So much fallacy around marriage, divorce and "morals"

[Dreama_70]

"Marriage” is another name for RELATIONSHIP – it is NOT it’s own separate entity. There is a legal commitment in the eyes of the gov, mostly defined as an agreement to enter into an adult relationship with the expectation of sex, children/family (possible), and shared resources (home, finance, etc). The only difference between a marriage and a relationship with all of those things, but without formal legal standing is – the legal standing in the eyes of the gov and possibly a commitment to your diety. If someone tells you that the RELATIONSHIP is over, that basically means the marriage is over.

 

There are many types of relationships between humans, friendship, sexual love (unmarried), family relations, community relations (church, neighborhoods, organizations), co-worker relationships, business partnerships, room mates, etc. People change and grow out of any of these all of the time, a marriage is no different.

 

People do not change because others want them to, they change because of experiences that mean something to them personally, and it occurs in a THOUGHT PROCESS FIRST, that is then shown in behavior change – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. In other words, without a change in your thinking process, you may change your behaviors under duress, crisis or force for short periods, but once the perceived crisis or catylist has subsided people will slip into their old behaviors if there hasn’t been a change in their thinking about the behaviors. People fundamentally are who they are, so please stop saying “I’m working to change for him or her or our marriage”.

 

Check yourself if the “change” you want in a marriage is for your spouse to change the way they are thinking, feeling or acting. A lot of the pleading that goes on when the divorce conversation comes up is for one spouse to want the other to “change” to save the marriage and how the change YOU want is what’s really best. The partner requesting the divorce has already commited to changing THEIR behaviors for the sake of their hapiness, it’s why they asked for a divorce.

 

There is rarely a case where people in a marriage don’t know what behaviors their spouses would like them to change, it’s the behaviors that you often argue about (money habits, sex, chores, etc). If you didn’t feel the need to change those behaviors for 5, 10, 15, or more years of marriage, when your spouse asked you to BEFORE they brought up divorce, I see no reason why the spouse who wants to leave should be “badgered” to give it another chance for change and also be labeled as “selfish” for not wanting to do so -> they’ve given you that chance for years.

 

If one spouse wants to leave a relationship and one doesn’t, and is totally “caught of guard”, There is a good chance it’s because the spouse who doesn’t is the one who gets what they need from the relationship, with the other spouse doing most of the compromising.

 

If someone tells you they “love you” but aren’t “in love with you” – it means they don’t want to have sex anymore and/or be vested in a partnership with shared goals, if they feel the “marriage compromise” is not providing them with any achievment of their individual dreams and goals. They may still care about you and your wellbeing, but as a friend and human being, not as a lover and partner.

 

If your spouse tells you they don’t love you anymore, want out of a marriage, are not happy being married to you, or they need time apart, but they say they’ll “consider” reconcilliation, they are doing so only because you’re probably emotionally badgering or bullying them with “commitment, kids, history, blah blah blah” and they want to pacify you until they can free themesleves without all of the drama. It’s amazing that people can say in the same sentence “My spouse says they want out, they’re not in love anymore but they will try to work on the marriage” and the only thing people take away from that and try to hold them too, is the LAST PART.

 

Our morals are made up rules that we create to act as a society, if 50% or better of a society is engaging in, or pardoning, some form of behavior it is hardly considered “immoral” even if we keep paying that morality line lip service (i.e. life-long one partner commitment, marriage, child labor, slavery, female inferiority, tatoos, infidelity, etc).

[Severely Unamused]

I thought that the first half of this was solid enough. It brings up some fair points.

 

In the second half, you let your own personal biases get in the way of a balanced argument, and started making far too many specific presumptions and leaps in logic. In other words, you were far too one-sided in your presentation to really hammer in any solid points.

 

Also, your closing argument has nothing to do with your previously presented propositions. Poor form.

 

You seem to be a philosophical sort. Thus, as a fellow philosophical connoisseur, I will have to give your miniature essay a 6.5/10. A good effort.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Severely Unamused
Missed a comma.

[Dreama_70]

Ahhh, should have used more qualifiers such as "it may mean..." lol, but they all pertain to my title, and that is the moral assumptions and judegments that people make about what marriage means and about the "morality" of the behaviors of someone in a marriage gone wrong. Such as posters automatic assumption/judgement that if one person wants to work on the marriage gone bad, and the other one doesn't want to work on saving the marriage - the one who no longer wants to work on it is "selfish". Or even that "working" on changing ones feelings about a dead/dying marriage or relationship is the DE FACTO response that any moral person would have.

[Cabin]

AMEN!

 

It's incredible how much we revere marriage, even though currently 50% of marriages "fail"... or should I say "divorce", because there must be many more that hang on but are still failures.

[dream2nite]

You know, in reality, you are so right. I think morals and the way we live and think about ourselves are so much about what others think or say... at least I know I've done that and do. If we just listened to our hearts and take risks without all the baggage we carry from guilt that we have been taught since children. Maybe there would be alot more happier people with happier marriages around if we could feel more accepted by our choices instead of what's (right) in the eyes of others (Gov., parents, co-workers, family etc.) It can be very challenging sometimes to be truly who you are.

 

"Marriage” is another name for RELATIONSHIP – it is NOT it’s own separate entity. There is a legal commitment in the eyes of the gov, mostly defined as an agreement to enter into an adult relationship with the expectation of sex, children/family (possible), and shared resources (home, finance, etc). The only difference between a marriage and a relationship with all of those things, but without formal legal standing is – the legal standing in the eyes of the gov and possibly a commitment to your diety. If someone tells you that the RELATIONSHIP is over, that basically means the marriage is over.

 

There are many types of relationships between humans, friendship, sexual love (unmarried), family relations, community relations (church, neighborhoods, organizations), co-worker relationships, business partnerships, room mates, etc. People change and grow out of any of these all of the time, a marriage is no different.

 

People do not change because others want them to, they change because of experiences that mean something to them personally, and it occurs in a THOUGHT PROCESS FIRST, that is then shown in behavior change – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. In other words, without a change in your thinking process, you may change your behaviors under duress, crisis or force for short periods, but once the perceived crisis or catylist has subsided people will slip into their old behaviors if there hasn’t been a change in their thinking about the behaviors. People fundamentally are who they are, so please stop saying “I’m working to change for him or her or our marriage”.

 

Check yourself if the “change” you want in a marriage is for your spouse to change the way they are thinking, feeling or acting. A lot of the pleading that goes on when the divorce conversation comes up is for one spouse to want the other to “change” to save the marriage and how the change YOU want is what’s really best. The partner requesting the divorce has already commited to changing THEIR behaviors for the sake of their hapiness, it’s why they asked for a divorce.

 

There is rarely a case where people in a marriage don’t know what behaviors their spouses would like them to change, it’s the behaviors that you often argue about (money habits, sex, chores, etc). If you didn’t feel the need to change those behaviors for 5, 10, 15, or more years of marriage, when your spouse asked you to BEFORE they brought up divorce, I see no reason why the spouse who wants to leave should be “badgered” to give it another chance for change and also be labeled as “selfish” for not wanting to do so -> they’ve given you that chance for years.

 

If one spouse wants to leave a relationship and one doesn’t, and is totally “caught of guard”, There is a good chance it’s because the spouse who doesn’t is the one who gets what they need from the relationship, with the other spouse doing most of the compromising.

 

If someone tells you they “love you” but aren’t “in love with you” – it means they don’t want to have sex anymore and/or be vested in a partnership with shared goals, if they feel the “marriage compromise” is not providing them with any achievment of their individual dreams and goals. They may still care about you and your wellbeing, but as a friend and human being, not as a lover and partner.

 

If your spouse tells you they don’t love you anymore, want out of a marriage, are not happy being married to you, or they need time apart, but they say they’ll “consider” reconcilliation, they are doing so only because you’re probably emotionally badgering or bullying them with “commitment, kids, history, blah blah blah” and they want to pacify you until they can free themesleves without all of the drama. It’s amazing that people can say in the same sentence “My spouse says they want out, they’re not in love anymore but they will try to work on the marriage” and the only thing people take away from that and try to hold them too, is the LAST PART.

 

Our morals are made up rules that we create to act as a society, if 50% or better of a society is engaging in, or pardoning, some form of behavior it is hardly considered “immoral” even if we keep paying that morality line lip service (i.e. life-long one partner commitment, marriage, child labor, slavery, female inferiority, tatoos, infidelity, etc).

[threebyfate]

Morals are subjective. That's a given. But to suggest that there aren't consequences to different moralities clashing, isn't realistic.

[Severely Unamused]

edit: Heh, not in the mood for a debate, so I'll end it before it starts.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Severely Unamused
Feeling grumpy.

[Dreama_70]

Morals are subjective. That's a given. But to suggest that there aren't consequences to different moralities clashing, isn't realistic.

 

Quite true, but sometimes the only way to save ourselves from pain, misery, or self-hate, is to understand that morals are arbitrary, imperfect and all to human, not absolute and divine. I don't like it when people use "morals" as a way to oppress, control, or diminish someone based on something that's all too human and natural. We try to make people feel bad being themesleves. Society is always dictating who people can or cannot or should, love (race, religion, sexual orientation, social status, looks and so much more). Who puts a restriction on consensual (adult) love??? We set ourselves up for misery. I think that sexual and emotional restriction is in direct relation to the amount of violence in a society.

 

But then more open societies tend to have more suicide. So what do I know. lol.

[Severely Unamused]

Quite true, but sometimes the only way to save ourselves from pain, misery, or self-hate, is to understand that morals are arbitrary, imperfect and all to human, not absolute and divine. I don't like it when people use "morals" as a way to oppress, control, or diminish someone based on something that's all too human and natural. We try to make people feel bad being themesleves. Society is always dictating who people can or cannot or should, love (race, religion, sexual orientation, social status, looks and so much more). Who puts a restriction on consensual (adult) love??? We set ourselves up for misery. I think that sexual and emotional restriction is in direct relation to the amount of violence in a society.

 

But then more open societies tend to have more suicide. So what do I know. lol.

 

Ironically, your dismissal of the current system of morality and employment of your own beliefs, is just another system of morality.

 

To expand on this, what you have to remember is that before many of these "restrictive morals" became the attitude of society, they were the beliefs of a minority of people. And when the minority was being "oppressed by the system", one thought that probably popped into their heads was "man, the current system sucks. I know exactly how things should be", dontcha think? Guess they weren't as clever as they thought.

 

Personally, I don't blame the system for the failings of humanity that you have brought up. I blame humanity.

 

And without trying to be a party pooper, the two above posters that agree with you, follow the Richard Nixon Method in their own lives. Moral relativity at its finest.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Severely Unamused

[threebyfate]

Quite true, but sometimes the only way to save ourselves from pain, misery, or self-hate, is to understand that morals are arbitrary, imperfect and all to human, not absolute and divine. I don't like it when people use "morals" as a way to oppress, control, or diminish someone based on something that's all too human and natural. We try to make people feel bad being themesleves. Society is always dictating who people can or cannot or should, love (race, religion, sexual orientation, social status, looks and so much more). Who puts a restriction on consensual (adult) love??? We set ourselves up for misery. I think that sexual and emotional restriction is in direct relation to the amount of violence in a society.

 

But then more open societies tend to have more suicide. So what do I know. lol.

Let's shift perspective. If individuals want to be free, why get married?

[Dreama_70]

Ironically, your dismissal of the current system of morality and employment of your own beliefs, is just another system of morality.

 

To expand on this, what you have to remember is that before many of these "restrictive morals" became the attitude of society, they were the beliefs of a minority of people. And when the minority was being "oppressed by the system", one thought that probably popped into their heads was "man, the current system sucks. I know exactly how things should be", dontcha think? Guess they weren't as clever as they thought.

 

Personally, I don't blame the system for the failings of humanity that you have brought up. I blame humanity.

 

And without trying to be a party pooper, the two above posters that agree with you, follow the Richard Nixon Method in their own lives. Moral relativity at its finest.

 

Except that my "system" of morality" doesn't come from any system, hell it doesn't even have by-in from my social network. It just comes from my own belief system developed from my life experiences. Much like the posters above, morality is ALWAYS based on our own life experiences, we're just often too afraid to express it for fear of (enter example)... (holocaust, domestic violence, caste systems, catholic church, thin blue line, whistelblower, inner-city violence, female castration). I mean really, if the richest, safest, moFo's on the planet are too afraid to blow the whistle on Ed in accounting for fear of losing our cush jobs, how many of us are willing to go toe-to-toe with a pimp for our daughters or against someone toting guns in our community?????

 

 

Don't think I don't know what you mean. Whenver I see an Emmo (?) kid or a punk rocker or even a "thug" culture kid, I always think -> you're still following, yes the road less traveled, but a path not invented by you". Like another poster said (paraphrased)-> it's very hard to break out of the social system, and follow your real true nature, there are labels for that to (crazy if you're poor, eccentric if you're rich and mentaly ill if you're in-between and have health insurance) but that doesn't stop any of us from injecting a little of it every now and then while still cooperating within the system. Especially with the advent of the internet, in other words the lone brave innocent soul who expressed "the emporer has no clothes". It's actually going on all over the internet these days.

 

Oh, and, I thought you weren't going to engage? Men, you can't help yourselves... lol.

[Severely Unamused]

It just comes from my own belief system developed from my life experiences.

Which is just another system. Of your own morality. Created from your own life experiences. Your own life experiences which have been influenced and manipulated by external sources, on a conscious and subconscious level. Quite a lot of other people have the same attitude that you have presented. Moral individualism. Moral relativism. Ect.

 

What you need to realise is that you are just another cow on the cattle farm. Like me, and like everybody else.

 

Emmo (?) kid

Only one "m" btw.

 

Oh, and, I thought you weren't going to engage? Men, you can't help yourselves... lol.

That was yesterday. Not feeling grumpy today, after a good nap.

 

In any case, this isn't going anywhere productive (also becoming a bit off-topic), so I shall take my leave from this thread, permanently. Have a good one.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Severely Unamused

[threebyfate]

Let's shift perspective. If individuals want to be free, why get married?

Bump, you haven't answered this question.

 

Free will includes not being a moron and taking a path that's certain to self-destruct.

[Dreama_70]

Let's shift perspective. If individuals want to be free, why get married?

 

Easy enough, social coercion. The system is set up to reward certain behaviors and punish others. Don't get me wrong, I understand that "the system" is an inanimate thing created by humans, as far as I can tell the "marriage system" was devised by men to bind and oppress women. In NO society is male monogamy the expectation, whether that's explicit (plural wives, harems) or implicit (sowing oats, mistresses, prostitutes). In most animal systems the male has to work for each and every sexual conquest. Marriage, as it has been practiced for thousands of years up until very recently, took that off the table. It also gave men automatic indentured servants in the way of wife and kids. The entire system of not allowing women to work, educate themeselves or vote, coupled with the "morality" of social expectations, was established to make marriage practically the only alternative. And yes there are women who desire this type of system, and men who don't, but marriage has been overwhelmingly more beneficial to men. But it becomes increasingly LESS attractive to women the more power, equality and freedom they attain, which is actually a complaint men have made.

 

 

I can't say I've read the bylines, I'm used to other types of forums, so is there a "rule" for what is considered a proper thread and proper response? Are we not allowed to explore a topic through any relative lines or conversation? Or should this have been a "my experience is... give me feedback and support for that particular situation only"?

 

Thanks for your feedback.

[Turtles]

Easy enough, social coercion. The system is set up to reward certain behaviors and punish others. Don't get me wrong, I understand that "the system" is an inanimate thing created by humans, as far as I can tell the "marriage system" was devised by men to bind and oppress women. In NO society is male monogamy the expectation, whether that's explicit (plural wives, harems) or implicit (sowing oats, mistresses, prostitutes). In most animal systems the male has to work for each and every sexual conquest. Marriage, as it has been practiced for thousands of years up until very recently, took that off the table. It also gave men automatic indentured servants in the way of wife and kids. The entire system of not allowing women to work, educate themeselves or vote, coupled with the "morality" of social expectations, was established to make marriage practically the only alternative. And yes there are women who desire this type of system, and men who don't, but marriage has been overwhelmingly more beneficial to men. But it becomes increasingly LESS attractive to women the more power, equality and freedom they attain, which is actually a complaint men have made.

 

Oooh, I got married to have more sex? Hey, will you please tell my wife about this, I think she may have missed the memo? THANKS!!!

[Dreama_70]

Oooh, I got married to have more sex? Hey, will you please tell my wife about this, I think she may have missed the memo? THANKS!!!

 

 

lol. Our society is a lot more advanced these days, but there was a time, not very long ago, and still in some societies, when it was preached that to "deny" your husband made you immoral, a bad wife, worthy of beating, etc. "Loss of affection" was actually a legitimate excuse for a man to divorce a women, back when there were practically NO legitimate excuses for a woman to divorce a man.

[Steadfast]

The problem as I see it, stems from a unrefined basis of selfishness and the desire to select and place 'morals' (which, by my loose definition is doing the right thing at the right time) where we want them and when.

 

When we're strapping ourselves into an airplane, we trust the pilot be sober and sound of mind, given the enormity of his responsibility. Imagine how you'd feel laying on the table before a surgery and having the doctor say; "You know, we all 'gotta go sometime..." before you slip under.

 

We demand their professionalism and are encouraged by their confidence. We expect that whatever problems exist will be set aside for our personal safety and well being. We trust them and put our lives in their hands because they're trained. That is their job. They took it. We depend on it.

 

In marriage, it's the same. That is, if we marry for the right reasons.

 

The wrong reasons include peer pressure, insecurity/financial security, fear, competition or social/family standing. There are more and they all have one common bond; what's in it for us? It seems this 'imitation love' is now accepted as the standard. True love, the unconditional kind, is actually fostered and strengthened by turmoil and strife, not destroyed by it.

 

I could go on a explain that secure, happy and grounded married's are often (if not usually) raised in kind, but once adulthood is reached our decisions become our own. When married, did I meet and allow my eyes to wander over a sexually attractive female? What kept me from moving things towards that outcome (if indeed, that was possible) was a simple element. Love. Not just for my wife, but for myself. In my case, I was so attracted to my spouse that resisting the advance was ridiculously easy.

 

Sad to say, my bride didn't feel the same way. Very sad to say.

 

Answer this question: If monogamy isn't natural, why does cheating hurt? There is a difference between looking and doing...a training of one's own heart and mind to not dwell on what doesn't belong to them. My sex belonged to her because I gave it to her. And she was mine. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well, but something about that agreement gave me happiness and contentment. In a crazy world that was ours...no one elses.

 

Natural desire? So is lying, stealing, clocking our boss over the head with a stapler and a bunch of other unsavory emotions we hold inside. Love and honor live together.

 

When I married I vowed I wouldn't...not that I couldn't. There is a big difference.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Steadfast

[threebyfate]

Easy enough, social coercion. The system is set up to reward certain behaviors and punish others. Don't get me wrong, I understand that "the system" is an inanimate thing created by humans, as far as I can tell the "marriage system" was devised by men to bind and oppress women. In NO society is male monogamy the expectation, whether that's explicit (plural wives, harems) or implicit (sowing oats, mistresses, prostitutes). In most animal systems the male has to work for each and every sexual conquest. Marriage, as it has been practiced for thousands of years up until very recently, took that off the table. It also gave men automatic indentured servants in the way of wife and kids. The entire system of not allowing women to work, educate themeselves or vote, coupled with the "morality" of social expectations, was established to make marriage practically the only alternative. And yes there are women who desire this type of system, and men who don't, but marriage has been overwhelmingly more beneficial to men. But it becomes increasingly LESS attractive to women the more power, equality and freedom they attain, which is actually a complaint men have made.

 

 

I can't say I've read the bylines, I'm used to other types of forums, so is there a "rule" for what is considered a proper thread and proper response? Are we not allowed to explore a topic through any relative lines or conversation? Or should this have been a "my experience is... give me feedback and support for that particular situation only"?

 

Thanks for your feedback.

Your response confuses me in that as the world exists today, there's no social stigma about choosing to be single. As at 2009, only 52% of the 18 years and older population, are married.

 

So my question still stands but with the added statistic of "If 48% of the adult population in the U.S. aren't married, why would anyone opt for marriage if they want to be free?".

 

Also bear in mind that it's not as if alternative style marriages aren't possible. You'd think that anyone who doesn't want to abide by the tenets of traditional marriages would ensure that they find a partner who's in agreement with an alternate form of marriage, like an open marriage.

 

To opt for traditional marriage, then complain about its restrictions and expectations, doesn't sound logical or rational. More impulsive, irrational and selfish.

[Owl]

Easy enough, social coercion.

 

Just a thought.

 

I get your opening post.

 

I agreed with the statement that basically said..."if you prefer freedom, don't get married" that someone else made.

 

In response to your comment above...if you truly valued freedom to the degree you outline here...then "social coercion" shouldn't have nearly the impact on someone who feels this way than someone who doesn't.

 

I don't get it...what's the value of ranting against people who DO support marriage?

 

I've got no issue with those that choose not to marry, nor those who choose to divorce if they're unhappy in their marriage.

 

If someone is truly unhappy in a marriage...there really isn't much that their spouse can really do to "force" them to stay. Sure, they may take action to try to save the marriage...but if that's how they feel, what makes the feeligns of the person who is seeking divorce more important than the feelings of the person who wants to reconcile the marriage.

 

You want to value the feelings of someone who wants to leave a marriage...that's fine...but why should those feelings count for more than the persons who want to stay?

 

Doesn't make sense.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Owl

[Afishwithabike]

The problem as I see it, stems from a unrefined basis of selfishness and the desire to select and place 'morals' (which, by my loose definition is doing the right thing at the right time) where we want them and when.

 

When we're strapping ourselves into an airplane, we trust the pilot be sober and sound of mind, given the enormity of his responsibility. Imagine how you'd feel laying on the table before a surgery and having the doctor say; "You know, we all 'gotta go sometime..." before you slip under.

 

We demand their professionalism and are encouraged by their confidence. We expect that whatever problems exist will be set aside for our personal safety and well being. We trust them and put our lives in their hands because they're trained. That is their job. They took it. We depend on it.

 

In marriage, it's the same. That is, if we marry for the right reasons.

 

The wrong reasons include peer pressure, insecurity/financial security, fear, competition or social/family standing. There are more and they all have one common bond; what's in it for us? It seems this 'imitation love' is now accepted as the standard. True love, the unconditional kind, is actually fostered and strengthened by turmoil and strife, not destroyed by it.

 

I could go on a explain that secure, happy and grounded married's are often (if not usually) raised in kind, but once adulthood is reached our decisions become our own. When married, did I meet and allow my eyes to wander over a sexually attractive female? What kept me from moving things towards that outcome (if indeed, that was possible) was a simple element. Love. Not just for my wife, but for myself. In my case, I was so attracted to my spouse that resisting the advance was ridiculously easy.

 

Sad to say, my bride didn't feel the same way. Very sad to say.

 

Answer this question: If monogamy isn't natural, why does cheating hurt? There is a difference between looking and doing...a training of one's own heart and mind to not dwell on what doesn't belong to them. My sex belonged to her because I gave it to her. And she was mine. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well, but something about that agreement gave me happiness and contentment. In a crazy world that was ours...no one elses.

 

Natural desire? So is lying, stealing, clocking our boss over the head with a stapler and a bunch of other unsavory emotions we hold inside. Love and honor live together.

 

When I married I vowed I wouldn't...not that I couldn't. There is a big difference.

 

Great post. Well-written. You articulated things I felt, but didn't know how to express.

[frozensprouts]

Quite true, but sometimes the only way to save ourselves from pain, misery, or self-hate, is to understand that morals are arbitrary, imperfect and all to human, not absolute and divine. I don't like it when people use "morals" as a way to oppress, control, or diminish someone based on something that's all too human and natural. We try to make people feel bad being themesleves. Society is always dictating who people can or cannot or should, love (race, religion, sexual orientation, social status, looks and so much more). Who puts a restriction on consensual (adult) love??? We set ourselves up for misery. I think that sexual and emotional restriction is in direct relation to the amount of violence in a society.

 

But then more open societies tend to have more suicide. So what do I know. lol.

 

 

ah, the old " but monogamy is unnatural" bit...

 

from my point of view, the doctrine of "doing what is natural" is merely religion repackaged to be hauled out when it suits us.. Like any other religion, it is often merely trotted out to excuse behavior that is hurtful to others e.g.- "it's not my fault.... the devil/Jesus/god/Allah/ my genes/flying spaghetti monster made me do it".

 

Unnatural? well, we do a whole lot of things ( in fact, pretty much everything) we do is "unnatural", and yet we have not problem with it because it suits us, makes our lives more comfortable, etc. How come the "but it's unnatural" card isn't played then?

 

my point is that one may believe that monogamy is unnatural and so they choose not to live that way, which is fine for them. but if it is wrong for monogamy to be "forced" upon them, then is it not equally wrong for the effects of their desire to be nonmonogamous to be forced upon their spouse?

Edited August 16, 2011 by frozensprouts

[Dreama_70]

Good points all but, I'm sorry guys but I'm not buying your "social pressure" doesn't have much influence. Look how many women shave their legs and underarms, and men their faces. How many women (moreso than men) dye the grey from their hair. Something so simple, yet the majority of people feel completely unable to break the SMALLEST of social taboos and that is because there are consequences. And I'll give you a real life example from this thread:

 

I was on a thread from a guy who said his wife was about to make it physical -> basically that he had evidence that his wife was getting ready to have an affair. I suggested that he let her have the affair and she would soon get tired of it. It's certainly not the "standard" solution but it was my opinion none the less. The "social" outcry and backlash was TREMENDOUS and instantaneous. I was not only accused of offering "bad" advice, It was insinuated that I "hijacked the thread", was a troll, was a selfish, deceptive woman, that I was somehow hurting the thread author, that I was "projecting" my own needs, that all conversation should cease and desist, and all other sorts of things. They basically proved my point that the outcry over stepping out of the accepted social boundaries is NOT to be tolerated.

 

It used to be perfectly acceptable to beat your wife, it was even encouraged in some respects as a manner of asserting a man's dominance. If you didn't agree with this you were roundly denounced and ridiculed. Marriage is propped up not only by our society but by LAWS. Why should the government have anything to do with personal consensual adult relationships? It is also propped up by "social" statistical engineering that constantly tells us that unmarried women are poorer, unmarried men live shorter lives, kids raised by single parents fare worse in life, etc, etc. That's not because a monogamous marriage actually makes these things better, it's because society makes consequences for those that don't live within their "moral" bounds.

 

There have been studies that married men are paid more, for the same work at the same level than their unmarried counterparts. Men, of course, make more than women for the same work at the same level. There are a thousand little ways that we make it difficult for people who live outside of boundaries that benefit few people. But that does NOT make those social mores anymore "right".

 

I could point out hundreds of examples of how accepted social mores are NOT better for society than their more natural, but unacceptable paths and yet humans abide by them for fear of being disenfranchised by their culture. Thousands if we go back in history, or to different cultures.

[Severely Unamused]

so I shall take my leave from this thread, permanently.

I lied (again).

 

Good points all but, I'm sorry guys but I'm not buying your "social pressure" doesn't have much influence.

And that is ultimately why this thread won't really go anywhere.

 

Your initial post brought up some good points IMO. Mostly in the first half like I said.

 

Some other posters have respectfully (or not) disagreed with some of your points, and brought up their own eqally valid points.

 

It seems like your opinions are set in stone just like their own. I don't exactly know how much their ideas have affected you, since I'm not a mind reader, but you are still basically presenting the same ideas as you did in your initial post so I doubt they have done much.

 

So yeah, agree to disagree and move on.

 

Oh, have a read of this:http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292710&page=3

 

jwi71's post. Although the rest of the thread does seem like it's right up your alley. I'll make a wild guess and say that you agree with Buck Turgidson.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Severely Unamused

[Owl]

Exactly...if you're not open to other viewpoints...then why do you expect others to be open to yours?

 

Your views aren't any more (or less) valid than mine.

 

Don't see as there's anything left to be said.

 

If you feel the way that you do...don't get married. I won't do anything to interfere with that choice.

 

In return, I will DEMAND that you not interfere with my choice to be married.

 

It's all good as long as we ALL respect each other's views and beliefs. Keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter, and I'll keep my peanut butter off of your chocolate.

 

Thought I'd add...if you don't like the culture you were raised in or live in currently...move. Find a culture that fits your beliefs. It's a big world...odds are, you'll find something out there somewhere if you look hard enough.

 

Don't expect everyone else to change their view on the world to match yours. Either surround yourself with people who share that view, or learn to accept others for their otherness.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Owl

[Dreama_70]

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. I am used to other forums where people debate, I guess that isn't this site. I'm not negating anyone else's viewpoint I'm just laying out my viewpoint with what I feel are the arguments, examples and facts to support it, and expect others to do the same. I'm not sure I'm tring to sway anyone, but I love the exchange of ideas and viewpoints, I've certainly learned a lot and have probably changed some of my views (or at least my knowledge base) with healthy debate on the internet, on myriad subjects, and I always welcome it.