I can’t believe no one’s mentioned the children. Won’t someone please think of the children!!
Always wanted to do that.
Seriously though, It’s all well and good to talk about three-year arrangements and whatever, and if that’s what you do, that’s no one’s business but yours. Once you reproduce, though, you’ve taken on an 18-year responsibility.
I don’t see that a new paradigm is needed. Marriage is a completely voluntary and non-permenant (lets not pretend that “till death do you part” is enforced) agreement of indeterminant length between two people who agree to comingle their assets and (generally) pledge their fidelity to the other for the duration of the arrangement.
Such an arrangement is necesary because if couples want to have kids, there should be something in place to keep them “locked in”. Really it’s more for the benefit of the woman since she is the one who has to be stuck with a child. The man can theoretically always go out for a pack of smokes and never come back.
Here’s the problem with the idea of “till death do you part”:
-People change
-People get bored having the same sex with the same person all the time
-People fall out of love
-People don’t like being at another’s beck and call.
-People get older, fatter and less attractive
-People get sick of others people’s shit
-People are often attracted to other people
Not any more. With the downfall of the monarchy system titles are no longer relevant, and with the widespread use of wills (which have been around for millenia but not in wide use), who inherits what is down to the writer of the will.
Which is one of the issues under question. Should instead a man and a woman contract for the production and raising of a child? What sort of contract should a pair enter when one has a child for which another is contributing?
Hardly. Marriage is not a prerequisite for the begetting of children, and the begetting of children is not an inevitable consequence of marriage. It’s entirely possible, yea practical, to address issues related to the production and care of children separately from issues related to marriage.
Barring a period of approximately 40 weeks, so can a woman.
Quartz
I’m not sure if I understand what you are asking for.
The way you pose the question is as if there should be an autocratic mandate as two how people should “behave in a marriage.” Why not leave it to the people getting married as to why they want to get married? If they want to be monogamous, let them agree to be monogamous. If they want an open marriage, let them agree to have an open marriage. Both of these things are done in this day and age. Google: “open marriage”
I don’t see any benefit to outlawing one of these in favor of the other. It kind of goes against my American liberty & the pursuit of happiness personal freedom hang-up I have.
However, the thread you reference is about betrayal. That’s not cool in any sort of relationship.
I might be missing your point, though. Let me know if I did.
But many people have believed that one or both of these things should be true. So that’s part of what we’re debating.
I disagree. The way in which you define marriage, how and how easily a marriage can be ended, etc. have, at least potentially, a great deal of effect on the children involved.
Hmm, we have a system that ends in recognized failure for 50%+ of its participants, with a large portion of the remainder suffering without the will or means to end the relationship. Good stuff.
I thought the www.nomarriage.com site was excellent. Anecdotal? You want college professors to perform “social science” on the matter before you believe? Hah. It’s all common sense. I got fed up with American women in the early 90s and, except for one relationship, have dated foreigners (to wit, Japanese and Chinese women) exclusively since then. I would certainly recommend any American man who wants a good, traditional marriage to look outside the US (or, if in the US, to go Hispanic).
American men and women are at war. They no longer give each other what they want. The referenced site is right about women, and I will freely concede that, from the woman’s perspective, the pickings are very slim right now among American men as well.
Then there are the new social trends such as gay marriage and polygamy. There is a way to take care of everyone at once: Let people form domestic partnerships with any number of reasonable people of any sex of any length of time (I think the time limit idea discussed here is also excellent). The relationships may be sexual, non-sexual, or mixed–just as the participants choose.
Legally speaking, it would not be so tough to work these things out. You put the expectations, duties, and priveleges in writing and go to court when there is a breach. Like divorce, but with everything up front and fair.
That should be “any reaonable number of people.” Of course, reasonable people are also desirable.
?
Even if half of all marriages end in divorce, this is not the same thing as 50% of all participants divorcing. (e.g. you could have the 50% of marriages that end in divorce be those of a relatively small handful of serial divorcers.)
So what percentage of participants divorce? Enlighten me.
Hm… all this time, I thought that site was raving generalizations of a chauvinist fanatic with a chip on his shoulder.
Is this a whoosh? Because it struck me as the worst sort of stereotypical, misogynistic propaganda grounded in the ‘sour grapes’ psychology of western men that want subservient women, but can’t get them in a modern egalitarian society. Almost like a secular, angrier version of the Promise Keepers. And this is coming from me, a guy that thinks that the Ladder Theory actually *works * as an explanation of the male/female dynamic.
I am very much a romantic, and frankly resent the idea of converting (or reverting) marriage to a business contract. I’d like to see people put more effort into choosing mates, but otherwise, there’s not much we can, or should change. But I am frustrated how, in this day and age of love matches, there are still a huge number of couples out there that act like they just fell into it. Actual statements I’ve heard from couples:
Oh, well, it was a slow week, so we decided to get married.
I wasn’t doing anything else that the time.
I didn’t like him/her much, but she got pregnant.
I did it to get away from home. (very popular!)
Everyone said we’d make a great couple.
How would a paradigm shift protect people from their own stupidity? I would prefer that people take marriage more seriously, not less. If the entire concept of family and marriage are grounded in maintaining some sort of stability, then encouraging short term commitment does not seem workable as a goal.
I’m sorry, but where exactly do you get that the concept of arranged marriage requires legitimization of the concepts of women as property and marital rape?
I just wanted to quote a few things from this website **Aeschines ** likes so much.
From www.nomarriage.com:
OK, I kind of understand that. But here’s where it gets really wonky:
So basically, the writer of this website wants foreign women because they apparently aren’t interested in “careers, personal success, personal growth, finding themselves, and sel-improvement.”
Woo. That’s some heavy stuff. And fairly insulting.
Because, it is usually the father giving away the daughter. To be able to do that, the kid must be property, not her own person.
Now, let me see if I get this straight. Currently, a person is told that when they grow up, they will meet the person wthey will want to spend their whole life with. Sometimes, it turns out that the person they want to spen their life with is of the same sex as them. Should we sterp away from that concept, just because we don’t like the idea of gay people marrying. I feel-
Hold, on. I suppose I was responding to recent comments by people in real life, not the OP. Ok. Currently, besides a high divorce rate, and the possibility of gay marriage, I see nothing wrong with the current system of marriage. After all, divorces keeps people from living with a person they hate, and gay marriages don’t actually harm anyone.
Now, it seems that the idea of psychiatry is a recent idea. However, trepanning (Warning: link provides TMI.) is far older. Should we assume that our parent knew better, and go back to trepanning?
Unless you want to have kids… marriage isn’t exactly the best thing…
The number of single women is higher the more money they make… so women are well aware that marriage isn’t a must be to happiness anymore. As long as they don’t need a man to provide for them they aren’t given marriage as much consideration.
If I’m not mistaken, it’s still traditional in Western weddings for a father to give away his daughter. Would you care to draw the same conclusion?
Among educated Indians, arranged marriage is in no way involuntary or requiring one of the parties to be considered property. Neither does the marriage endorse marital rape, which, in any case is a criminal law issue, not one having anything to do with how marital partners were found.
Well, I’d say it definitely sets up *children * as property, to be dispensed as their parents see fit for economic or social gain. Remember, at the heart of arranged marriages, we’re talking about inheritance rights, as well as dowries, exchanges of properties, etc. Have dowries ever gone on the other direction? (boy’s parents paying a sum to the bride’s family)
As far as the rape charge, I imagine that if you are forced into a sexual relationship without your consent…well, isn’t that the definition of rape? Or are you suggesting that sex would not longer be a fixture of marriage, either?
I don’t know what kind of framily you grew up in, but my folks know fuck all about trepanning. They do, however, know a lot about marriage. I’m not going to advocate arranged marriages, but you just completely missed the point acsenray was making.