Is marriage overrated ?

[Clover]

Originally Posted by CrystalSong

However we live a lot longer than we used too. Just a 100 years ago in my country people didn't live much beyond 50. So to be married 30 years was to be married for life. Now days someone married in their 20's and married for life could be a 70 year marriage. Yikes!

Very true! When marriage was created the life expectancy was so short. I don't think people lived beyond 30 and a lot of women were married as young as 13.

So yeah, we are living a completely different advanced era, and with the help of modern science, we are living way too long . It will be interesting to see how these dynamics are going to change culture ideals in the next 100 years.

@Nettles, LOL. Box of hair is much easier to swallow, this I know too well. The US market highly appreciates and values the vulnerable 20 something demographic. The heart is open, mind is dense, credit is good; it's a gold mine. Also, with social media bragging with piterest, facebook, and instagram, I don't see this market going away anytime soon.

I also agree, kids need positive male and female role models other than "parents", tis' why it is important we continue to support and vote for public programs and the public education system.* cough plug in*

[starling]

Originally Posted by Nettles

Marriage is a 50 billion dollar a year industry. These days folks get married mainly for insurance purposes or due to unexpected children and while I understand people thinking that children are better off when parents stay together, exposing children to a bad relationship and teaching them that being miserable together is "normal" is not good. Kids are really resilient, or at least they used to be. As to having the two parent household, speaking from the perspective of an orphan I can tell you, just because there are two parents in the house doesn't mean it's good, there are many circumstances where kids are better off without what their parents provide. Kids don't need a mom and dad, they need positive male and female role models and those don't necessarily have to be their parents.

Personally, I'd rather eat a box of hair than get married, I have seen marriage ruin some of the most beautiful relationships.
Marriage isn't romantic, love's expression is (or can be) romantic. Marriage is a contract, nothing more, how people treat one another has little to do with said contract. If anything, having that contract in place often creates more problems than anything else.

Nettles , your even more cynical than I am.

Let's start again.

1) Marriage can work.

2) It can be romantic.

3) Couples can stay together and be happy and work it out.

4) Marriage IS hard work, I don't think any one would dispute that. It just depends on if you are prepared to put that commitment in.

5) If you're not prepared to face that commitment, don't have kids.

6) Even now people do occasionally stay together out of respect/bond. NOt just financial or legal reasons.....

Originally Posted by Sarian

Eat a box of hair. hahahaha! That cracked me up. :-)

I think religion gave birth to the idea and/or law people had to get married.

More property ownership than religion methinks. Of course the church is there with its offering plate held out to collect its share...the marriage between religion and politricks, that is the marriage that ruins marriage...

[Captain]

I can't do it, just seems unethical. Who the heck knows what the future will bring and if our growth rates are the same? I only want someone with me as long as he wants to be with me, period. Not because he signed a dam contract.

As I get older maybe it would be a good idea as far as having the first word legally in taking care if one gets sick. And you get one anothers assets without having to worry about other relatives. Maybe.

I just stayed with 2 different couples while travelling, both married around 50 yrs, as if I was part of the family. The same story I see with those married a long time, the wife concedes to the husband, she resents the heck out of him, hides it well like an art form, and they have fallen out of love but heaven forbid they get divorced, what would everyone say and such, la la la.

I did once meet a couple who had been married for 40 yrs, he was a minister and they seemed very much in love. It was beautiful and inspiring.

[TheGlow]

I used to say there should be 5 year contracts. Then no one gets used to mooching, or abusing, or taking for granted. If things disolve your finances aren't intertwined and you hopefully saw it coming. Can part as friends.

Being married is great. No matter what happens my husband and I will be family and have each other's back. It's a great idea if you get it right. We got together stupidly young we have trouble with parts because we both have changed since we were 17. At this point what ever happens we are family.

I think that is also a good step people need to be mature enough to make. Just because you can no longer do the couple thing it doesn't mean you stop treating someone you love with respect, compassion, and for their highest good.

Sometimes people fight to long to make it work instead of parting while they can still see what they love about a person and stay close.

As a child of divorce I think it's this tearing apart of love that destroys people.
Mom and dad maybe don't want to be a couple any more but their is no reason two people that had so much love should end up hating each other because it didn't work out. Nor should all the friends and extending family have to choose sides. There is no need. Bonds of love should be able to survive realizing you aren't a match till dead do you part.

Oh course to pull this off you have to have very open communication from the time things start to fail so no one is shocked. Time given to fix things, and respect for each other. No one wants to stay married to someone who isn't able to be happy with them.

[DoctorStrange]

Originally Posted by Sarian

I think religion gave birth to the idea and/or law people had to get married.

You may be on to something.

[innerlight]

Is marriage overrated, no.. Are humans capable of being in a sustaining and lasting marriage? One in five, perhaps.

Humans are a proud and selfish bunch, and such attitudes and behaviors are not conducive for such things in the long run. The work great for the moment, but then, when life really happens. Is when most of them, fall apart. It doesn't help that most are conditional to their terms from the start of the relationship. Human love between two people can be very, very fickle. The slightest tug on it's strings, such as finances, children, etc, can unravel "love" very fast, till all that is left, is animosity and resentment towards each other.

Clover makes excellent points. 90% of marriages, give or take, are people that jump right into them, and are people that got married extremely young, and do not really know themselves. So it's no surprise for a majority of them, the marriage did not last to ten years.

I do wonder though, how many that say marriage does not work, or is pointless, and we shouldn't do that, are speaking out of bitterness because they have been left broken hearted from relationships and how they see love now.

[7luminaries]

I also think the broader question should be is whether "relationships" generally are overrated. And by relationships, I specifically mean amorphous serial "dating" or amorphous (undefined) serial "relationships", where the premise of the relationship is sex and some varying level of companionship.

As in, what do they have to offer the individual?

Being that they are, broadly speaking, undefined in every aspect.

Except that 1) men do broadly expect and typically even demand and require sex early on, well ahead of knowing someone enough to assess their character or truly love one another authentically.

And that 2) women likewise broadly expect or feel that they must or need to provide sex in order for the man to even engage or to continue to spend time with them. The woman's presence, company and her potential beloved friendship, perhaps even her future commitment as a life partner...all this is usually understood (at least at some level) to be of little value to many without the sexual aspect up front, full stop.

Although almost no one wants to be honest about these facts, what they mean is that women -- many of whom who feel they must offer sex to even engage a man for any length of time as a potential partner -- are thus approaching these relationships from a position of emotional and spiritual powerlessness, because they are pressured to give without receiving, or to give whilst receiving very little that is meaningful to them.

The things that many women want come slowly, over time, with the unfolding of who we are, of our hearts, and of being there for one another first and foremost as people and as beloved friends. Most women desire those things in any relationship but especially in intimate partnerships, as opposed to being shagbuddies or "girlfriends" who are not deeply engaged, known, or valued much otherwise.

We are relatively powerless as soon as we engage in the "modern sexual relationship" paradigm, all the whilst being told by society that the woman is "in charge". Why? Because she is the one who must consent to sex (we certainly hope, anyway). Which completely sidesteps the fact that sex first almost never leads to authentic love or any kind of honourable commitment. Or that no one shags their way to authentic love. Or that it's not ever first and foremost about the sex for most women. If men honestly told the majority of the women they pursued and shagged that they were not up to authentically loving them, nor to ever committing to them -- no matter how long they were together or intimate or regardless of saying the "L" word -- many women would wake up at the get go, and never go there to begin with.

It is many women's naivete, failure to establish sustainable boundaries, and understandable lack of awareness of of the reality of many men -- along with the facile deception and misdirection of many men in pursuit of sex and easy companionship -- that has created the pitiful state of amorphous relationships today...replete to bursting with exploitation and dishonour, as well as with denial, living in illusion (on both sides), codependency and fear.

Many women live under the illusion that shagging will lead a man to authentically love her...and perhaps even commit to her. Many men live with the illusion that they are not exploiting a more vulnerable (sex) "partner", simply because she was not outright coerced into providing sex to him almost wholly impersonally and interchangeably...i.e., without an authentic, personal love for her specifically and often with only a cursory and superficial knowledge of who she is.

So why is the woolly "determinant of power" or the "focus" even about sex (???), when sex is not the core of any authentically loving partnership, and when the sex alone will never sustain a relationship that lacks authentic love? And, most of all, when it is not the core focus for most women...and when it is not at the centre of their hearts without authentic love and some meaningful level of emotional and spiritual commitment?

And so it goes without saying that a vast majority of modern "relationships" have nothing at all (necessarily) to do with authentic love. Nor (of course) with any sort of life partnership commitment of any kind. I know ofttimes many project their hopes and dreams onto whatever relationship we are in...and that is human... but the reality is that you cannot shag your way to someone who will love you authentically, nor to someone who will commit to you as an authentically loving life partner.

So with that understood...that it is the sex and casual companionship without the "need" for love or commitment that many men value...and that it is a man's needs for sex and casual companionship which are met, however superficially and momentarily, in a casual relationship...then the question is, how is the amorphous sexual "relationship" meeting a woman's needs for authentic love, for a life partner, and for deeper emotional connection?

All of which (authentic love, life partnership, and a deeper emotional connection) BTW some men also seek. And it is exactly these precious things which these same men will also never...ever...find in a typical "relationship" in which the shagging and such commences light years ahead of truly knowing and loving another person just as they are, first and foremost as a person and as a beloved friend.

Why is that? Because you cannot come to authentically love another when you orient to them primarily in self-service, where you primarily value others for what they give you, do for you, or even how they make you feel. Loving another authentically means it's not all about you. So the orientation to authentic love is completely at odds to how most relationships are built today. And yet, with all the focus on sex right now...it is ONLY authentic love which is capable of enduring long-term and of sustaining enduring passion. And it is only authentic love that can even ignite sincere passion in the first place, for many women.

However, the orientation of most relationships today means that you can never simply authentically love the other as a person and a beloved friend. Because loving someone authentically means that you put their needs equal to your own...and that you seek what is best for them, their highest good. And not that you 1st and foremost seek to get what you need from them.

If two people "mutually consent" to be in a sexual "relationship", but one person loves the other authentically whilst the other does not, then the relationship will always be unequal and imbalanced. Likewise, if one has less power in society, or physically, or financially, etc., then the relationship will always be imbalanced without a framework of authentic love expressed concretely, on the ground. With inequality and imbalance, and without authentic love, there will nearly always be a deep dissatisfaction on one or both sides. The entire construct needs to change...and I would even say it has to change, radically, and if not sooner then later.

An authentically loving commitment of partners is what a true and committed marriage of the heart is. And a form of public, legal commitment that simply reflects the love and commitment of your hearts certainly can be a very important aspect of that, even if a civil or less traditional ceremony.

I think it is not only marriage per se that needs to undergo a vast reformation...it is equally so the typical western "relationship" based primarily on sex (and sometimes on convenience and economy, as in shacking up), that will also need to undergo a vast and extensive transformation.

These transformations will be as vast and as far-reaching, IMO, as the spiritual transformations so many of us are undergoing at the individual, societal/cultural, and global levels.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[Nature Grows]

Just another silly concept in my opinion. I always think it's a little funny when I hear people say this is MY wife or this is MY girlfriend and vice versa like the person is an object they own, lol. Some people don't even realise that there partner has the right to leave them when ever they want and when that happends there like... what.... whats going on!

Originally Posted by starling

Nettles , your even more cynical than I am.

Let's start again.

1) Marriage can work.

2) It can be romantic.

3) Couples can stay together and be happy and work it out.

4) Marriage IS hard work, I don't think any one would dispute that. It just depends on if you are prepared to put that commitment in.

5) If you're not prepared to face that commitment, don't have kids.

6) Even now people do occasionally stay together out of respect/bond. NOt just financial or legal reasons.....

Well of course these points can be true, I never claimed otherwise. I am not cynical in the least when it comes to love. In fact, I am the very definition of a romantic fool. All about holding hands and candles etc...making love rather than just f-ing.
I sound cynical of the institution of marriage, perhaps I once was, but upon reflection, the emotion I feel when I think about marriage is total indifference.