Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
davelj
Participant[quote=jstoesz]
The point, the reason, the intention of marriage is not for self fulfillment of ones “needs” or appetites. It is to create something that is greater than oneself. It is to provide man some semblance of a purpose in life. To create a unit geared toward making the world a better place. Primarily through the betterment of one’s children, but more immediately the betterment of one’s self and spouse’s self. It is the most obvious and natural way in which man can accomplish this. Nothing in life that is worthwhile is easy, nothing! I would contend that successful marriages are so difficult, because they are one of the most worthwhile things a man can do. But in turn then, they must be difficult.
[/quote]I disagree with most of this. The intention of most marriages, if folks are being honest with themselves, is to “lock down” the other person; to take them off the market, so to speak, so that they’re not running around with other people. Now, more often than not, both people want to have kids and they want the other person as a partner in this venture. But the whole thing can viewed as fairly selfish, frankly – “You’re mine now.” “Creating something greater than one’s self”, “to provide man some semblance of purpose in life”? I suppose there are folks out there that feel this way, but… I find this notion completely bizarre. You need to have a spouse (and/or kids) to have purpose in life? Beyond bizarre. Now if you said that helping other people in some profound manner – which has nothing to do with marriage and kids – might engender some sense of purpose in one’s life, then o.k., I’ll buy that. But I wouldn’t put marriage into that category.
Do you honestly believe that your marriage is creating “a unit geared toward making the world a better place”? You cannot be serious. Look, I hope you have a happy union, self fulfillment, and nice kids, etc. But, for christ’s sake… making the world a better place through your marriage?… please. That’s one of the more pretentious things I’ve ever read here at the Pigg. And that’s saying something.
Participant[quote=jstoesz]
The point, the reason, the intention of marriage is not for self fulfillment of ones “needs” or appetites. It is to create something that is greater than oneself. It is to provide man some semblance of a purpose in life. To create a unit geared toward making the world a better place. Primarily through the betterment of one’s children, but more immediately the betterment of one’s self and spouse’s self. It is the most obvious and natural way in which man can accomplish this. Nothing in life that is worthwhile is easy, nothing! I would contend that successful marriages are so difficult, because they are one of the most worthwhile things a man can do. But in turn then, they must be difficult.
[/quote]I disagree with most of this. The intention of most marriages, if folks are being honest with themselves, is to “lock down” the other person; to take them off the market, so to speak, so that they’re not running around with other people. Now, more often than not, both people want to have kids and they want the other person as a partner in this venture. But the whole thing can viewed as fairly selfish, frankly – “You’re mine now.” “Creating something greater than one’s self”, “to provide man some semblance of purpose in life”? I suppose there are folks out there that feel this way, but… I find this notion completely bizarre. You need to have a spouse (and/or kids) to have purpose in life? Beyond bizarre. Now if you said that helping other people in some profound manner – which has nothing to do with marriage and kids – might engender some sense of purpose in one’s life, then o.k., I’ll buy that. But I wouldn’t put marriage into that category.
Do you honestly believe that your marriage is creating “a unit geared toward making the world a better place”? You cannot be serious. Look, I hope you have a happy union, self fulfillment, and nice kids, etc. But, for christ’s sake… making the world a better place through your marriage?… please. That’s one of the more pretentious things I’ve ever read here at the Pigg. And that’s saying something.
Participant[quote=jstoesz]
The point, the reason, the intention of marriage is not for self fulfillment of ones “needs” or appetites. It is to create something that is greater than oneself. It is to provide man some semblance of a purpose in life. To create a unit geared toward making the world a better place. Primarily through the betterment of one’s children, but more immediately the betterment of one’s self and spouse’s self. It is the most obvious and natural way in which man can accomplish this. Nothing in life that is worthwhile is easy, nothing! I would contend that successful marriages are so difficult, because they are one of the most worthwhile things a man can do. But in turn then, they must be difficult.
[/quote]I disagree with most of this. The intention of most marriages, if folks are being honest with themselves, is to “lock down” the other person; to take them off the market, so to speak, so that they’re not running around with other people. Now, more often than not, both people want to have kids and they want the other person as a partner in this venture. But the whole thing can viewed as fairly selfish, frankly – “You’re mine now.” “Creating something greater than one’s self”, “to provide man some semblance of purpose in life”? I suppose there are folks out there that feel this way, but… I find this notion completely bizarre. You need to have a spouse (and/or kids) to have purpose in life? Beyond bizarre. Now if you said that helping other people in some profound manner – which has nothing to do with marriage and kids – might engender some sense of purpose in one’s life, then o.k., I’ll buy that. But I wouldn’t put marriage into that category.
Do you honestly believe that your marriage is creating “a unit geared toward making the world a better place”? You cannot be serious. Look, I hope you have a happy union, self fulfillment, and nice kids, etc. But, for christ’s sake… making the world a better place through your marriage?… please. That’s one of the more pretentious things I’ve ever read here at the Pigg. And that’s saying something.
ParticipantJohn Stewart on Henri Levy/Ben Stein on DSK… very funny
http://gawker.com/5803797/jon-stewart-takes-down-ben-steins-defense-of-dominique-strauss+kahn
ParticipantJohn Stewart on Henri Levy/Ben Stein on DSK… very funny
http://gawker.com/5803797/jon-stewart-takes-down-ben-steins-defense-of-dominique-strauss+kahn
ParticipantJohn Stewart on Henri Levy/Ben Stein on DSK… very funny
http://gawker.com/5803797/jon-stewart-takes-down-ben-steins-defense-of-dominique-strauss+kahn
ParticipantJohn Stewart on Henri Levy/Ben Stein on DSK… very funny
http://gawker.com/5803797/jon-stewart-takes-down-ben-steins-defense-of-dominique-strauss+kahn
ParticipantJohn Stewart on Henri Levy/Ben Stein on DSK… very funny
http://gawker.com/5803797/jon-stewart-takes-down-ben-steins-defense-of-dominique-strauss+kahn
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb] Society in general pushes for it.
[/quote]That’s the key here. That’s why I say that marriage is coercive.
For social advancement you need to get married.
Arnold needed to get married to become governor. Maria wanted a trophy husband as much as Arnold wanted a trophy wife in a well-connected political family.
Charles and Diana needed to get married. Charles needed it to become king and assure continuity for the monarchy. Diana did it for social advancement.
I think that Diana was very childish and irresponsible. She should have swallowed her pride and played along to gain the advantage of becoming queen. But she behaved like a low-class guest on Oprah.
Of course, regular folks are not as compelled to get married. But still, to more easily advance in society, you need to get married
Married people get more days off. They are allowed to leave early to deal with family problems, etc..
Unmarried employees will be believed to be gay. And we all know that married folks discriminate against single folks. It’s true in the private workplace, true in government, and true in the military.
Because society pushes for marriage, people do to it to gain the advantages of marriage. Love and fidelity are the idealistic aspects of marriage, not the practical, business-like part.
People may not admit it to themselves, but social benefits is what marriage is all about. That’s what the institution of marriage was designed for.
[/quote]This is true to some extent but (1) this pressure is declining over time, and (2) it varies significantly by geography. For example, for a guy to be single and never-married in southern California is really no big deal. It’s fairly common. Now, in the Southeast, outside of major metropolitan areas… there’s real pressure to get hitched by 30 or it’s assumed you’re a gaymosexual, with all of the limitations that entails. But, here in SoCal, I think there’s very little pressure to marry relative to other parts of the country.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb] Society in general pushes for it.
[/quote]That’s the key here. That’s why I say that marriage is coercive.
For social advancement you need to get married.
Arnold needed to get married to become governor. Maria wanted a trophy husband as much as Arnold wanted a trophy wife in a well-connected political family.
Charles and Diana needed to get married. Charles needed it to become king and assure continuity for the monarchy. Diana did it for social advancement.
I think that Diana was very childish and irresponsible. She should have swallowed her pride and played along to gain the advantage of becoming queen. But she behaved like a low-class guest on Oprah.
Of course, regular folks are not as compelled to get married. But still, to more easily advance in society, you need to get married
Married people get more days off. They are allowed to leave early to deal with family problems, etc..
Unmarried employees will be believed to be gay. And we all know that married folks discriminate against single folks. It’s true in the private workplace, true in government, and true in the military.
Because society pushes for marriage, people do to it to gain the advantages of marriage. Love and fidelity are the idealistic aspects of marriage, not the practical, business-like part.
People may not admit it to themselves, but social benefits is what marriage is all about. That’s what the institution of marriage was designed for.
[/quote]This is true to some extent but (1) this pressure is declining over time, and (2) it varies significantly by geography. For example, for a guy to be single and never-married in southern California is really no big deal. It’s fairly common. Now, in the Southeast, outside of major metropolitan areas… there’s real pressure to get hitched by 30 or it’s assumed you’re a gaymosexual, with all of the limitations that entails. But, here in SoCal, I think there’s very little pressure to marry relative to other parts of the country.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb] Society in general pushes for it.
[/quote]That’s the key here. That’s why I say that marriage is coercive.
For social advancement you need to get married.
Arnold needed to get married to become governor. Maria wanted a trophy husband as much as Arnold wanted a trophy wife in a well-connected political family.
Charles and Diana needed to get married. Charles needed it to become king and assure continuity for the monarchy. Diana did it for social advancement.
I think that Diana was very childish and irresponsible. She should have swallowed her pride and played along to gain the advantage of becoming queen. But she behaved like a low-class guest on Oprah.
Of course, regular folks are not as compelled to get married. But still, to more easily advance in society, you need to get married
Married people get more days off. They are allowed to leave early to deal with family problems, etc..
Unmarried employees will be believed to be gay. And we all know that married folks discriminate against single folks. It’s true in the private workplace, true in government, and true in the military.
Because society pushes for marriage, people do to it to gain the advantages of marriage. Love and fidelity are the idealistic aspects of marriage, not the practical, business-like part.
People may not admit it to themselves, but social benefits is what marriage is all about. That’s what the institution of marriage was designed for.
[/quote]This is true to some extent but (1) this pressure is declining over time, and (2) it varies significantly by geography. For example, for a guy to be single and never-married in southern California is really no big deal. It’s fairly common. Now, in the Southeast, outside of major metropolitan areas… there’s real pressure to get hitched by 30 or it’s assumed you’re a gaymosexual, with all of the limitations that entails. But, here in SoCal, I think there’s very little pressure to marry relative to other parts of the country.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb] Society in general pushes for it.
[/quote]That’s the key here. That’s why I say that marriage is coercive.
For social advancement you need to get married.
Arnold needed to get married to become governor. Maria wanted a trophy husband as much as Arnold wanted a trophy wife in a well-connected political family.
Charles and Diana needed to get married. Charles needed it to become king and assure continuity for the monarchy. Diana did it for social advancement.
I think that Diana was very childish and irresponsible. She should have swallowed her pride and played along to gain the advantage of becoming queen. But she behaved like a low-class guest on Oprah.
Of course, regular folks are not as compelled to get married. But still, to more easily advance in society, you need to get married
Married people get more days off. They are allowed to leave early to deal with family problems, etc..
Unmarried employees will be believed to be gay. And we all know that married folks discriminate against single folks. It’s true in the private workplace, true in government, and true in the military.
Because society pushes for marriage, people do to it to gain the advantages of marriage. Love and fidelity are the idealistic aspects of marriage, not the practical, business-like part.
People may not admit it to themselves, but social benefits is what marriage is all about. That’s what the institution of marriage was designed for.
[/quote]This is true to some extent but (1) this pressure is declining over time, and (2) it varies significantly by geography. For example, for a guy to be single and never-married in southern California is really no big deal. It’s fairly common. Now, in the Southeast, outside of major metropolitan areas… there’s real pressure to get hitched by 30 or it’s assumed you’re a gaymosexual, with all of the limitations that entails. But, here in SoCal, I think there’s very little pressure to marry relative to other parts of the country.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jpinpb] Society in general pushes for it.
[/quote]That’s the key here. That’s why I say that marriage is coercive.
For social advancement you need to get married.
Arnold needed to get married to become governor. Maria wanted a trophy husband as much as Arnold wanted a trophy wife in a well-connected political family.
Charles and Diana needed to get married. Charles needed it to become king and assure continuity for the monarchy. Diana did it for social advancement.
I think that Diana was very childish and irresponsible. She should have swallowed her pride and played along to gain the advantage of becoming queen. But she behaved like a low-class guest on Oprah.
Of course, regular folks are not as compelled to get married. But still, to more easily advance in society, you need to get married
Married people get more days off. They are allowed to leave early to deal with family problems, etc..
Unmarried employees will be believed to be gay. And we all know that married folks discriminate against single folks. It’s true in the private workplace, true in government, and true in the military.
Because society pushes for marriage, people do to it to gain the advantages of marriage. Love and fidelity are the idealistic aspects of marriage, not the practical, business-like part.
People may not admit it to themselves, but social benefits is what marriage is all about. That’s what the institution of marriage was designed for.
[/quote]This is true to some extent but (1) this pressure is declining over time, and (2) it varies significantly by geography. For example, for a guy to be single and never-married in southern California is really no big deal. It’s fairly common. Now, in the Southeast, outside of major metropolitan areas… there’s real pressure to get hitched by 30 or it’s assumed you’re a gaymosexual, with all of the limitations that entails. But, here in SoCal, I think there’s very little pressure to marry relative to other parts of the country.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
My brother was married for 10 years. He fell out of love. He wanted to be w/other women. He did not cheat on his wife. He explained to her that it was better for them to divorce. He did not want to deceive her. He wanted her to be happy and find somone who loved her. She was hurt at the time, but now is happy. I think it would’ve been more traumatic for her if he cheated on her. [/quote]
Which is exactly how it’s supposed to be handled. I think the typical husband, however, reasons as follows: “I love my wife and family but I have ‘needs’. So long as my wife and family don’t know about how I go about satisfying them then it’s as if it didn’t happen. What they don’t know won’t hurt them. But if I try to divorce, there will be a long-term shitstorm from which recovery will be both expensive and emotionally draining. Therefore I will gamble that I won’t get caught because I like the odds and the potential asymmetric payoff.” Frankly, it’s the family-relationship version of kicking the can down the road. I think it’s that simple. It may not be particularly realistic – but if you’re really confident then I can see how many men sell themselves on this strategy.
And here’s the reality – many men go to their graves without their families knowing about their extracurricular activities. On the other hand, a large number get caught as well. So, it’s a risky strategy.
-
AuthorPosts
