Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Myth, Myth... Yeth?)   Ten myths about divorce   (marriage.rutgers.edu) divider line 330
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

44732 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2007 at 12:30 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-05-25 02:54:51 AM  
In general the "savage" or "primitive" man takes his sex philosophically, with hardly more of metaphysical or theological misgiving than the animal; he does not brood over it, or fly into passion with it; it is a matter of course with him as food. He makes no pretense to idealistic motives. Marriage is never a sacrament to him, and seldom an affair of lavish ceremony.
It never occurs to him to be ashamed that he subordinates emotional to practical considerations in choosing his mate; he would rather be ashamed of the opposite, and would demand of us, if he were as immodest as we are, some explanation of our custom of binding a man and a woman together almost for life because sexual desire has chained them for a moment with its lightning.
Marriage was a profitable partnership, not a private debauch; it was a way whereby a man and a woman, working together, might be more prosperous than if each worked alone.
Wherever women has ceased to be an economic asset in marriage, marriage has decayed; and sometimes civilization has decayed with it.
 
2007-05-25 02:55:37 AM  
oregoncat: That's what I thought. But have you read any of this thread, about what problems that causes?

I might not want to play with my own poop, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal or prevented under law. Especially if some folks over yonder would like to.
 
2007-05-25 02:55:47 AM  
oregoncat

"I am an emotional plagiarist. I steal the pain of others, subsuming it into my own until..."

/just sayin'


It's a quote from a play. If you're going to try to be a smartass it would help if you were smart.

/Just sayin'
 
2007-05-25 02:57:24 AM  
meekychuppet: If you're going to try to be a smartass it would help if you were smart.

Didn't realize you'd take it so seriously ;-)
 
2007-05-25 02:57:53 AM  
oregoncat If marriage is so terrible, why are the gays/lesbians fighting so hard for it?

Like everything it comes down to money, really:

Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks

Plus, I think they (rightfully) see themselves as equal in every way to heterosexual couples and believe they should be treated as such.
 
2007-05-25 02:58:26 AM  
"It's not like women (or men) were traded around like a product."

-Yes, Thorak, that's EXACTLY what it was. Look at Africas, India or the Orients history. Just to get started with examples.
 
2007-05-25 03:00:26 AM  
Barbecue Bob: In general the "savage" or "primitive" man takes his sex philosophically, with hardly more of metaphysical or theological misgiving than the animal; he does not brood over it, or fly into passion with it; it is a matter of course with him as food. He makes no pretense to idealistic motives. Marriage is never a sacrament to him, and seldom an affair of lavish ceremony.

You sound like you're quoting, and based on the nature of the quote, I'll be amazed if it was written later than the 19th century.

We've come a little way in our understanding of things since then.


Marriage was a profitable partnership, not a private debauch; it was a way whereby a man and a woman, working together, might be more prosperous than if each worked alone.

So you're admitting your earlier comments were full of it, and that I'm right?


Wherever women has ceased to be an economic asset in marriage, marriage has decayed; and sometimes civilization has decayed with it.

Women were an "economic asset in marriage" in precisely the same degree as men were. For every woman who was betrothed to a man she'd never met, there was a man who'd been betrothed to a girl he'd never met. You keep trying to make this about misogyny, when it's got nothing to do with any inequality of the sexes.

However, I'm certain you're quoting something over a hundred years old, anyway.
 
2007-05-25 03:00:36 AM  
Aqueduct_Pocket

I was going tosay exactly that. In UK when it was being legalised, all I heard was "Pension rights", "Tax concessions" and "Inheritance rights".

It's all academic anyhow. In UK new laws mean that after six months the state effectively marries you anyway.
 
2007-05-25 03:01:37 AM  
Aqueduct_Pocket: Like everything it comes down to money, really:

Yes, right, right! But those 'benefits' can so easily be turned against you. That's just what this thread has been about, people's bitter experiences in trusting someone else with those powers.

And for the records, I'm all for any sort of social compact, gay/lesbian, brother/sister, I don't care. If you want to make a contract, so be it. But as you can see in this thread, it may not turn out so well...
 
2007-05-25 03:02:06 AM  
Guest

You are either dangerously ignorant or maliciously dedicated to a political agenda.

What you said is like that old Hitler-ism "If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth."

Honestly, you have no reason to even post something so stereotypically wrong. It's just as offensive as if you posted something about Jews and money, blacks and basketball, whatever.

It suits your selfish belief system to paint the majority with broad sweeping strokes of the minority, and it's so harmful to so many innocent fathers and ESPECIALLY their children.
 
2007-05-25 03:02:20 AM  
Barbeque Bob: -Yes, Thorak, that's EXACTLY what it was. Look at Africas, India or the Orients history. Just to get started with examples.

Has it happened in some societies? Sure. Have men been traded around like a commodity in other societies? Yep.

You're making sweeping generalizations about the nature of marriage throughout the history of humanity, and you're completely and utterly wrong about the supposed universality of the things you're talking about.
 
2007-05-25 03:05:16 AM  
You don't find love poems in anything other than developed civilizations.

"Again, completely and utterly false."

Did you read the other than developed civilizations part? Primitave peoples are too poor to be romantic.
For example; When the missionaries translated the Bible into the language of the Algonquins they could discover no native equivalent for the word love. On the Gold Coast not even an appearance of affection exists between husband and wife and is the same in primitave Australia.
The kiss, which seems so indispensable to America, is quite unknown to primitive peoples or known only to be scorned.
 
2007-05-25 03:05:38 AM  
Thorak: You're making sweeping generalizations about the nature of marriage throughout the history of humanity

Good point. We've had recent cases of sexual slavery in the U.S., will history generalize that it was the common way of life here?
 
2007-05-25 03:08:20 AM  
Barbecue Bob: Did you read the other than developed civilizations part? Primitave peoples are too poor to be romantic.
For example; When the missionaries translated the Bible into the language of the Algonquins they could discover no native equivalent for the word love. On the Gold Coast not even an appearance of affection exists between husband and wife and is the same in primitave Australia.


Yep, you're full of it.

The Algonquin people understood love. Quite well. You're citing the misunderstandings of bigoted missionaries as fact. They also claimed these people were unable to learn to read, and other complete garbage.

Try reading some stuff written in the late 20th century sometime.


The kiss, which seems so indispensable to America, is quite unknown to primitive peoples or known only to be scorned.
 
2007-05-25 03:09:19 AM  
yarnothuntin

The kind of equitable agreement you entered into after the marriage is called Dissolution.

Or at least I hope that's what you did and not a divorce, considering the fact that you and your ex get along well. It's so much cheaper.
 
2007-05-25 03:11:45 AM  
Men are biologically disposed to spread seed. The ability to reproduce is much higher in men than women. Men should have lots of biznatches.

/only slightly bitter ;)
 
2007-05-25 03:13:46 AM  
BeanTunes: Men should have lots of biznatches.

As I noted before, we already have that.
It's called 'The Hood'.

/sigh
 
2007-05-25 03:14:42 AM  
Also, just to thoroughly pound this home;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/ne/al/al10.htm

That's a link to an Algonquin legend, recorded in 1884, about a sorceress who fell in love with Glooskap.

So yes, the Algonquin tribe specifically had legends involving love. Try actually looking into things sometime; I found that in about 2 minutes with Google.
 
2007-05-25 03:14:48 AM  
"Has it happened in some societies? Sure."
Some societies? Back then, Africa, India and the Orient were the majority of humanity.
Thorak, every possible experiment compatible with primitave societies has been tried, or is still practiced, amongst various races, without the least thought of the moral ideas generally prevailing in Europe and America.

Anyway, IMO, the fact that most modern American marriage fails is no suprise to me. It's just plain unnecessary in this era.
 
2007-05-25 03:15:39 AM  
There is still something in me that makes me believe that we can still beat the inevitability of our animal nature...
 
2007-05-25 03:19:35 AM  
EvilBobRoss

Yes, quite true. However, a granny smith is still an apple. The point is, as someone previously pointed out, it really depends on the people involved. I agree that article paints with a very wide brush and really just considers the worst case scenarios. I feel though divorce lawyers are a big source of enhancing and prolonging the hurt and hate that is natural in any break up.
 
2007-05-25 03:20:28 AM  
Barbeque Bob: Some societies? Back then, Africa, India and the Orient were the majority of humanity.

They still are today. India and the Orient make up more than half the population of the world.

So what?

Also, you're making claims about specific periods in those societies, and claiming they're true of the entirety of that society, which is rather ridiculous.


Thorak, every possible experiment compatible with primitave societies has been tried, or is still practiced, amongst various races, without the least thought of the moral ideas generally prevailing in Europe and America.

I have no idea what you're talking about, here. Unless you're claiming that marriage among non-Western societies is immoral and only an experiment by a primitive society, and that's so ridiculously wrongheaded and racist that I'll just assume you're blathering incoherently.


Anyway, IMO, the fact that most modern American marriage fails is no suprise to me. It's just plain unnecessary in this era.

So is art. So is love. So is freedom. So are plenty of worthwhile and laudable things.

We don't base the importance and desirability of things on how necessary they are.
 
2007-05-25 03:20:52 AM  
Fighting nature is like pissing on a fire.
 
2007-05-25 03:22:38 AM  
yarnothuntin: I feel though divorce lawyers are a big source of enhancing and prolonging the hurt and hate that is natural in any break up.

My lawyer was only ever helpful. The problem is the two involved members of the marriage, and their struggling against each other to get the better of their opponent.

Lawyers are merely the weapon used. My divorce was uncontested and relatively benign; my lawyer was only involved to make sure everything went properly, not to represent me in court because I was being sued.
 
2007-05-25 03:26:30 AM  
http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/ne/al/al10.htm

The word love in the title and summary is an interpritation of the intention in the story and not a actual translation of any words in the story.
I read beyond the 21st century interpritation and read the actual sacred text. Love is not mentioned.
 
2007-05-25 03:30:51 AM  
BeanTunes: Fighting nature is like pissing on a fire.

Better to piss on the fire than let it consume you.
 
2007-05-25 03:32:08 AM  
Thorak
Yeah, pretty much same deal here. But then I see some of these knock down, drag out brawls that people have and it seems like the lawyers are more than willing participants in it because they are getting paid to make sure their client wins no matter the cost. And thats when the children really start to suffer- watching their parents hating on each other. There I said it- think of the children.

/went there because peter_hook already took teh Godwin
 
2007-05-25 03:32:12 AM  
yarnothuntin

Oh no, I completely agree with you. After the initial shock and bitterness is over it's time to reconcile. That's why I said I hope you got a dissolution. I have one myself. I still have my ex-wife over and will make her dinner. Apparently the new man can't or won't cook, or some such silliness.
 
2007-05-25 03:32:13 AM  
"We don't base the importance and desirability of things on how necessary they are."
Yes Thorak, when it comes to marriage, yes we do. Marriage has for countless generations and countless cultures been based on just that.
Modern times in regards to marriage seem to agree. Mostly not necessary = mostly not successfull.
 
2007-05-25 03:32:16 AM  
Barbecue Bob: The word love in the title and summary is an interpritation of the intention in the story and not a actual translation of any words in the story.
I read beyond the 21st century interpritation and read the actual sacred text. Love is not mentioned.


It's a 19th century interpretation; the text was written in 1884. And love's mentioned twice, besides the title. As Ctrl-F would've told you, had you bothered to even check, let alone actually reading the legend.
 
2007-05-25 03:32:38 AM  
I'm a product (of the first marriage) of a mother that married 3 times, father 4. Although marriage sounds good in theory, I'm hyper aware of the things that can sabotage a long term relationship. Consequently I'm a serial monagamist, scared shiatless of marriage, and have lost enough heart and money to my significant others to say getting married would only have been that much worse. I'd really like to come down on the other side of this debate, but I can't. It really boils down to the quality of people involved, their stability, and level of committment. It's been my experience that it's statistically improbable that you'll come out good on all 3. Especially if you like women that are good in the sack, which usually is an indicator of their lack of stability, lack of quality as a person, and lack of committment. Funny how that works.

Ok, that's probably the most slanted, sexist, derogatory thing I've ever typed. Anyway, my relationships last about 1.5 years, so that kinda explains that. No kids or extended payment plans so far...and no I'm not really happy in my current relationship...approaching 2 years. I'm a biologist at heart...it's all about phermones and immunologic compatibility. You might find the one, and have "survival" children, but chances are she's batshiat crazy and evil. Have a nice night.
 
2007-05-25 03:33:01 AM  
From TFA: "Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be "badly behaved." Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity."

I notice they didn't cite that little tidbit at the end. That is the biggest load of crap I've ever read. Women initiate divorce 2/3 of the time because men misbehave? More like they know they'll be able to take 80% of his stuff, the house, the kids, and be able to screw some other guy while he foots the bill. They conveniently left that part out.

If you are an American male and you get married without a prenup nowadays, you are retarded and deserve everything you get. It's equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with 3 of the chambers loaded. 4 chambers loaded if you're under 28.

They're going to need the jaws of life to get through my ironclad prenup, IF I ever get married. It's getting signed in front of a judge with witnesses, and before the marriage date is set, so she can't claim duress. If you cheat, gain 50 pounds, sit on the coach all day, or deny sex...so long. I'll keep everything well for you.
 
2007-05-25 03:34:41 AM  
It's better to watch the fire burn from a safe distance........:)

/Embrace your demons.
 
2007-05-25 03:35:00 AM  
"A good divorce is better than a bad marriage."
-somebody

*Cheers to the good divorce and those lucky enough to have them*

/going to see ex tomorrow actually.
 
2007-05-25 03:36:15 AM  
Barbeque Bob: "We don't base the importance and desirability of things on how necessary they are."
Yes Thorak, when it comes to marriage, yes we do. Marriage has for countless generations and countless cultures been based on just that.


See, when I posted that, replying to your comment that "most modern American marriage fails is no suprise to [you]", I figured you were talking about modern American marriage, not that involved in countless generations and countless cultures beyond it.

Quoting me out of context doesn't prove your point, it only proves you don't have one you can support with actual evidence or reason.


Modern times in regards to marriage seem to agree. Mostly not necessary = mostly not successfull.

The planet's warming up in direct correlation with the decrease in pirates, too. Guess those must be directly connected, too, eh?
 
2007-05-25 03:36:27 AM  
Holy Crap. I guess #2 just basically dooms me to divorcee hell. My BF and I have been together for 3 1/2 years, and have lived together for over 2. We'll get married, eventually. You know, when we get around to it.

Then again, after this article, maybe we won't. It'll be better that way.

/DNRTFT
 
2007-05-25 03:38:36 AM  
"The best thing that you can do for your children is have a good relationship with your spouse" - Dr. Phil

One of the few wise sayings to come out of Dr. Phil's mouth.
 
2007-05-25 03:39:15 AM  
Just popping into this thread and skipping to the end...
Cant Let You Do That Star Fox...You're an idiot...a young naive idiot
 
2007-05-25 03:40:31 AM  
I like how the debunking of number eight ignores the possibly of a father with custody. Ahem.
 
2007-05-25 03:41:18 AM  
audionerd:Especially if you like women that are good in the sack, which usually is an indicator of their lack of stability, lack of quality as a person, and lack of committment.

Talk about sweeping generalizations. Just cause a woman likes sex does not = instability. That honestly sounds like the only woman I would be compatible with.
 
2007-05-25 03:41:55 AM  
Barbeque Bob: Some societies? Back then, Africa, India and the Orient were the majority of humanity.

"They still are today. India and the Orient make up more than half the population of the world.

So what?"

So what is that the vast majority of the cultures in the past and presant married for prosperity and not "love" Spouses were and are bought and sold based on economic and necessary reasons. Not love.
 
2007-05-25 03:43:41 AM  
MinesNotSideways

I'm an idiot for not throwing away most of my best years, hard work and money to a woman who defrauds me into marriage based on false promises? Then I don't want to be "smart".

Sticks and stones...
 
2007-05-25 03:44:24 AM  
www.giantmag.com

/LOL sorry Mr. Logo couldn't resist
 
2007-05-25 03:45:17 AM  
Barbecue Bob: So what is that the vast majority of the cultures in the past and presant married for prosperity and not "love" Spouses were and are bought and sold based on economic and necessary reasons. Not love.

The first sentence is true, but only because they couldn't afford to seek love; they were always aware that it existed, it was just something most couldn't afford to spend time looking for, they were too busy feeding themselves.

The second is an outright lie, like so much else you've posted. Two people joining in a marriage of necessity and function bears no resemblance to a commercial transaction, despite your insistence that it does. It's more akin to a business partnership than a retail purchase. They weren't, in the vast majority of cultures, bought or sold.

Women you purchased were slaves, not wives. And while sexual slavery existed (and still does), it's got nothing to do with the concept of marriage.
 
2007-05-25 03:46:59 AM  
BeanTunes

Talk about sweeping generalizations. Just cause a woman likes sex does not = instability. That honestly sounds like the only woman I would be compatible with.

Liking sex has little to do with it, but how they treat sex very well could. I've found that most girls who refer to sex as "hooking up" are trouble. Shows little modesty and self-respect. Way too casual an attitude about something that should be meaningful.
 
2007-05-25 03:47:21 AM  
Dr. Feel-this, is a douche
 
2007-05-25 03:47:34 AM  
imfallen_angel:

"When it comes to the kids... either they'll be respectful, smart enough and not be selfish, then, no problem."

You don't know anywhere near as much about kids as you think you do. Kids, especally small ones, can not appreciate the decision you're making or the feelings you're feeling. Their world is very small, and they're the center of it. That's just the way we are before we mature into adulthood.

I hope for your future children's sake that you can understand their point of view and their needs before making the decision to divorce.

Parenting is about survival and meeting necessities. Good parenting is about nurturing, giving, and sacrifice.

I hear so many people say #6 and it makes me so angry. Everyone who says that is completely forgetting what it's like to be a child. They're just justifying a decision made in disregard for their child's feelings and needs. I want to smack people like that.

*ceveat*, there are some extreme situations where #6 is true. But 99% of people that use #6 are just unwilling to put their child's needs ahead of their own.
 
2007-05-25 03:49:03 AM  
Barbecue Bob: This was the case for tens of thousands of years.
Not until religion.
Marrage was a result of church influence and NOT a human trait.
Divorce, IMO, is a result of human genitics, the industrial age which gave us more options and the end of the stranglehold of the church on the people.


Oh brother. Welcome to Fark where religion causes half the worlds problems and Bush causes the other half.

Seriously, if marriage is only a religious concept how do explain that almost every religion has included the concept. Long before they all interacted. And I'm including all the eastern religions and pagan religions as well.

Could it be that nature has created a natural need for humans to bond with another and because of physical differences between men and women it made sense for a man to protect and provide for a woman. I guess in our modern "enlightened" age that's not PC anymore.

For the record I'm saddened by divorce. If you can't take your commitments seriously then don't get married. I'm not saying that there is never a reason for divorce but it seems the majority of people go into marriage because it felt good at the time and then divorce for exactly the same reason.

Feelings aren't a real good basis for a marriage. It takes mutual trust, devotion and unconditional love. Its not always easy but being selfless can be very rewarding.

/ married 5 years, not worried about losing half my stuff
// parents and her parents both still together > 30 years
/// 3 of our 4 pairs of grandparents still together > 50 years
//// yes America it can be done.
 
2007-05-25 03:49:35 AM  
Jim Backus

"Many a man owes his success to his first wife and his second wife to his success."

well said JIM !...R.I.P.....say hi to Gilligan for me...
 
2007-05-25 03:50:51 AM  
Cant Let You Do That Star Fox

Umm pre-nuptial only applies to assets acquired prior to marriage. Anything after that is subject to a court ruling during divorce, or so I was told.

/IANAL, Wouldn't know too much about that
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report