Marriage and modern womanhood

[fral945]

Good points. Someone should start a poll thread asking people their reasons for wanting to get married. I'm curious what the answers will be.

 

I did one on non-religious reasons to get married one time. I don't remember all of the responses, but I didn't get many compelling arguments (at least from what I can remember).

[Storyrider]

In some ways, the more we value the individual, the less we can value the group.

[Trialbyfire]

I can't help but wonder about several LS posters in marriages (including mine) where religion is primary in the household, the man sees himself as the traditional head of household and the marriage is sexless due to reticence from the wife.

 

I wonder how this relates to the idea that religion presents marriage as an act of submission to God and the spouse. Perhaps one of the parties is balking.

Straight up Story, not every man who is religious, needs submission from his wife.

[johan]

It can't hurt though.

[sally4sara]

Women always had that freedom but they didn´t buy it.

 

The most important thing for women back in time was to marry well, and to do so as soon as possible and have children.

 

Not true. Men were taught to marry into wealthy families to young women who stood to inherit land, money, or other valuables. Anything a woman had became her husband's just like today. Most woman today who are well off still don't go for pre-nupts.

And back then, the younger they were, the less likely they had been educated enough to know what to do with their inheritance. They younger they were, the more quickly they would grow pregnant (some-what disproved medically since) and unable to leave the situation. It wasn't like birth control methods were easy to come by for them. There were no laws about rape if you were married. The "not now I have a headache" move didn't always get listened to. Most women had more kids as they came, not as they planned.

Things got better over time because society changed it's views on the importance of love in marriage, not just because women could vote and own property.

 

Because they knew that the longer they waited the men would be taken away (at least the good ones) their looks would fade (what men want the most) and the children bearing age would pass.

 

To be a spinster was not an option but a disgrace. Still they managed if they had to, they lived with their mothers, worked, etc.

 

In some cultures even today, staying at home with mother is the job of the youngest daughter anyway. It wasn't unheard of for them to have lovers despite this. At least a paid job has a start time and a finish time. My grandmother and certainly my great grandmother didn't have that luxury being sahms.

[Storyrider]

Straight up Story, not every man who is religious, needs submission from his wife.

Good point. I have often wondered though, about the fact that JamesM, Moose, Quankanne and I are all in marriages where at least one party is quite religious and we also share the lack of sex issue. Don't know if it is coincidence or something more.

[Trialbyfire]

That's an edgy thought, Story. It leads to paths many won't want to go. I would say I was up for it, but that might be considered inappropriate, as well as anatomically incorrect!

[fral945]

In some ways, the more we value the individual, the less we can value the group.

 

The extreme examples of that (from a political viewpoint) are socialism (mainly about the groups' needs) and capitalism (mainly about the individuals' needs).

[Storyrider]

That's an edgy thought, Story. It leads to paths many won't want to go. I would say I was up for it, but that might be considered inappropriate, as well as anatomically incorrect!

I can't really theorize in earnest about someone else's situation. But I do think when there are a lot of strictures and fine-print expectations in a relationship, people will sometimes rebel by withholding.