A problem is you're presuming that a "reason" needs justification in the first place - being a "bad reason" and needing justification aren't the same things.

Sure in the Bible and in the Iron Age culture it was written on, it was a societal expectation to take a wife and have children for a lot of reasons that were practical to the culture at the time, as well as women's lack of recognition as individual participants in the relationship.

But many of those reasons don't hold water today, namely:

*Life expectancy is high, mortality is low in the West - procreation is not nearly as immediately necessary for collective survival as it was in Iron Age desert tribes

*While cultures have more or less universally expected members to "contribute more than they consume" to society, the West has a multitude of ways in which people can positively contribute to society compared to the Iron Age, where war, hunting, and procreation were the only ways a typical male could "contribute".

*Women are recognized as individuals who are voluntarily participating in an egalitarian relationship, rather than something which is essentially "bought and sold".

*Women are capable of and allowed to financially support themselves; whereas back in the Bible era a woman was entirely financially dependent on her husband - and since virginity was extremely important due to concerns of male linage, her "value" on the marriage marked would be greatly diminished if she was "used and return" - similar to how just driving a car off the lot greatly diminishes its value.

These threads go nowhere if they always turn into bashing Christianity. We're not going to change each others minds, but if we listen and speak from our own experiences we might learn from each other.

I'm not bashing Christianity itself, I'm just stating that the importance of marriage, divorce, procreation, etc in Old Testament Israel had very little to do with modern, egalitarian concepts of love and commitment.

It was purely survivalistic, and about the importance of male linage in the culture at the time.

This is why being "against divorce" for example without evaluating the situation at hand, or the goal of the relationship itself - makes a lot less since in the modern era, because it's applying Iron Age logic to the 21st century, without regards to why said things were even put into practice to begin with.

The goal of an Iron Age "relationship" or marriage was quite fundamentally different than the goal of one in the modern era. It was about producing heirs, as well as the husband being financially obligated to the bride's father, and much less about the modern egalitarian concepts of relationships.

Er, no, nothing about what you quoted presumes that in any way, shape, or form. Seriously, nothing.

The question was what causes divorce. Sean listed some reasons, ash countered by listing reasons typically given by the couples themselves, and I pointed out that the two are not mutually exclusive. You've completely imagined whatever part of this you think you're responding to.

In other words, you don't care what anyone's saying, you're just going to pretend people said whatever thing allows you to rant about the thing you want to rant about.

I have been trying so hard not to mention religion when it comes to this debate because all it ends up doing is changing the topic. What you fail to understand, and admittedly what a lot of Christians fail to understand, is that God's laws are not for his benefit, they are for ours. That is why under the new covenant I am under no obligation to follow them. However chances are if I believe I am compelled to follow them.

So in terms of this argument my opinion would be that the way our culture treats sexuality and marriage is very short sighted and selfish in nature. We seem to have very limited definitions of terms like happiness, commitment, or even contentment. I don't think you have to spend too much time talking to people about their relationships to understand this. In fact most people would agree with that statement before adding but that's not me, that's the other guy.

Oh I'm sure people with short-sighted attitudes exist.

The problem arises when longevity of a relationship is immediately associated with the quality of said relationship - and when there's more of a desire for the couple to "officially be a couple" on paper - than for the actual interactions within the relationship itself.

Today there are a lot less practical and immediate reasons to get married in the first place - it's not immediately necessary for survival, nor is it the only way for a man to preserve his legacy for future generations, for example. I'd say the primary purpose of having a relationship today is for the mutual benefit and improvement of all parties involved, if those factors aren't being met then there isn't an "obligation" to be in a relationship - people aren't "under contract to the wife's father to produce heirs in exchange for him giving her away to you" like they were in the BC era.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Nope, we are under no obligation to each other at all. A couple that has children together is also under no obligation to them at all. Again, what are best practices and what informs that?

For someone who usually seems very interested on how humans are hard wired at this point in their evolution, you seem to be completely ignoring it on this subject.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I have a question for everyone...if you could change how other people view sexuality, relationships and marriage and change how other people practice them to match your own ideas, would you do it?

The tempting answer is of course yes. However saying yes goes against everything I believe on a spiritual level so I give an adamant no. :D

That's a non-sequiter.

How can you be under "obligation" to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want the relationship?

That presumes a lack of free will and equal rights in a relationship - which was the case in the Iron Age where the woman's father (not her) had the say, but isn't the case today".

A child is a legal and physical dependent of the people who produced it.

A mentally capable, consenting adult can't be "obligated" to do something for another adult who is not consenting to it.

Again back in the Iron Age a woman was essentially a complete dependent on the husband, and had no free will in the matter - but that's not the case in an egalitarian relationship where both are voluntary participants.

I'd say the best practice are to study and learn as much as you can about how to be a good person and give your best shot in a relationship, and to have realistic expectations - if the other person isn't meeting the criteria then it's no knock against you if the relationship doesn't work out.

The presumption however is that "any couple could work out", and that any relationship which ends is solely the fault of the parties involved makes little sense though - because again this shows more of a desire for the relationship to "simply exist on paper" than for any actual good to happen within the relationship.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

You know I mean it when I say we are under no obligation to each other, right? Your responses make me think that you think I am being facetious.

I'm not totally sure what you mean.

If the other party isn't meeting reasonable expectations, but still "wants a relationship", then no I don't believe you're obligated to remain in one.

I think that reasonable, realistic, and mutually agreed upon expectations are the key. If one person is expecting more from the other person than they're offering themselves - or not believing they have to participate at all yet still deserve a "relationship", then this is when I think problems arise.

Your not wrong about that. That is where the work of a relationship comes in. Again, a lot of people are not willing to put in that work. I think we are running out of steam here. Having clear expectations of each other and having shared values is paramount. I think it is very important to understand that people are always going to fail each other in those expectations and be willing to communicate through those types of trials.

but talking to people you know who are divorced/going through divorce doesn't qualify you to make judgments on whether or not their reasons for calling it quits is based upon valid enough reasons. if anything, my first thought would be 'they should have never gotten married to begin with', not 'they shouldn't be getting this divorce, their reasons aren't valid enough for it.'

if i had to speculate about why people are getting divorced at higher rates than they were, say, 50 years ago, i'd say it has less to do with the quality of relationships and personhood and more to do with what is now more socially acceptable. people have always been selfish, self-gratifying, and fickle. they just used to be more concerned with hiding it previously. of course, if you disagree with this, i'm curious to hear why.

but basically, i'm more of the opinion that another person's divorce is really none of my business, as it has no affect on my life or my well-being. the only person i'm going to worry about divorcing is my husband, someday.

that was kind of my point, though - that the reasons given for divorce are vague, so making sweeping statements on why people get divorced doesn't seem to be coming from anything more concrete then some vague statement about how "people are just more selfish these days." i'm interested in discussing why he thinks so, or why you think so if that's what you think, but i'm more interested in having the discussion based on something more than "i know someone who got divorced and this is what happened to them, therefore it must be true of all couples."

Been thinking about the topic but in a more personal sense. Talked to friends and one agreed with me while others disagreed.

I generally frown upon most people's approach to relationships, and I think that the lack of pure romanticism or a very impure approach to all things love might be due to no exposition to art in general. No sense of aesthetic is another issue I'd attribute to ignorance of art because it's art that develops our sensitivity.

Sure, you can call me a sentimental sap, but I have a very traditional outlook on love and relationships, and what's really disheartening to me is that not many people seem to share my opinions in this field.

I'm really surprised so many people are looking for sex and so few for love. Sure, most of them would tell you that their looking for sex is by extension also looking for love, but I have a hard time swallowing that. If you're looking for the love of your life, what are the chances it will be that half-dead drunken guy who's groping your ass at the party? The girl you just met and asked over to a hotel room - sure, this must be the love of your life. Well, it's pretty obvious you're looking for sex. For fun. Not love. The "first have fun, there will be time for love later" mindset so prevalent amongst the youth kicks in.

I take no issue with promiscuity among other people I don't know, but this lifestyle is so alien to my own, I can't help but run away from any potential date that gives off even a hint of such practices. I can't wrap my head around the sheer desire for pure sex. One without love, just based on desire. Nowadays you have so much porn, erotic stories, etc. that there is simply no need for sex with people you don't love. You can explore your sexuality without the need of meeting anybody. You can save yourself for somebody you love, and if it doesn't work out later, it's not a big deal. If you're not a virgin, it's not a big deal. But if you're really promiscuous, what's the actual value of you having sex with somebody? Of you giving yourself to somebody? If you did it before, say, a hundred times, there is no real sacrifice there. It's like saying: "Oh hi, you're my 101st sexual partner. Not a big deal, I'll probably forget you tomorrow on my way to the 102nd one". As long as I believe a person like that is capable of love (not very likely, but still), and maybe the 101st partner will be one's last and to till death do us part, there is one thing missing. You don't feel special with that partner. Maybe that's narcissistic or egotistical to think that way, but there you go. I don't need to feel special, but I need to feel understood and respected. It's obvious it's better for me when I hear a girl say "I never really dated anybody, but after some time I thought you're a good person, I dated you and I was right", than something like "Oh, it's not a big deal. I date every guy who asks me. Everybody gets a chance.".

The problem here, I think, is that people not always date to potentially form a relationship. They think with their sexual organs rather than their hearts or at least their brains (admittedly, the last one is the best thing to do). They just want one-night-stands and casual sexual intercourses, and that's fine as long as they make it clear from the very beginning this is the only thing they're after. But the default should be a loving relationship.

So, of course, I'm weirded out when I hear a girl imply she's considering dating more than one guy at the same time. This to me shows her disrespect for every single guy she's dating as if none of them was good enough to date just him. And that's if you forget about all the potential problems that can arise from dating more than one person at a time. But the thing is, she doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. She can't understand what's the problem here.

I'd rather skip the part about inviting her over, because apparently nowadays (or was it always) it means I want to have sex with her, and she will be greatly disappointed and basically would break the deal if I don't cling to her. I don't care. I really don't care anymore. Why do girls think that if I don't at least kiss her as early as possible, it means I don't care? Maybe I just need more time, maybe I want to get to know her more. A kiss is more important to me than sex to some people. I don't kiss just anybody, or rather, when I kiss somebody, that's already meaningful. It's been like that. I don't want to change that. In the era of Tinder and friends advising "don't take it too seriously", I feel lost in my dead-serious approach to dating and relationships. It seems that people value transitory fun more than sincerity, respect, and care.

Polyamory is another concept I can't quite grasp. Once again, that's okay if it works for you, and everybody involved is comfortable with it, but as far as I can understand you can still love e.g. your wife who died in a car accident or your ex-boyfriend, I can't for the love of me get it how can you love two people at once, at the same time, that is to willingly date or have sex with both. But yeah, that's just me, I guess.

Sorry about the rant, guys. I'm just really curious. Am I so different? Am I really not in tune with modern times?

One thing I'd add is that many people gave up on the notion of love, so they figure they might as well get something, so sex it is. Most of the girls I've had sex with were women I wouldn't hang out as friends. There has been one girl who I enjoyed being with (outside of sex) but we met at a concert and were very synchronized when it came to music. But if I wasn't attracted to her, I might have never talked to her. Nowadays, I actually avoid sex and the woman I had been seeing off and on for 15 years (when you weigh the pros and cons). And now with the virus, no way... I think sex might be ego; wanting to see if you are accepted by an attractive woman. It's a stupid game -- men trying to have sex with as many women as possible, yet women trying to downplay it. Obviously, that's not possible, so when a woman gives in, a man might feel like he "won". The only woman I pondered being with "forever and ever" was a girl who liked my music and movie taste (haven't met anyone yet), but it was her beauty that first struck me. I'm not the type who will settle for less, and after getting all the traveling out of my system, I prefer to live alone. There's probably a 0% chance I would ever be in a relationship; I'm picky with everything, especially people I'm going to spend time with.



Speaking of traveling, people talk about goals, and most of them are only interested in money, maybe sex, but one Italian girl I met in Australia (shyly) said she would want to get married and have a family. I was shocked because I never heard ANYONE say that.


I wonder how much the movies set people up for failure. I take art more important than everything, and for those early, idealistic movies from the 1930-70s I've seen, I can see how it distorts fantasy and reality... Mort Sahl had a funny movie idea and wrote a script (never sold it) where he sues Hollywood for lying to him.

I can’t understand people who want to have sex.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Eh, I don't think you're that weird. I think the problem, as lame and pat as this sounds, is media. Social media in particular. It creates the impression that the kind of promiscuity you're referring to is a lot more prevalent than it is. The people not living that life aren't really talking about it (or themselves) as much, I'd expect.

Also important to note the distinction between dating a lot and actually being in a lot of sexual relationships, since there's a big difference between the two.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Interesting read.
I'm curious though. Was this thread scrubbed at some point of posts that might have gotten out of hand or did the 90s poster never really respond to anything Yoda called out? I'm not trying to stir anything. I'm only curious because it's sometimes difficult to read older threads in a context, and it's also difficult to see a poster so interesting in arguing for the sake of arguing to not pick up bait when it's made available!

Anyway. Interesting (old) thread, all the same.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

There are no deleted posts in this thread, no. He just didn't respond.