Has marriage outlived it's usefulness?

[BlockHead]

Don’t blame capitalism because it thousands of years old. Instead, look at the trends over the past few decades.

bark

If only people were less self-focused all would be right with marriage, they toot.

Maybe. A self-centered person tends to be inconsiderate of other people’s feelings. I’m guessing that spells death for any relationship.

 

Is deflection of guilt part of the problem? This is one of the few countries were a guy can kill a man, hack him to pieces, and still convince the jury that the dead guy is responsible. I guess the new view is that there are no bad or evil people because it is always somebody else’s fault.

[bark]

Is deflection of guilt part of the problem?

 

While I certainly believe that "guilt deflection" or "responsibility avoidance" are problems in our criminal justice system, BlockHead, I suspect it's much less of a problem with most "I fell out of love with you" or "the thrill is gone" marital implosions.

 

In those endings not involving compulsive gambling or alcoholism (where the wayward spouse can point to his frontal lobe), people tend to say they're following their heart (to the new trophy lover) or that they refuse to live a marital lie or all they want is to be happy after years of marital despair. The departing spouse frequently trumpets his or her authenticity

 

In most marital fatigue dissolutions, the search for happiness --or the avoidance of continued unhappiness--is usually front and center. Not so much guilt deflection as you put it.

[Arabess]

Originally posted by bark

Arabess, I always thought you were a Saks Fifth Avenue kind of girl!!!

 

Ahhh hell Bark, I live on the strip near a Naval Base. All we HAVE are nudie bars, tatoo parlors and some pawn shops. Walmart is UPTOWN shopping for me!!! I guess no one can call me high maintenance. LOL

 

As for the discussion at hand, I think we NOW live in a society where 'single' people, regardless of age, are acceptable. You don't HAVE to live within a family unit to feel validated. Therefore, people are more prone to divorce and live single (like myself) than stay in a loveless marriage just because it's expected of them. There was a time when people didn't have that option.

 

Single women were spinsters, eww a divorcee or a slut.

 

Single men were what gay????

 

With the new freedoms, people who do not relish in married life....can ponder living single. I'm not saying the marriage institution is bad....it just may not be for everyone.

[bark]

Good point, Arabess. Being single/divorced has lost its stigma. That alternative is more attractive to many than suffering through an unhappy marriage.

 

By the way, what a fun neighborhood you inhabit. It sounds like the wild, wild West!!!

[Tony T]

In my opinion, this is one of the best threads I've seen on LoveShack. While I had some pretty rigid opinions about marriage a few days ago, I'm not sure what to think now. I agree with all the posters, no matter what their opinion or philosophy. They have all made good points here.

 

The reality today, it seems to me, is that marriage is great for as long as it lasts and people shouldn't look for it necessarily to be a permanent thing, although if it could be that way in a happy state that would be great.

 

What really terrifies me is the people who are so self-centered and selfish that they will have children and not stay in the marriage long enough to be sure those children are old enough to handle a divorce without being scarred for the rest of their lives. If people can't make a committment to at least remain married long enough for the kids to be OK with things, they shouldn't get married. At the very same time, I think staying in a bad marriage for the sake of children is wrong.

 

I guess this thread has made me realize that marriage is one of the biggest gambles you'll ever take....and, even if you win, the pay out could be for a year, for a decade or for a lifetime depending on many factors. Like the space shuttle, if one little thing goes wrong, the shuttle blows to bits and all occupants and doomed. If you get married, you have to make sure that all the components are in good shape and in place because it's a trip that can end at any moment...based on emotions and not manufactured parts.

[bark]

What really terrifies me is the people who are so self-centered and selfish that they will have children and not stay in the marriage long enough to be sure those children are old enough to handle a divorce without being scarred for the rest of their lives. If people can't make a commitment to at least remain married long enough for the kids to be OK with things, they shouldn't get married.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Especially after having a father who deserted my mother and my brother and sister and me when I was just 4 years old. He was searching for " happiness", and wanted to take off the harness, and, in the process, hurt his family for many, many years. The ever present flip side is that one person's happiness is another person's sorrow.

[moimeme]

think of those who grew up in homes where divorce was not an option because of religion or shame, and watched two people who fundamentally did not like each anymore have to sludge it through hopelessly;

 

Certainly I think these were factors that helped keep the marriages 'of old' that people are all glowy about together. Of course the grandparents stayed together if the grandmother had no job nor job skills nor any way of supporting herself with a housfull of kids.

 

However, this does not leave aside the fact that one needs to be willing to extend one's desires and wishes for happiness to desires and wishes for happiness for one's partner to really function well in a marriage. And I just do not get the sense that many people in relationships today think that's part of the deal.

[moimeme]

People are less tolerant of unhappy marriage today because their expectations are greater

 

Exactly my point. That which now defines an 'unhappy marriage' could be something as minor as 'my husband looks at porn and masturbates a few times a week'. Their expectations are to be happy all of the time, to not ever have to experience any discomfort or unpleasantness, and for heaven's sakes, never make any sacrifices. The definition of 'happiness' is now so high that it's no wonder nobody can meet it for long periods of time. It's about instant gratification. 'I want what I want and I want it NOW'.

 

If the spouse doesn't provide everything that's wanted when it's wanted - pack and bail.

[Arabess]

When I was a teenager, my parents were having a few maritial problems (they have now been married 45 years). I asked my Mom if she ever considered leaving Dad since he IS quite frugal and not always exciting. My Mom, the wise old Jewish woman from the Bavarian Woods.....hahaha.....told me:

 

If I left your Dad, I would be able to experience FUN. If I stay with him and my family, I am able to experince JOY. JOY is better than FUN. JOY lasts forever.....FUN is fleeting.

[moimeme]

You know, Arabess, that is an excellent, EXCELLENT distinction. I suspect a lot of people don't know what joy is and so are out for happiness. They don't understand that there is something bigger, better, and deeper so they settle for the pale imitation. When the imitation loses its shine, as all fakes will, they trade it in for a new model. But it's the beauty of the patina that only years and careful polishing can create that make a genuine treasure - or relationship - truly beautiful.

[cdn]

cdn, many culture critics blame that old punching bag the "self" for the decline and fall of marriage. An improper focus on "self," in the form of a preoccupation with self-fulfillment, selfishness and and self-gratification is to be blamed, they say. If only people were less self-focused all would be right with marriage, they toot.

 

I think this "self" centered analysis of the decline of marriage , while it gives the critic a "virtue" high, begs a number of questions. Social character cannot be understood, or even denounced, in a social, historical and economic vacuum.

 

Bark, I think you raise some valid points, but I also think that the emphasis on self is part of the problem, albeit not all of it. It seems to me, based on my admittedly unscientific observations formed by talking to people who've been married for a long time, that in previous generations there was an understanding that a marriage is a living thing. Yes, it needs nurturing but more to the point: it will have its own highs and lows. The lows were expected (for better and for worse) and, in fact, when I talk to these long-time-married, they seem amused that many people today assume that marriage will simply be for "better and better" in spit of taking vows to the contrary. The part of "self" that I see in evidence now seems shocked to learn that marriages go through different phases: passion, companionship, boredom, contentment, ennui -- sometimes more than one at a time but always cycling through.

 

First, people marry for different reasons today than they did 150 years ago. Today, people marry for love after a romance. Self-fulfillment, self-gratification and self-pleasure are the reasons people marry today. Given this self-gratification motive at the outset of marriage , in the form of love and romance, as aided and abetted by dreamy trappings of the billion dollar wedding industry, we cannot be shocked that this self-centeredness does not cease after the wedding--despite all the "hard work" metaphors for marriage, which make the institution sound like a sweat shop.

 

Agreed. But whose point are you proving? I don't think the move to self-gratification is to anyone's benefit. Certainly, if forums like this one are any barometer, in spite of an increase in "serial monogamy," less stigmatization of divorce, and condonation of self-gratification over all else, people don't appear to be very happy. Is it not possible that the message of self-gratification, designed as it is to generate corporate profits, is not in anyone's best interest except Ramkjack's?

 

As to marriage being likened to a sweatshop, I disagree. The work required is more akin to going to university, where one studies hard in order to achieve something of lasting benefit (ideally). The sweatshop analogy paints an image of ceaseless toil with no reward. I think that the rewards of building a life with someone and truly getting to know him (or her) are great.

 

People are less tolerant of unhappy marriage today because their expectations are greater. Is that a character defect, or merely an expected byproduct of late capitalism in a consumerist culture, where people are constantly buying the latest and greatest products that help them feel fulfilled (at least until the next best thing comes along)?

 

I'd say that the instant gratification movement, combined with the notion that "he who has the most toys, wins" and similar philosophies is not only dangerous to our culture but to our souls. I see too many empty spirits surrounded by all sorts of "stuff" that was purchased because having it would make the purchaser happy.

 

This is more, much more, than a mere "character " problem. The human heart is turning into the equivalent of a Wal Mart shopper--always searching for the next best deal.

 

This is sad news for the human heart, imo.

[BlockHead]

Tony

What really terrifies me is the people who are so self-centered and selfish that they will have children and not stay in the marriage long enough to be sure those children are old enough to handle a divorce without being scarred for the rest of their lives.

The worst situation would have to be when people try to cement their relationships with children.

Tony

If you get married, you have to make sure that all the components are in good shape and in place because it's a trip that can end at any moment...based on emotions and not manufactured parts.

In other words, relationships require work. How many people still believe that relationships are supposed to be effortless?

 

Emotions, by themselves, are volatile and unreliable. Like rocket fuel, if it isn’t controlled, you have one big explosion.

bark

He was searching for " happiness", and wanted to take off the harness, and, in the process, hurt his family for many, many years.

Unfortunately, some people want to be happy even at the expense of others.

moimeme

When the imitation loses its shine, as all fakes will, they trade it in for a new model.

This is a quick fix society. How many people are looking for the magic pill to lose weight? How about easy money? Miracle youth cream. Instant happiness.

[moimeme]

some people want to be happy even at the expense of others

 

I'd say it's 'despite' the expense of others. Which is the point - as long as YOU are happy, screw everybody else, including your mate. Your happiness is paramount and therefore that's your biggest worry, concern, and focus.

That's how people do everything nowadays - from getting a job to getting into a relationship.

[bark]

they seem amused that many people today assume that marriage will simply be for "better and better" in spit of taking vows to the contrary. The part of "self" that I see in evidence now seems shocked to learn that marriages go through different phases: passion, companionship, boredom, contentment, ennui -- sometimes more than one at a time but always cycling through.

 

Great points, cdn. There has been a seismic shift in expectations for marriage, and a concomitant loss of patience. To me, one of our greatest problems is what I call "premature divorce"--cutting and running at the first hint of rough weather.

 

As long as people believe that happiness is just around the bend, and that they have a right to such happiness no matter how unrealistic or harmful the exercise of this right is, "for better or worse" marriage in the traditional sense does not stand a chance. We can lecture and hector on these Boards and elsewhere until the cows come home and it won't make a difference. The new marital calculus involves pleasure, happiness and self-fulfillment. Once that ends, the marriage, along with the "no fun" spouse, are expendable in favor of someone whom the seeking spouse believes will provide all three. Marriage, in short, must now be "fun."

 

We can't put the genii back in the bottle.

[Errol]

I stayed away from this topic for a while because it was an interesting read, but I didn't want to post yet. Since a few people have expressed opinions similar to mine own, I will post too.

 

For as long as marriage has been an institution, there have been divorces. The reasons were the same then as now: abuse, impotency, neglect, financial. The reason there are more divorces in succeeding generations is because the generations do no know what happiness is - they are always looking for it and don't recognize it when they see it. It is not an instant. It requires some effort to be happy. We can afford to dispose of or replace what we don't feel like taking care of. Disposable dishes, clothes, diapers, pets, and people. There is always a corner market where we can replace what we have used up or what we do not want to deal with. We used flat paper plates for years and years and were satisfied with them. Then we were introduced to thicker plates with raised dividers that kept the juice from one food from mingling with the others. Now that's all we use. This dog is a digger so I'll get rid of him and get a dog that won't dig up my yard. People get easily bored.

 

A sanctioned, legal marriage stems from religious beginnings and governmental. There are different economic incentives and penalties for married people. The governments treat married couples differently in the way they are taxed for example. On paper marriage has nothing to do with love or commitment to each other - as far as governments are concerned. And divorce is pretty easy now. Churches recognize it as a commitment and apply a new set of rules to married people. Lots of religious reasons for marriage and in some churches a divorce carries a hefty penalty and a stigma.

 

Then there are those who make a commitment to each other privately and create their own ceremony - similar to a wedding ritual - to declare their love and commitment in front of their family and friends. They don't need a religious representative to tell them that they are a couple, or a government official either.

 

Women have more opportunities to support themselves now then they did a couple hundred years ago, so it is easier for women to initiate a divorce or dissolution from a relationship. Also, the religious and societal implications of a woman not being a virgin when she married would scar her for life - many women would rather stay in an unfilling marriage then risk that.

 

People also had their places and knew what to expect. Women were property.

 

I've been married to the same person almost 25 years now. It hasn't always been full of happiness or joy or even contentment for either of us. But instead of looking for those things with someone else we look within ourselves and within each other.

 

My grandmother, who was first married in 1901, was divorced in 1903, remarried and divorced several different men over the course of about 45 years.

 

For people who have religious beliefs and those beliefs contain doctrine about marriage - it will be necessary.

 

All the talk about the percentages of divorce. If the percentage is 50% then that also means that 50% of couples getting married stay married.

 

The Demographics of Divorce-United States

 

Robert Hughes, Jr., Ph.D., Former Professor, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, College of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia

 

The demographics of divorce are routinely reported wrong, calculated wrong or misinterpreted. Here are some explanations of about the different ways that divorce rates are reported and what each of these rates means.

For every two marriages that occurred in the 1990s, there was one divorce. This does not mean that the divorce rate is 50%. Although, it is correct that in the United States during most of the 1990s, there were about two marriages for every divorce in a single year. But this does not mean that the divorce rate is 50% because the people getting married in a single year are not the same ones getting divorced. This is a very common error and it results from the fact that that Vital Statistics report the numbers of marriages and divorces for each year. It is easy to think that some type of divorce rate can be calculated from these numbers, but it can't.

 

In 2000 there were 4.7 divorces for every 1000 people. This is true. The "crude" divorce rate is calculated on the basis of the number of divorces per 1000 population. This provides a better measure of the divorce rate because this allows us to compare the rate over time and across the country by taking into account the size of the population (number of people). However, this number has a problem in that it uses the entire population (including children), some of which cannot get divorced, for its calculation. Also, since different communities and at different times in history there may more or less children in the population this number may misrepresent the divorce rate.

 

In 1990 there were 20.9 divorces for every 1000 married women over 15 years of age. This is true. The best indicator the divorce rate is the number of divorces per 1000 married women over 15 years of age. This statistic is the most accurate indicator of rate of divorce. This is the group of people who can actually divorce. Comparisons of this statistic across communities and over time will provide the most accurate picture of what the trends really are. (Note: A similar rate should be found using married men... it's close but never exactly the same...demographers trust women's reports of their marital status rather than men.... hmmm.)

 

Forty percent of the women born in the 1970s will divorce. Yes, this is true. Well mostly. The number that is perhaps of most interest is the likelihood that a person's marriage will end in divorce. It is not possible to accurately estimate the number of marriages and divorces in a single year. The first thing to note is that this is always an estimate and like all estimates it can be wrong. Also, to arrive at this estimate, demographers calculate life tables that estimate the probability of divorce over a lifetime. Although this is a commonly reported statistic, it should be noted that it is based on some very shaky assumptions. The main assumption being that the likelihood of divorce for today's young married person will follow the same pattern as previous generations. Now this is reasonable assumption, but it could be wrong. Another thing to keep in mind about probability of divorce estimates is that they vary by the age of the person. The probability of divorce for a 20-year-old is not the same as a 40-year-old. The 40-year-old has less of a chance of divorce.

[jenny]

i'm kind of curious how many people contributing here are, in fact, themselves married. i wonder if the respective degrees of realism versus idealism might have something to do with that?

 

 

i really like coldheart's original idea of making people get a license before marriage, and even a longer process for having or caring for children, including a battery of tests for personality disorders. it's a little iffy in terms of civil rights, but an interesting idea.

[bark]

I have been married for 20 years. Marriage and I go way back.

[brashgal]

pardon me for saying so bark but considering you have another relationship going with another woman on the side, it doesn't seem that you have much respect for the traditional institution of marriage.

[bark]

pardon me for saying so bark but considering you have another relationship going with another woman on the side, it doesn't seem that you have much respect for the traditional institution of marriage.

 

And your point is...? So no one who admits to adultery can intelligently discuss the state of marriage.

 

Why that's absolutely brilliant!

 

Respond to my arguments, brashgal, if you're able.

 

It's so much easier to attack the messenger, isn't it?

[moimeme]

It's so much easier to attack the messenger, isn't it?

 

Apparently.

 

In the words of one Bark:

 

The harsh, inflexible expectations for marrieds held by some posters--who may not be married themselves--border on the surreal. Normally, I shrug it off, but not this time, not this poster.

[brashgal]

Looks like I hit a nerve, bark. There are very few LS posters who post only 'brilliant' opinions. It would be a pretty blank board if that were the case.

 

I was reacting to your statement about being married for 20 years - how you and marriage go 'way back' and to the following:

 

<<As long as people believe that happiness is just around the bend, and that they have a right to such happiness no matter how unrealistic or harmful the exercise of this right is, "for better or worse" marriage in the traditional sense does not stand a chance. We can lecture and hector on these Boards and elsewhere until the cows come home and it won't make a difference. The new marital calculus involves pleasure, happiness and self-fulfillment. Once that ends, the marriage, along with the "no fun" spouse, are expendable in favor of someone whom the seeking spouse believes will provide all three. Marriage, in short, must now be "fun.">>

 

It's the hypocrisy of this statement that I find unnerving. But I suppose you have the right to argue what you want even though you do not practice what you are preaching. You exercised your "right to happiness" by involving yourself in an extramarital affair.

 

Legally you may still be married to your wife of 20 years but emotionally and physically it appears you gave up on marriage long ago.

[BlockHead]

brashgal

You exercised your "right to happiness" by involving yourself in an extramarital affair.

Maybe he is repeating his father’s mistakes.

 

How many children from broken marriages repeat their parents’ mistakes when they grow up?

[Thinkalot]

This has been an interesting read. Without getting too deep, can we not simply say that marriage as an institution will continue to suit some people and not others.

 

Our society certainly is more complex, and we certainly do demand more from marriage, and it is easier to get divorced...but that isn't always such a bad thing and does not mean marriage itself has lost its place in society. I agree, it is wrong to expect TOO much, and we then set ourselves up for failure, or become partners who cannot be pleased etc. Yet, it is also good that people don't feel they need to stay stuck in an unhappy situation anymore.

 

I am a romantic and somewhat of an idealist and I still believe in marriage and look forward to marrying my partner some day. He is divorced, but still values marriage (the old hope over experience thing). It is a committment, it is a solid sign of love, expressed to friends and family, the world, or even just to each other. It is the symbolic wearing of rings, it is feeling enough to take that extra step beyond simply dating or living together and having the guts to say those vows and believe them! Sure, the marriage I create may be different from those of years gone, and we may demand more, but it will still be a marriage and mean something solid.

 

I should add, that my partner teases me for being a "traditionalist" on the one hand, and yet modifying the conventions to suit myself. I don't for example wish to change my name on marriage, I don't even want a traditional wedding. Yet the basic principles of marriage still hold plenty of meaning for me...I for one, don't think it has outlived its place...it's just changed a bit over the years.

[RachaelC]

I do not feel that marriage has outlived it's usefulness (been happily married now for almost a year). I think that marriage is corroding because of the "disposable" attitudes of society today. Many people, especially after the baby boomer generation, grew up totally spoiled and having way more than they ever need. Therefore, they get this "disposable" attitude, that is, don't need it or want it anymore, get rid of it.

 

A lot of people anymore act this way with everything in their lives...their marriages, possessions, jobs, careers, friends, even their values. They see a new car they like, even though they just bought a new car last year, they buy it. They fight too much with their spouse and start envisioning someone better, they get rid of their spouse.

 

Another problem is that in today's it is way too easy to find something new, and less consequences result from our actions. Lets use the car as an example again...want a new car, but don't have a penny...No problem! Take your old car in that's not even close to being paid off...no problem, it can be tacked onto the value of the new car loan. So, the car that costs $25,000 on the lot now costs you $40,000 because of loan on top of loan...no problem, take the loan out for more years. OH NO!!! You lose your job, and can't pay for anything...no problem, declare bankruptcy, and you will be fine in just ten years.

 

It is just way too simple to rid yourself of any problem anymore, including marriage, because we live in a disposable society, and we have become a spoiled nation used to getting our own way since the 1950's (and it's only getting worse). For this reason, our marrages are falling apart, our children are more psychological damaged than ever, and we can never be happy with the material possessions we have, nor the jobs, places we have been, or people we have known. We may rid ourselves on the surface, but inside people are the worst psychologically they have ever been, without any hope of happiness ever in there life. Therefore, they can never be expected to be happy being married, having children, or fulfilling their dreams.

[DivaGirl]

Ironically, almost all of my friends and my boyfriend come from families where the parents are still married. I know that in my best friend's case, his parents have been VERY happily married for 25 years, this month in fact. They still hold hands, go on trips together, sleep together, kiss each other, etc.

 

I think marriage can be for some people, but not for others.