-lasting relationships (in a broad sense of the word), you run the risk of living out a pretty miserable old age. Virtual relationships on internet forums and facebook can't make up for the deficit. ;)
Quote from: Greg on February 11, 2011, 09:05:45 AM
Could be anything. I probably find the most satisfaction in learning, for example. A lot of people put the whole meaning of their existence into relationships, which is kind of sad.
Let me answer in a way of displaying some ideas of Arnold Cornelis:
Yes learning, and especially learning to steer ones own learning processes, learning from inside to outside, that's the only way of learning, following our internal clock, though eduction is organised otherwise today (from outside to inside, with the pressure of the external clock).
The internal clock is the clock of ourselves, where there is real time of learning and development. The social clock, the clock of our watch is time displaying only time as repetition, as a spatial dimension and of change coming from outside.
And learning then eventually becomes creative as communication, when our place in the social system isn't longer satisfying and suitable for learning. But as the world changes rapidly (the social clock speeds up), one has to retard ones internal clock instead, to keep on learning and to stay creative.
Henk
I'm having difficulty understanding the Arnold Cornelis stuff. However learning and eduction are intensely social activities, which is why Universities do such a great job facilitating the growth of knowledge. Perhaps the act of sitting in a large lecture hall is not the ideal learning experience, but the personal interaction of people interesting in a common subject with peers and mentors is critical.
Quote from: Mensch on February 11, 2011, 09:28:58 AM
Humans are social animals. We're just coded that way. There is no way of escaping it. If you don't learn how to build meaningful long-lasting relationships (in a broad sense of the word), you run the risk of living out a pretty miserable old age. Virtual relationships on internet forums and facebook can't make up for the deficit. ;)
I have nice friends in real life, that's worth much for me. You don't need really a serious love-relationship of living in the same house I think when you have friends. I agree, speaking for myself, that a life without any relationships, an entirely lonesome life will be hard. I'm not far away from such a life, since I don't have contact with my friends on a regularly basis, but you don't have always choice in these things, that's what's tragic about it. A love relationship isn't really possible for me, I'm just to individualistic, I can't let a woman feel that I'm a potential partner for her (though I know the feeling, but can make it into practice), so I have chosen a life as a bachelor. That has token much time to realize, because it's not really normal in our culture, at least from my perception. But my mind is still about a girl I like very much, I have given up the idea of a relation with her (living in the same house), but a relation as a sort of twins, I really like that idea, really fancy and attractive (I got that idea from The Gay Science, Nietzsche, "Songs of Prince Free as a Bird").
H
Quote from: Lethe on February 09, 2011, 09:18:44 PM
If marriage is a prison then I'm throwing away the keys...
;D 8) Lovely. Elizabeth Barrett Browning couldn't have said it better. :-*
Quote from: Lethe on February 10, 2011, 04:58:33 AM
We need an angry loners thread ;)
I thought we already had several...wherever certain members congregate. ;)
Quote from: Mensch on February 11, 2011, 09:28:58 AM
Humans are social animals. We're just coded that way. There is no way of escaping it. If you don't learn how to build meaningful long-lasting relationships (in a broad sense of the word), you run the risk of living out a pretty miserable old age. Virtual relationships on internet forums and facebook can't make up for the deficit. ;)
Most of us. Let's not forget the significant percentage with serious personality disorders--schizoids, for instance--and other organic anomalies that make them exceptions to the rule.
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 09:38:31 AM
Let me answer in a way of displaying some ideas of Arnold Cornelis:
There are a number of folks on this site far more insightful than the authorities you quote, if you but took advantage of the opportunity to consider what they offer you.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 11, 2011, 09:44:02 AM
I'm having difficulty understanding the Arnold Cornelis stuff.
Please let me know what you find difficult and ask questions. I hope I can answer and explain.
Henk
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 11, 2011, 10:00:05 AM
There are a number of folks on this site far more insightful than the authorities you quote, if you but took advantage of the opportunity to consider what they offer you.
What's the matter with the insights of Arnold Cornelis? Why calling him an authority and disqualify him in this way? Why should his insights be in conflict with the insights of others?
I notice that people have resistance with my way of seeking support in Cornelis' philosophy. Why is this? Cornelis' philosophy is a completely friendly philosophy, not in any way changing or influencing the reader, he only clarifies our world view. I just regard it as support for me and support for our society and for human beings to become selfsteering and steer our own learning processes and that of society. And we can use that support as problems are huge.
Henk
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 11, 2011, 10:00:05 AM
Most of us. Let's not forget the significant percentage with serious personality disorders--schizoids, for instance--and other organic anomalies that make them exceptions to the rule.
In the vast majority of cases, those personality disorders are the result of nurture, i.e. abuse of some form in early childhood. All of us are still basically programmed to be social animals.
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 09:52:25 AM
but you don't have always choice in these things, that's what's tragic about it.
Unless you're living solitary on a remote island without access to a conveyance to take you from said island, you do have the choice of going out and meeting people.
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 09:52:25 AM
A love relationship isn't really possible for me, I'm just to individualistic, I can't let a woman feel that I'm a potential partner for her (though I know the feeling, but can make it into practice), so I have chosen a life as a bachelor.
Here you speak of choice ("I've chosen") when it doesn't really sound that way ("isn't really possible"). I won't speculate about the background, but a given situation you find yourself in does not have to be static. Going beyond it does, however, require some self-examination. You have to be willing to give up a bit of yourself and make yourself vulnerable, in order to have a really intimate relationship, whether sexual or not (not that in my previous discussion I did not say that the relationship needs to be sexual - we are social animals first, sexual second, at best). Bad life experience sometimes causes us to want to shield ourselves from those dangers, but there isn't a way of attaining that sort of mutual bliss without making oneself vulnerable. No risk without reward. Or as someone I forgot once said: "You always have to love like you've never been hurt before."
Quote from: Mensch on February 11, 2011, 10:41:46 AM
In the vast majority of cases, those personality disorders are the result of nurture, i.e. abuse of some form in early childhood. All of us are still basically programmed to be social animals.
Unless you're living solitary on a remote island without access to a conveyance to take you from said island, you do have the choice of going out and meeting people.
Here you speak of choice ("I've chosen") when it doesn't really sound that way ("isn't really possible"). I won't speculate about the background, but a given situation you find yourself in does not have to be static. Going beyond it does, however, require some self-examination. You have to be willing to give up a bit of yourself and make yourself vulnerable, in order to have a really intimate relationship, whether sexual or not (not that in my previous discussion I did not say that the relationship needs to be sexual - we are social animals first, sexual second, at best). Bad life experience sometimes causes us to want to shield ourselves from those dangers, but there isn't a way of attaining that sort of mutual bliss without making oneself vulnerable. No risk without reward. Or as someone I forgot once said: "You always have to love like you've never been hurt before."
Nice quote. Well the choice is between the individualistic life style or a life with a long-term relationship. It's impossible to have both. Because the result in my situation is loneliness I call it tragic.
I feel however sad just because I don't have sexual contacts with women. I feel sad all the time I see good looking women passing by on the street, not being able to really connect with them. :'( If I have nice contact with women it mostly is by incidence. But I don't succeed to profit from it (because for example it's in street situations). Of course I try to learn, I think about strategies, but there's a shortage of occasions to try them. If I have contact with a girl, I already feel sadness when I don't know how to act in a way to express my affection, so she possibly notices sadness rather. So I could learn from your quote. There's however a real progress in the way I think about women and how I relate to them. That's what motives me now concerning this matter.
Henk
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 10:55:28 AM
Nice quote. Well the choice is between the individualistic life style or a life with a long-term relationship. It's impossible to have both. Because the result in my situation is loneliness I call it tragic.
That's a false dilemma. True individualism is impossible and in any case not really desirable, because it invariably conflicts with your human social instincts.
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 10:55:28 AM
I feel however sad just because I don't have sexual contacts with women. I feel sad all the time I see good looking women passing by on the street, not being able to really connect with them. :'( If I have nice contact with women it mostly is by incidence. But I don't succeed to profit from it (because for example it's in street situations). Of course I try to learn, I think about strategies, but there's a shortage of occasions to try them. There's however a real progress in the way I think about women and how I relate to them. That's what motives me now concerning this matter.
I'm sorry to hear that. Dating, and even meeting people, can be a minefield. I can't say that I'm an expert in that, since my limited adventures in that field eventually led to a committed relationship and marriage, obviating the need for further exploration. But I do believe you shouldn't give up and should try perhaps other methods. Meeting the opposite sex through mutual friends seems to work best, since the friendship of your peers provides both a welcoming meeting forum and a form of quality control, i.e. you already know that the person isn't a complete freak, since she gets along with your friends.
Quote from: Mensch on February 11, 2011, 10:41:46 AM
In the vast majority of cases, those personality disorders are the result of nurture, i.e. abuse of some form in early childhood. All of us are still basically programmed to be social animals.
Regardless of cause, it's worth noting that a significant minority (nearly 10%, IIRC) are either asocial or antisocial, thus lack the capacity to understand the significance of social interactions to the other 90% of us. And it's possible--even likely--that some persons suffering such impairment frequent this site.
Quote from: Mensch on February 11, 2011, 11:13:49 AM
That's a false dilemma. True individualism is impossible and in any case not really desirable, because it invariably conflicts with your human social instincts.
I'm sorry to hear that. Dating, and even meeting people, can be a minefield. I can't say that I'm an expert in that, since my limited adventures in that field eventually led to a committed relationship and marriage, obviating the need for further exploration. But I do believe you shouldn't give up and should try perhaps other methods. Meeting the opposite sex through mutual friends seems to work best, since the friendship of your peers provides both a welcoming meeting forum and a form of quality control, i.e. you already know that the person isn't a complete freak, since she gets along with your friends.
Added this to my previous post:
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 10:55:28 AM
If I have contact with a girl, I already feel sadness when I don't know how to act in a way to express my affection, so she possibly notices sadness rather. So I could learn from your quote.
I'm just been hurt too much in this field, but must act I'm not, well that's hard, maybe impossible. I just have focused too much on one girl and wasted all my love on her.
My sexual development has just been quite abnormal, as my whole development has been abnormal. I developed to quick sexually and when I should have developed a dramatic regression in my sexual development took place, in that time I also fell in love with that girl, who just played with me. In the same time I began to get interested in other areas in an abnormal way.
I don't know how others develop sexually, but I think that I developed quite abnormal. But I don't regret it, because as a consequence mabye I think my development for myself has been quite fruitful. For myself I have a, though difficult (with sickness and boredom), exciting, adventurous, interesting life.
There's a little thing that also is important, which I keep secret. :)
Henk
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 11, 2011, 11:28:32 AM
Regardless of cause, it's worth noting that a significant minority (nearly 10%, IIRC) are either asocial or antisocial, thus lack the capacity to understand the significance of social interactions to the other 90% of us. And it's possible--even likely--that some persons suffering such impairment frequent this site.
That number seems absurdly high, unless you're using a very loose definition of "asocial" and "antisocial". Source?
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 11:32:52 AM
Added this to my previous post:
I'm just been hurt too much in this field, but must act I'm not, well that's hard, maybe impossible. I just have focused too much on one girl and wasted all my love on her.
My sexual development has just been quite abnormal, as my whole development has been abnormal. I developed to quick sexually and when I should have developed a dramatic regression in my sexual development took place, in that time I also fell in love with that girl, who just played with me. In the same time I began to get interested in other areas in an abnormal way.
I don't know how others develop sexually, but I think that I developed quite abnormal. But I don't regret it, because as a consequence mabye I think my development for myself has been quite fruitful. For myself I have a, though difficult, exciting, adventurous, interesting life.
Henk,
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but frankly I think you should see a psychologist. Please don't see that as a stigma. I have many good friends who have gone through therapy and it has helped them immensely in gaining control of their life. You seem to be crying out for a kind of help that no one here on this forum is capable or qualified to provide, especially without actually meeting you in person. You live in the Netherlands, right? Last I checked, your country actually provides quite generous benefits that should enable you to see a therapist at little or no cost to yourself. We are all sometimes too involved with ourselves to be able to see ourselves on our own, and it takes an experienced outsider to get us to realize why we do the things we do, and how we can move beyond the stalemate we seem to find ourselves in.
Quote from: Mensch on February 11, 2011, 12:04:04 PM
That number seems absurdly high, unless you're using a very loose definition of "asocial" and "antisocial". Source?
Henk,
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but frankly I think you should see a psychologist. Please don't see that as a stigma. I have many good friends who have gone through therapy and it has helped them immensely in gaining control of their life. You seem to be crying out for a kind of help that no one here on this forum is capable or qualified to provide, especially without actually meeting you in person. You live in the Netherlands, right? Last I checked, your country actually provides quite generous benefits that should enable you to see a therapist at little or no cost to yourself. We are all sometimes too involved with ourselves to be able to see ourselves on our own, and it takes an experienced outsider to get us to realize why we do the things we do, and how we can move beyond the stalemate we seem to find ourselves in.
Well, I just wanted to motivate my position regarding long-term relationships a bit, as a consequence of my personal history. Thanks for your recommendation. Talking a bit to myself here also. I haven't told the whole story however:
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 11:32:52 AM
There's a little thing that also is important, which I keep secret. :)
Maybe I just don't want a serious relationship, because it will not be satisfying. I want something else, something more satisfying to me.
Henk
Quote from: Mensch on February 11, 2011, 12:04:04 PM
That number seems absurdly high, unless you're using a very loose definition of "asocial" and "antisocial". Source?
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm
I recall seeing a British survey a few years ago that reported similar figures.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 11, 2011, 09:09:31 AM
Sorry if I was out of bounds,, but after your frequently repeated plan to attain happiness by chemically induced suppression of sexual desire, you seem to be taking apathy to the level of an art form. :P
Hehehe... I'm mischievous, aren't I? ;)
Quote from: Scarpia on February 11, 2011, 09:11:07 AM
That is a bit bizarre. What is there to being human, except the relationships we have? I can see an objection to focusing entirely on one relationship, but where can you find meaning except in relationships? I certainly find learning satisfying, but what is the point of learning if you don't share it with other people?
I meant "love" relationships.
Well, sharing what you learn is great, of course, but the main thing I get from learning is the feeling of going new places mentally and increasing the amount I know about something. Whether I get to share it with someone is just like an additional bonus, if I can. Actually, I find studying kind of a necessity- or at least a form of rapid acquisition of information. It stimulates the mind, which is what I need when going from day to day to day nothing else does- and that just leads down to a very bad path.
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 12:14:16 PM
Maybe I just don't want a serious relationship, because it will not be satisfying. I want something else, something more satisfying to me.
I wonder... have you had many close friends that are women? Just knowing girls that would be fun to hang out with, even if they were ugly or not girls is a rare thing. They're just different.
What are looking for that is "more satisfying?"
Quote from: Greg on February 11, 2011, 06:36:32 PM
I wonder... have you had many close friends that are women? Just knowing girls that would be fun to hang out with, even if they were ugly or not girls is a rare thing. They're just different.
What are looking for that is "more satisfying?"
Bold girls, good looking girls, I praise them, when do they finally understand and surround me?
Things will get better for me, I hope, when the following will happen (Mistral Wind is that girl, the song is by Prince Vogelfrei in whom I recognize my self):
A DANCING SONG (November, 22 1884)
Mistral wind, you rain cloud leaper,
sadness killer, heaven sweeper,
how I love you when you roar!
Were we two not generated
in one womb, predestinated
for one lot for evermore?
Here on slippery rocky traces
I dance into your embraces,
dancing as you sing and whistle:
you that, shipless, do not halt,
freedom's freest brother, vault
over raging seas, a missile.
Barely waked, I heard you calling,
stormed to where the rocks are sprawling,
to the gold wall by the sea—
when you came like swiftly dashing
river rapids, diamond-splashing,
from the peaks triumphantly.
Through the heavens' threshing basin
I could see your horses hasten,
saw the carriage you commanded,
saw your hand yourself attack
when upon the horses' back
lightning-like your scourge descended.
From your carriage of disaster
leaping to bear down yet faster,
I saw you in arrow form
vertically downward plunging,
like a golden sunbeam lunging
through the roses of the dawn.
Dance on myriad backs a season,
billows' backs and billows' treason—
we need dances that are new!
Let us dance in myriad manners,
freedom write on our art's banners,
our science shall be gay!
Let us break from every flower
one fine blossom for our power
and two leaves to wind a wreath!
Let us dance like troubadours
between holy men and whores,
between god and world beneath!
Who thinks tempests dance too quickly,
all the bandaged and the sickly,
crippled, old, and overnice,
if you fear the wind might hurt you,
honor-fools and geese of virtue—
out of our paradise!
Let us whirl the dusty hazes
right into the sick men's noses,
flush the sick brood everywhere!
Let us free the coast together
from the wilted bosoms' blether,
from the eyes that never dare!
Let us chase the shadow lovers,
world defamers, rain-cloud shovers—
let us brighten up the sky!
All free spirits' spirit, let you
and me thunder; since I met you,
like a tempest roars my joy.
And forever to attest
such great joy, take its bequest,
take this wreath with you up there!
Toss it higher, further, gladder,
storm up on the heavens' ladder,
hang it up—upon a star.
(Nietzsche, The Gay Science)
Quote from: Henk on February 11, 2011, 10:55:28 AM
Of course I try to learn, I think about strategies, but there's a shortage of occasions to try them. If I have contact with a girl, I already feel sadness when I don't know how to act in a way to express my affection, so she possibly notices sadness rather. So I could learn from your quote. There's however a real progress in the way I think about women and how I relate to them. That's what motives me now concerning this matter.
There's another aspect. The sadness I feel from being unable to connect with girls in the way I want, is overruled by my pride. Girls don't notice the sadness, but don't feel a connection with me. I'm not really able yet to use this pride in the way I get around with girls, the sadness is underneath. So when this sadness finally will vanish, things might get better.
Henk
Quote from: Scarpia on February 09, 2011, 12:48:23 PM
You had a relationship that ended badly, you adopted a philosophy which said your prior relationship was evil and has (according to your account as I read it) resulted in having no relationships. It is not clear to me that your new philosophy is a practical improvement. It sounds like a self-defense mechanism.
Self-defence mechanism? How did you come to that, I wonder? I'm not anti-marriage, or anti-sex. I simply believe that Word of God like so many others
Quote from: abidoful on February 12, 2011, 04:00:14 AM
Self-defence mechanism? How did you come to that, I wonder? I'm not anti-marriage, or anti-sex. I simply believe that Word of God like so many others
It is self-defense because you have decided you are forbidden to do what you are afraid to do.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 12, 2011, 05:12:55 AM
It is self-defense because you have decided you are forbidden to do what you are afraid to do.
Decided what?
Quote from: abidoful on February 12, 2011, 07:24:23 AM
Decided what?
It is self-defense because you have decided to adopt a religious philosophy that tells you that you are forbidden to do what you are actually afraid to do, move forward and try again.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 12, 2011, 07:57:52 AM
It is self-defense because you have decided to adopt a religious philosophy that tells you that you are forbidden to do what you are actually afraid to do, move forward and try again.
Perhaps you're being too nice. Talk slower.
YOU (abidoful)
DECIDED
TO
ACCEPT
A
RELIGIOUS
IDEOLOGY
BASED
OFF
SEEMINGLY
ONE
FAILURE!
Quote from: Scarpia on February 12, 2011, 07:57:52 AM
It is self-defense because you have decided to adopt a religious philosophy that tells you that you are forbidden to do what you are actually afraid to do, move forward and try again.
Thanks.
I had a brief crush last fall and started dating this girl which ended almost as soon as it begun.
My recovery was slow from my first relationship and I guess you can't just order yourself to get over something---that's of course not the same as to dwell on in the past.
But I'm getting there :=)
Quote from: Henk on February 12, 2011, 12:56:51 AM
Bold girls, good looking girls, I praise them, when do they finally understand and surround me?
Things will get better for me, I hope, when the following will happen (Mistral Wind is that girl, the song is by Prince Vogelfrei in whom I recognize my self):
A DANCING SONG (November, 22 1884)
Mistral wind, you rain cloud leaper,
sadness killer, heaven sweeper,
how I love you when you roar!
Were we two not generated
in one womb, predestinated
for one lot for evermore?
Here on slippery rocky traces
I dance into your embraces,
dancing as you sing and whistle:
you that, shipless, do not halt,
freedom's freest brother, vault
over raging seas, a missile.
Barely waked, I heard you calling,
stormed to where the rocks are sprawling,
to the gold wall by the sea—
when you came like swiftly dashing
river rapids, diamond-splashing,
from the peaks triumphantly.
Through the heavens' threshing basin
I could see your horses hasten,
saw the carriage you commanded,
saw your hand yourself attack
when upon the horses' back
lightning-like your scourge descended.
From your carriage of disaster
leaping to bear down yet faster,
I saw you in arrow form
vertically downward plunging,
like a golden sunbeam lunging
through the roses of the dawn.
Dance on myriad backs a season,
billows' backs and billows' treason—
we need dances that are new!
Let us dance in myriad manners,
freedom write on our art's banners,
our science shall be gay!
Let us break from every flower
one fine blossom for our power
and two leaves to wind a wreath!
Let us dance like troubadours
between holy men and whores,
between god and world beneath!
Who thinks tempests dance too quickly,
all the bandaged and the sickly,
crippled, old, and overnice,
if you fear the wind might hurt you,
honor-fools and geese of virtue—
out of our paradise!
Let us whirl the dusty hazes
right into the sick men's noses,
flush the sick brood everywhere!
Let us free the coast together
from the wilted bosoms' blether,
from the eyes that never dare!
Let us chase the shadow lovers,
world defamers, rain-cloud shovers—
let us brighten up the sky!
All free spirits' spirit, let you
and me thunder; since I met you,
like a tempest roars my joy.
And forever to attest
such great joy, take its bequest,
take this wreath with you up there!
Toss it higher, further, gladder,
storm up on the heavens' ladder,
hang it up—upon a star.
(Nietzsche, The Gay Science)
You'll never be successful with women if you stay attached to the Nietzsche Dating Service.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 12, 2011, 09:59:44 AM
You'll never be successful with women if you stay attached to the Nietzsche Dating Service.
I seem to remember of Nietzsche that he had sex once in his life and died from syphilis. :P
What is the cause of the high divorce rate? I could not possibly have an opinion.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 11, 2011, 02:56:10 PM
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm
I recall seeing a British survey a few years ago that reported similar figures.
Having a personality disorder does not equal being positively antisocial or asocial.
Quote from: Henk on February 12, 2011, 12:56:51 AM
the song is by Prince Vogelfrei in whom I recognize my self):
Vogelfreiheit is a medieval punishment, whereby you're free as a bird, i.e. free of human rights as well. Anyone can do anything to you, like they could to a wild animal. Not exactly something to aspire to.
Quote from: Mensch on February 12, 2011, 12:12:39 PM
Having a personality disorder does not equal being positively antisocial or asocial.
No one said it did. However, certain personality disorders--schizoid and antisocial--absolutely do, and all personality disorders interfere significantly with normal social interactions. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001935
Note that there are other mental illnesses equally or more debilitating than diagnosable personality disorders, but happily they are hardly so common.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 12, 2011, 04:51:19 PM
No one said it did. However, certain personality disorders--schizoid and antisocial--absolutely do, and all personality disorders interfere significantly with normal social interactions.
I realize that and don't disagree. But you're moving the goalposts. That wasn't the original point.
Quote from: Mensch on February 14, 2011, 06:49:56 AM
I realize that and don't disagree. But you're moving the goalposts. That wasn't the original point.
Huh? I didn't move them at all. Here's my original point:
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 11, 2011, 10:00:05 AM
Let's not forget the significant percentage with serious personality disorders--schizoids, for instance--and other organic anomalies that make them exceptions to the rule.
You thought this was trivial. I responded:
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 11, 2011, 11:28:32 AM
Regardless of cause, it's worth noting that a significant minority (nearly 10%, IIRC) are either asocial or antisocial, thus lack the capacity to understand the significance of social interactions to the other 90% of us. And it's possible--even likely--that some persons suffering such impairment frequent this site.
You called the figure absurdly high. I cited a government study indicating that nearly 7 percent of adult Americans have one of two personality disorders very specifically defined as asocial (schizoid) or antisocial (antisocial) , that nearly 15% have one of seven personality disorders ALL of which significantly impair social functioning, and that still does not include the other three personality disorders (also defined by such impairment) or any of the other equally or more debilitating mental illnesses relevant to the issue.
My point has been consistent throughout: That a significant percentage of people do not fall within the normal range of human social functioning and that failing to recognize this will necessarily lead to misunderstanding and confusion. We can no more expect everyone to share the capacity for normal social interaction than we can expect everyone to speak Farsi or run a 10 second 100 meter dash.
Quote from: Sherman Peabody on February 14, 2011, 07:28:52 AM
My point has been consistent throughout: That a significant percentage of people do not fall within the normal range of human social functioning and that failing to recognize this will necessarily lead to misunderstanding and confusion. We can no more expect everyone to share the capacity for normal social interaction than we can expect everyone to speak Farsi or run a 10 second 100 meter dash.
given that autistic spectrum disorders, which are not psychiatric disorders, comprise a good portion of this group the point is well made
not to mention the question of whether psychiatric personality disorders actually exist or not
Quote from: Sherman Peabody on February 14, 2011, 07:28:52 AM
I cited a government study indicating that nearly 7 percent of adult Americans have one of two personality disorders very specifically defined as asocial (schizoid) or antisocial (antisocial) , that nearly 15% have one of seven personality disorders ALL of which significantly impair social functioning, and that still does not include the other three personality disorders (also defined by such impairment) or any of the other equally or more debilitating mental illnesses relevant to the issue.
My point has been consistent throughout: That a significant percentage of people do not fall within the normal range of human social functioning and that failing to recognize this will necessarily lead to misunderstanding and confusion. We can no more expect everyone to share the capacity for normal social interaction than we can expect everyone to speak Farsi or run a 10 second 100 meter dash.
And just to prove your point you changed your name. That is so normal. Many people have been concerned with the ballooning growth of mental disorders in the big book, and the ever shrinking slice of society which can be considered 'normal' - until these normal folks are discovered solliciting casual sex in the airport toilet stalls. Arguably 75% of the 19th century population in a country like the UK could be considered abnormal according to today's standards, just because there was less governmental scrutiny into one's behavior and the diversity of people's behaviors was infinitely larger: regional styles, family and clan traditions and just plain individual habits unhampered by national and later global television and other sorts of 'entertainment'. Only during the Cold War this pressure to be 'normal' started in earnest, it's perhaps part of the legacy of Adolf H. whose politics reached deep into the family homes.
As to the wedded life. Perhaps a life of monogamy from age 25 to 80 is 'normal', in the sense that humans are biologically and mentally wired for this, but there is very little evidence for this idea. I congratulate anyone who can do this, and I feel bad for all the divorces in my vicinity. But I'm not going to throw the 'normal' at anyone. It's just not realistic.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on February 16, 2011, 10:30:42 AM
given that autistic spectrum disorders, which are not psychiatric disorders, comprise a good portion of this group the point is well made
not to mention the question of whether psychiatric personality disorders actually exist or not
Mr. Peabody and I somehow ended up continuing this discussion in the Wagner thread, so for coherence's sake, here is my response:
Quote from: Mensch on February 17, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
Oh, I didn't question their existence. I just questioned whether a) truly everything that is classified as a personality disorder these days is indeed a personality disorder or rather an excuse for the pharma industry to market psychopharmaceuticals; and b) whether that proportion, even if it is as high as you say, is the cause of the divorce rate we were discussing in [this] thread. It seems rather that people with severe personality disorders rarely find themselves in the position to have someone to divorce. ;)
So much about marriage allegedly leading to unhappiness:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/06/06happy-grfk-2/06happy-grfk-2-popup.jpg)