| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 57.1 | As compared to what? | STUBBI::REINKE | | Wed Aug 06 1986 12:13 | 4 |
| re. marriage. It would help to answer if you could state what
alternatives you are thinking of i.e marriage vs. living alone,
marriage vs. cohabiting, or reworking the instituion of marriage
- as a legal bond - itself, or....?
|
| 57.2 | Marriage vs. cohabiting? | ULTRA::ZURKO | My salad days | Wed Aug 06 1986 13:10 | 9 |
| How about marriage vs. cohabiting? I'd be interested in any responses
as well, since before I gave the big "yes", I made sure that my
SO didn't expect ANY changes in our relationship because of it.
I was (and am) extraordinarily happy with our relationship, but
you never know what kind of bug-a-boos get into your psyche about
being a husband or wife. So far, the only benefits I see are that
our folks will now come visit us, and we got lots of neat kitchen
stuff, and I talked Joe into going overseas. The largest detriment
is taxes.
|
| 57.3 | which "marriage"? | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Wed Aug 06 1986 15:07 | 45 |
| Regardless of what marriage can be, or might have originally
been intended to be (and I won't deny that it's unlikely
to have been invented for the benefit of women), marriage
is basically a partnership. And a commitment that both intend
to *remain* partners.
If you're not into partnership, you'd be unlikely to see
anything nice about marriage. But that has nothing to do
with whether you're a man or a woman.
Barbara and I cohabitated for several years before we bothered
to get married (and we've continued to cohabitate for a number
of years since, in fact). I'd have to agree with .2 that
the main benefits of getting married were the wedding presents
(and a nice party) and greater acceptance by our families
(although apparently unlike .2, we had no particular trouble
with visits by or to family---including, oddly,
grandparents---before we were married). And the greatest
disadvantage is taxes (I've heard that some elderly couples
have gotten divorced and then continued cohabitating to cut
their taxes).
The word, or "institution" of marriage is pretty meaningless to
me. The concept of my relationship with Barbara, however, is
very important. The accepted (modern) social convention of
marriage, by and large, maps pretty well to that relationship.
Briefly, getting married gave others an immediate (if in some
cases slightly flawed) understanding of the relationship we'd
had all along.
If marriage, to you, means a man buying a slave and putting his
name on her, then I'm not about to argue with your opinions
about it... I wouldn't want any part of a deal like that
regardless of which side of it I was on.
As far as I'm concerned, if you and a friend/partner/lover want
to spend your life together, that's marriage. Who cares what
word you put on it? After a lot of early misgivings we decided
to accept the conventions and put the word marriage on it.
Now... what "marriage" are you against? The word? The
tradition? The ceremony? The idea of being together with
someone? The idea of commitment?
/dave
|
| 57.4 | not unfair | STUBBI::REINKE | | Wed Aug 06 1986 15:42 | 20 |
| I agree with Dave that marriage as a partnership - a merger
of equals - is not unfair to women or men. To me it implies a commitment
to work things through and to keep growing together. I see nothing
wrong with the ideal of loving/being committed to one person
and making a legal and formal bond with them (and a great deal right
with it.) The presumed unfairness of marriage to women may well depend
on the people involved in the marriage. As an example - my next door
neighbor treats his wife like a weak minded child and refuses to
practice birth control (and boasts about it!). This is definitely an
unfair situation for her but I am at a loss to see how marriage as an
instituion is the cause of this. She'd be just as dependant on him
and unwilling to leave if they weren't married and with less protection
financially and legally if she did choose to leave. In societies (some
of which still exist) where a man has property rights over his wife
and children, or women have no right to vote own property, get an education,
hold a job etc. etc. without a father or husband's permission, yes,
women are treated unfairly. I don't see that this applies to marriage
as it is socially or legally constituted in America today.
Bonnie
|
| 57.5 | Laws Vary | VAXUUM::DYER | Define `Quality' | Wed Aug 06 1986 16:15 | 6 |
| Looks like I put Note #54.19 in the wrong place. Oh well.
What marriage means, legally, varies from state to state.
There are states that I would never want to live in while
married, because of the unfairness of the laws.
<_Jym_>
|
| 57.6 | Deals are what you make of them! | RSTS32::TABER | | Wed Aug 06 1986 16:26 | 80 |
| Marriage as a bad deal.... God, that's depressing.
I have many friends who have approached marriage (and non-marriage)
as many different things.
I agree that marriage has only recently become a better deal for
women, but I must confess that until recently I had some pretty
archaic and naive ideas about it... I was dealing mostly from
watching my folks. Dad's a domineering patriarch and Mom tends
to practice subservience to a fine art. He protects, she nurtures.
When she protects, he never nurtures... Not a 50-50 deal.
I've since discovered that NOTHING is ever really a 50-50 deal,
except for that previously referenced "toss of the coin"... quote
from Dave, I believe. Marriage is 60-40, 40-60, 90-10, and sometimes
it seems like 100-100 or 0-0... those are the toughies...
But MY marriage is not a bad deal and I fight like Hell to keep
it that way!! So does my husband...! We try to scorn the roles
that make it an advantage to be one partner or the other.
*BUT* my friend Marie, upon getting married, quit her job, bought
a housedress, and stayed home.. She LOVED it! She's had 3 kids
in 6 years, is deleriously happy, and treats John like a sometimes-
saint, sometimes-child, and usually-husband. John, in turn, idolizes
Marie.
Is that a life for me?? Uh, no... I don't like housedresses....
But *HOW* can I call that a bad deal for Marie when she's so happy??
The woman who has the crummy deal is the one who's stuck like that
and hates it!
And in some ways I get angry because I subscribe to the theory that
you get what you put up with! In other ways I just feel sad and
helpless, and vow that will never happen to me...
But I don't see how anyone can blame marriage for that condition.
People make the marriage, and they are credited for its success
or failure.
I like to see my marriage as a partnership... and sometimes as a
partner I try to ditch housework... I even did the reprehensible
thing of foisting many duties off on my co-mortgagee... HE writes
the checks and balances the checkbook... HE waits at home for the
delivery man and furnace-cleaner...
A few nights ago I wouldn't have been so calm writing this, tho'.
I have worked nearly every weekend this summer and was almost never
home last week, and Sunday night some friends dropped by unexpectedly..
Monday night the dirty dishes were in the sink, there was no clean
underwear, the castle kitchen was without Diet Coke or milk or butter,
and I had a softball game to attend immediately followed by a meeting
at our church... Any SuperMom can add to this any one or all of
the following: picking kids up at (school, soccer, music lessons,
orthodontist), taking kids to (school, soccer, music lessons,
orthodontist), cooking dinner, making lunches, night school, etc.
My softball game was cancelled, so I raced to get groceries, got
in the door and did the dishes, started laundry, and picked up the
house... until Hubs came come and started dinner...
And I was feeling *mighty* abused..... How did those chores all
gang up on *ME*?
And then I realized: he didn't offer, but I didn't ask....
OH, enough boring rambling....
I like my marriage and how MUCH I like my marriage varies from time
to time.... but FORTUNATELY it is NO different than living together
in the way we treat each other...
And yes, Hubs does occasionally do dishes and I RARELY cook dinner
and we both do the shopping... and Monday night was a 75-25 night
but gets made up for when I come home from work and dinner is on
the table, waiting for my arrival...
bugsy
|
| 57.7 | A good deal? | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Wed Aug 06 1986 17:39 | 41 |
|
It occurs to me, reading these responses, that what people think
of marriage is obviously dependent on their own experience. People
under 30, for example, who are still happily involved in their first
marriage are going to have much more positive attitudes than people
over 30 who have already ended a marriage.
I really wonder why people are still getting married. It really
puzzles me. I mean, look around at all the divorced people. Why
is it important to make a relationship legal? Why is it important
to promise to someone that you will spend the rest of your life
with them? And, if you do change your mind, why shouldn't you be
able to leave? Why not, when you fall in love, cohabitate with
each other until you change your mind? It just seems more realistic
to me. It seems to me that I can tell someone I love them and mean
it, but I can't really tell someone I'll love them forever and mean
it - because I might not.
When I got married (13 1/2 yrs. ago) I really believed I would love
my husband forever. (And I did love him for 8 yrs. which judging
by a lot of people of our generation I've met could turn out to
be a record anyway!) One of the biggest surprises of my life will
always be that I stopped loving him. But, after 12 1/2 years of
fighting I just wasn't interested anymore. When I first told him
I wanted to leave one of things he said to me was, "You promised
to stay with me forever". But, I hadn't really meant that I would
stay forever if I was miserable. He apparently did. To some people
marriage means that you stay with them forever even if you are
miserable and if you leave they think you are a horrible person.
That scares me. I felt trapped in an unhappy marriage for 5 1/2
years. When I finally left (he refused to leave the house) I had
to leave him the house and our daughter because he makes twice as
much money as I do. That wasn't what I would call a good deal.
I believe in relationships but not a legal commitment - too much
risk of getting in a difficult situation. The entire concept of
promising to love someone forever and to stay with someone forever
just hasn't proven to be realistic - in my opinion.
Lorna
|
| 57.8 | once more into the breach... | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Thu Aug 07 1986 09:54 | 34 |
| Most of your comments are rehashes of your previous replies,
answered in *my* previous replies, so I'm not going to rehash
again.
> When I finally left (he refused to leave the house) I had
> to leave him the house and our daughter because he makes twice as
> much money as I do. That wasn't what I would call a good deal.
But if you left him the house and daughter simply because
he makes more money (presuming he can therefore afford them
while you might not be able to), you would have been in exactly
the same situation had you simply cohabitated with him rather
than getting married. It may be a "bad deal", but I fail
to see how that bad deal has anything to do with the fact
that you were married. The bad deal is that you broke up,
and under unhappy circumstances: not that you were together
to begin with!
Sure, a lot of people feel obligated to stick with bad
marriages. But then, a lot of people feel obligated to stick
with bad friendships, too. The situation can be complicated
when you have a house, kids---but again, it would be equally
complicated if you weren't actually married, and in most
places you'd have no legal guidelines to protect you.
No problem you've mentioned is exclusive to marriage, nor
are any applicable to all (or even most) marriages. It looks
to me like your problem is a residual fear of relationships
and commitments (of repeating your old problems). You could
have exactly the same problems in a bad relationship without
marriage, and would have none of them in a good relationship:
regardless of whether or not you were married.
/dave
|
| 57.9 | | STUBBI::REINKE | | Thu Aug 07 1986 10:22 | 42 |
| Lorna,
I know my attitude on marriage is colored by my experience - I'm
nearly 42 and have been married 19 years. Both my husband and I
are children of couples who are going on 50 years of marriage (in
1989) so I've seen that long term committment and growing together
can work.
The problem I have with not making a commitment to a person is that
it seems like a person is saying - "I'll stay with you as long
as things go well but when things start to go bad I'm leaving."
To me making a commitment to a person also involves a mutual commitment
to work out the bad times to the satisfaction of BOTH parties.
Don and I have had our share of bad times but we've worked through
them together and grown both individually and as a couple from the
experiences. Neither of us the same person we were at twenty. We've
managed to grow together however. Not in parallel or in lockstep
but like two trees with branches intertwined yet still unique and
separate entities. (If that makes any sense!)
Like Dave I think you are talking more about the failure of a
relationship with a particular person - not failure of the concept
of marriage/commitment in general.
Suppose your ex husband had been willing to try and work through
the problems that were making you both miserable until you both
were truely satisfied would you still feel the way you do about
commitment - even assuming you were unable to solve the problems
and split up anyway?
I don't think people should have to stay in a miserable situation
that cannot be mended. My younger sister divorced her first husband
(who she began dating in high school) because they were unable
to grow together, but has been married a second time to a a really
wonderful guy who is willing to let her be her own self in the
relationship. I do think that there is a difference between the goal
of making a commitment to a person and people who aren't willing
to work to make the commitment succeed.
Bonnie
|
| 57.10 | Live-ins can be bad deals by themselves | RSTS32::TABER | | Thu Aug 07 1986 12:33 | 90 |
| Bonnie's right - being married makes you fight that much harder
to make it work. I've been in both types of situations... I had
a live-in situation that didn't work out and I have up on it pretty
easily. Believe me I was gun-shy about living with anyone and
maintained my own apartment separate from Patrick's long after we
started "living together"...
We got married after living together 2 years.
But living together did NOT save me from the heartache, anxiety
and depression of breaking up with the first one. That situation
was DOOMED to giving me that.... Marriage would have made that
situation unbearable.... Not being married didn't make it any easier
emotionally, it just cost me alot less money to walk away...
When we decided to get married, we did so because we wanted to promise
each other to TRY! We wanted to mean more to each other than ANYONE
else could... Neither Patrick nor I have been married previously
and we brought with us alot of naivte... We saw marriage as a way
of singling each other out, of saying to the world "THIS PERSON
is a person I don't want to lose!"... We needed that bonding, it
was the next step for us....
As an aside, I took a more practical approach... Legally we were
better protected as married... and this was a big factor: if Patrick
had been hit by a truck, *I* would not have been informed by anyone
(unless stipulated) because *I* was not a blood relative. No matter
what we meant to each other I would have been totally disregarded
because obviously he didn't care enough to marry me, so if something
were to happen to him I could always find another boyfriend... ugh..
boyfriend....
Until someone recognizes living together as a state equal to marriage
it will always be lacking.... and NOW they'll call me if he gets
hit by a truck!!! And not only that, "I'm his wife" earns me special
status with anything identified to Patrick.. Uh, Fems, I'm also
saying that "I'm her husband!" gains Patrick equal recognition....
NOW.. after ALL that.... let me tell you the ringer and then I'll
shut up.....
In an emotional tussle, when I was being petulant and selfish and
wimpy and was being really overly-cautious about making commitments
to him (a few years ago), Patrick, who was surprised by this sudden
turnabout on my part, knifed me with the phrase "By virtue of our
relationship YOU are responsible for MY happiness!"....
It was a difficult thing to accept... it was overwhelming and
anxiety-ridden and I pushed it away... I didn't have to be responsible
for ANYONE's happiness!!! Only mine!!!!
Wrong.... If I wanted to be responsible for ONLY myself then I
had no right to a relationship like that with him.... so I accepted
it. And when I accepted it I accepted the idea that he was responsible
for mine... and that, to me, means that if he's not happy or I'm
not happy, the "life forever together" is negotiable.... I will
willingly spend the rest of my life with him (and I plan to) as
long as I am happy and HE is happy. He also subscribes to this
theory... This does NOT mean that this is intended as an easy-out!
Not a "gee, kiddo...I'm not happy anymore... g'bye!"
It sounds like Lorna's ex was using the "you promised me forever"
as a manipulation to invoke guilt for leaving him, probably something
that came as a complete surprise to him or something that he just
didn't want to happen... Natural reaction, I suppose, but real
tough to deal with... and Lorna, you must have resented the Hell
out of it!!!
But I agree with Bonnie and Dave, altho' I worry that you might
have taken Dave's as an attack, which I'm certain that it wasn't,
but Gee, Dave... take it easy huh??!
Your leaving your husband and daughter would have been as emotionally
difficult had you not been married... If the house was in both
your names you might have been able to find a better way, financially,
to keep custody of your daughter... I've seen alot of that....
*BUT*, as I'm sure each of us realizes, you would have had an equally
marketable skill as your hubby had you had the opportunity to be
an equal breadwinner and you wouldn't have been penalized for being
a lesser partner in that relationship... and you're suffering for
that now!!!!
If you get married agaim you'll change things to fit YOU and y'know
what, no one is gonna get upset about that!!!! You CAN marry someone
who will let you grow and be yourself and will nurture you as much
as you nurture him... and you'll see marriage as a situation where
no one partner benefits over the other...
bugsy
|
| 57.11 | anything can be a bad deal, if it's a bad deal! | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Thu Aug 07 1986 13:47 | 29 |
| .10: Maybe not world-class prose, but eloquently put
nevertheless.
> Bonnie's right - being married makes you fight that much harder
> to make it work.
I'm not convinced, completely. To me, it seems that the
important factor is what the relationship *means* to you,
not just whether you're married. If it really means a lot,
you'd fight anyway, marriage or not. My mother made the
same claim once (back before she succeeded in talking us
into getting married!), and we discussed it a while. One
point I was willing to grant her: *some* people might be
strongly motivated by the "shame factor" of backing out on
a *public* commitment to try harder to resolve the problems
than they might have otherwise. I can't even say for sure
that it wouldn't apply to me... but I'm still not convinced.
> But I agree with Bonnie and Dave, altho' I worry that you might
> have taken Dave's as an attack, which I'm certain that it wasn't,
> but Gee, Dave... take it easy huh??!
Hmmm... I am very definitely trying not to be nasty. You
may, however, be right in that I could be taking this a bit
too personally... I wasn't exactly flaming, but I might be
a bit warmer than really called for, considering Lorna isn't
really the person who started all this... sigh.
/dave
|
| 57.12 | What you make of it. | SSVAX::LUST | Reality is for those that can't handle drugs | Thu Aug 07 1986 14:41 | 41 |
|
In an attempt to get back to the original question, I would think
that the question really has 2 parts.
1. Is marriage in the legal sense of the word a good deal?
Here the answer is fairly obvious I think -- HELL NO! The entire
legal institution of marriage (I confine myself to Western culture
here) was conceived by and for the benefit of the males who controlled
the societies in which it was created. It was primarily conceived
as an 'ownership' relationship through which the man could control
their wives, and the resulting inheiritance of property. (The concept
of bastardy and illegitimacy arose from the same grounds).
As a result, marriage as a legal entity is on the side of men.
In many cases even today, the law (whether enforced by society or
not) assumes that women are a form of chattel. Just the way the
laws are written are basically insulting -- they assume women need
to be protected - not treated equally, but protected.
It is changing, but slowly.
2. In the case of marriage as a personal arrangement, it is whatever
you care to make of it. On a strictly personal basis, marriage
is neither good nor bad, it is neutral. Individual marriages however
can range from extatically good to incredibly rotten, and everywhere
in between.
I would think that it isn't the marriage (i. e. whether or not you
have that piece of paper) that matters a damn. It is your definition
and committment that matters. Not all marriages which start out
great stay that way, not all marriages which start out bad stay
that way. Many (most?) marriages happen for all the wrong reasons
-- I think that the incredible thing is not that 50% of all marriages
fail, but that 50% of all marriages succeed.
Marriage on a personal basis is what you expect from it, and what
you make of it. As in so many areas when dealing with and between
human beings, you tend to get back in some measure according to
what you put into it. Is marriage a good deal? It is if you think
it is, and it isn't if you don't.
|
| 57.13 | Marriage started out as a *great* deal... | VIRTUE::RAVAN | | Thu Aug 07 1986 15:52 | 30 |
| I think there's a point being overlooked in the discussion of
historical marriage. Originally, there was a very good reason for
women to want to be married - they *did* need a certain amount of
protection, since they had to bear and nurture the children. Without
marriage, they and their young were vulnerable to all manner of
things; with it, they had some assurance that their young would
be cared for, and that they didn't have to compete for a mate any
longer. (We're talking survival of the species here, folks.)
Now, it's true that when things got legalistic, the "ownership"
business got out of hand; and after the women had been protected for a
while, everyone began to assume it was because the women were incapable
of taking care of themselves, not just because of the need to safeguard
the offspring.
But, in the beginning, marriage was a very good deal indeed, for
both - or perhaps I should say all - parties. It meant survival.
On another note - I'm amused to see all the references to "my SO
should be recognized as being just as important to me as a spouse",
and other such requests for public recognition. People, if you are
publically recognized as a couple, then you *are* married - that's
how marriage started. Once you are publically recognized, then you
have to take steps to be publically UNrecognized if you ever want
to split up, and lo! you have just as much trouble as if you had
the "piece of paper". (If you don't agree with this, please explain
what you see as the differences between legal marriage and
legally-recognized non-marital union...)
-b
|
| 57.14 | I'm just looking for a few good answers. | DAIRY::SHARP | Say something once, why say it again? | Thu Aug 07 1986 16:40 | 41 |
| Let's get away from the personal anecdotes for a bit. I want to bring up a
couple of new points.
1) Let's assume for the moment that marriage is good for the women who
are married (I'll come back to this later.) What about all those women who,
for one reason or another, aren't married?
Women who haven't yet found the right man
Women (e.g. Lesbians) who will NEVER find the right man
Women who are happy remaining single
Divorced women (who may or may not re-marry)
Widows (who may or may not re-marry)
Is marriage a good deal for these women? I submit that since marriage is a
cultural norm these women are deprived of benefits to which they would
otherwise be entitled. To name a few: equal employment opportunities, equal
housing opportunities, equal credit opportunities, equal health care
benefits. Banks, landlords and insurance companies assume that they don't
have to bother worrying about the needs of women, because that's what
they've got husbands for. So marriage is a bad deal for unmarried women.
2) Back to the assumption in #1. I've tried to come up with a way of getting
at the features of marriage without recourse to either personal anecdotes or
statistics. I've come up with an analogy I've found useful.
The Marine Corps is an institution that is a good deal for the men & women
who join. You get fair compensation for your work, training opportunities,
health care and other benefits, and when your hitch is up you either get a
bonus for re-enlisting or return to civilian life with the training to a
good job, or maybe even go to college and get a degree on the GI bill.
Don't get me wrong, I'd get married two or three times before I'd join the
Marines, but then I'm a man. If I were a woman I'd have to seriously
consider the alternative.
Now, what is it about the institution of marriage that makes it a good deal
for women the way the Marine Corp is a good deal for Marines? I'm talking
about the institution, not about your own particular partnership, which only
works the way it does because your particular spouse is a candidate for
sainthood. :-)
Don.
|
| 57.15 | [RE .14] | VAXUUM::DYER | Define `Quality' | Thu Aug 07 1986 17:07 | 11 |
| [RE .14]: The "cultural norm" argument raises a lot of
good points, though I don't think it can be used to draw the
conclusion that marriage is a bad deal for unmarried women.
I think it would be more appropriate to conclude that the
assumption that women should be married and the attendant
deprivation of benefits need to be changed.
As for the benefits of the institution itself, it's hard
not to answer that without going into particular partnerships,
since it's different for everyone. I'd say that most people
who get married do so because they see some benefit to it.
<_Jym_>
|
| 57.16 | Some more thoughts | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Thu Aug 07 1986 18:07 | 50 |
|
Personal anecdotes aside, I definitely do agree with Don in .14
that since society is "set up" to deal with most women as being
married it does make it difficult for unmarried women. Marriage
is not a good deal for unmarried women in that sense.
I also think, in reference to Don's original note, that what is
sort of thought of as the traditional marriage (husband supports
family, wife raises kids and does housework, man is head of household,
etc.) was a horrible deal for women. But, the funny thing is that
marriage was always made to seem very desirable for women with the
emphasis on a lovely wedding day and romance. The alternative being
a lonely life as a spinster in a furnished room or something. Men,
on the other hand, were always viewed as trying to keep from getting
trapped by some woman - as though it were more desirable for a man
to be single. But, when they finally did get married the man had
a woman to cook, clean, raise his kids, run errands, and be available
for sex. Men got to go out into the world and live their lives
without having to worry about lives menial little details. It almost
sounds like a plot concocted by men to have servants! (Also men
- some men - always cheated on their wives and nobody thought much
about it, but a *woman* who cheated was a *slut*!) Yeah, I think
men really had it made in marriages like that. I hope those marriages
are going out of style. But, I'm afraid there may still be a few
around. I know there were probably women (including my own mother)
who were very happy in marriages like that, but there can be such
a thing as a benevolent dictator. I mean, I'm really good to my
cats, too.
Even when marriages are happy I still don't see why the people wouldn't
be just as happy if they weren't married.
In .10, Bugsy, you made the comment "he didn't care enough to marry
me". Do you really believe that the only reason a man wouldn't
marry a woman is because "he didn't care enough to marry" her?
I need to know since I've been living for over a year with a man
who doesn't believe in marriage but is in love with me (or so he
*says*!) I love him, but I just really don't want to get married.
I don't think it means I care less for him than if I did want to
get married. Maybe you didn't mean it to sound that way?
I'll stand by the old Mae West quote "Marriage is a great institution,
but I'm not ready for an institution."
Also, Don re .14, I've been in the army too and it was worse than
marriage - worse than anything except maybe death. But, that's
a personal anecdote.
Lorna
|
| 57.17 | [RE .16] | VAXUUM::DYER | Define `Quality' | Thu Aug 07 1986 18:13 | 4 |
| [RE .16]: The flip side of the "marriage is wonderful for
every woman" bit is the "marriage is a terrible deal for men"
myth. They go hand-in-hand.
<_Jym_>
|
| 57.18 | Love is important not Marriage! | SSVAX::LUST | Reality is for those that can't handle drugs | Thu Aug 07 1986 23:31 | 38 |
|
RE: .16.
Lorna, please don't internalize other people's statements as
necessarily applying to you. As I tried to state in my previous
note, The piece of paper is relatively meaningless for a lot of
reasons, some of which you have already articulated.
The fact that Bugsy(?) stated 'He didn't love me enough to marry
me' applies only to *her* view of *that* situation, not necessarily
to yours. The fact that your SO feels strongly about not wanting
to get married does not mean to imply that the two cases are in
any case related. His reasons are his own, and have meaning only
for him and for you -- noone else. From your statements here, you
also have strong ambivalent feelings about the state of 'wholly'
matrimony, so why are pushing the issue.
If you are comfortable with each other and yourselves, what difference
can it make what anyone else (to include parents, friends, etc.)
thinks -- you two are the ones involved - you have to live it.
The only word in this whole topic that *really matters* I suspect,
is committment. Committment to each other, and to the relationship.
With it, the paper (other than in the legal sense) is superfluous,
without it, the paper is meaningless. Don't confuse committment
to a form or idea with the committment that truly matters --
committment to each other.
I am probably the last person in the world who would ever be accused
of being a romantic -- if you love each other that's not enough.
*BUT* If you love each other and are willing to *work* with and
for each other to keep love strong, that probably *IS* enough.
Keep up the fight (but don't judge your relationship by somone (anyone)
else's rules).
Dirk
|
| 57.19 | in defense of bugsy | CACHE::MARSHALL | beware the fractal dragon | Fri Aug 08 1986 09:29 | 16 |
| re "he didn't care enough...":
I'd like to put this statement back into context. I don't think
bugsy was expressing her view, but instead that of society's:
No matter what we meant to each other I would have been totally
disregarded [in the event of an accident] because obviously he
didn't care enough to marry me, so if something were to happen
to him I could always find another boyfriend...
It's too bad "tone-of-voice" cannot be projected in writing, I think
there was a bit of sarcasm in the above statement.
sm
|
| 57.20 | it ain't so! | YODA::BARANSKI | Nothing to Need, Hide from, or Fear... | Wed Aug 13 1986 12:36 | 45 |
| RE: .*
I think that marriage can be abused by the wife, just as much by the husband.
As an example of how a wife can take example of a husband, a wife can stay at
home and be a couch potato, and be supported, (something which is even socially
accepted!), make the choice of her method of birthcontrol, and then not use it,
spend and *waste* money, and not be responsible for paying for the consequences!
In short, the husband is responsible for all of his wife's ignorance, stupidity
and carelessness! The husband is the one who is responsible and is supposed to
shield the wife from all of the consequences so that she will not even ever
learn. And the husband does not get the person_to_share_life_with which was his
reason for marrying.
I believe that the *need* for marriage is to provide a *stable* environment for
children, assuming that there are (to be) any.
With regard to the reasons for the design of marriage, true, men used to get a
slave (sometimes), but then women got the support and protection for the kids
which inevitably (in the past) came along with the woman. Maybe husbands *used*
to own their wives, but it ain't true anymore, and you can't even control them.
(not that I would want to, but in some situations it is necessary.) Did you
ever stop to think that some husbands *don't* want to lord of the castle and
responsible for everything and everyone?
With regard to being nonmarried, if a woman becomes pregnant, it is definitely
better to have that assurance of being married and provided for when necessary,
then to be unmarried. Marriage does give some legal and social protections.
RE: .14
Being an unmarried woman is no worse then being an unmarried man. None of these
unequals exist, that I know of, except that in some situations women get paid
less then men.
Oh, yes, I still think that marriage is a wonderfull thing. :-|
I've always wondered what the advantage was to having someone faithfull,
or being faithfull actually are. The only thing I can think of is no
competition, and not 'knowing' what you're missing.
Jim.
|
| 57.21 | Either person can abuse the situation | SSDEVO::DENHAM | Life's a game; play it | Wed Aug 13 1986 13:43 | 31 |
| RE: .20 (Jim)
Marriage can be abused by either party. It is fair when both people
want to be fair. If either wants to be unfair, the other person
usually gets treated unfairly. It used to be that women were the
ones that got treated unfairly, because there was nothing the wife
could do to harm her husband, as she had no rights. But today,
it's a two way street.
>I've always wondered what the advantage was to having someone faithful,
>or being faithful actually are. The only thing I can think of is no
>competition, and not 'knowing' what you're missing.
Originally, the reason for faithfulness was that the woman at least,
had to be faithful in order for everyone to be sure who the father
of the children was. In a subsistence society, you *don't* want
to be raising someone else's children. That isn't true anymore,
since things are good enough that many people *choose* to raise
children that are not theirs. Also, if it's *really* important
to you, parentage can be determined by tissue testing. Of course,
if procreation is not your goal, adequate birth control is available.
Sex does not necessarily lead to children anymore. So, female chastity
is no longer necessary for that reason.
Other reasons for faithfulness include things like keeping the
relationship with the SO special in that way. Then there are the
factors of no competition (but there is always competition, just
not sexually active competition) and not 'knowing' what you're missing.
Kathleen
|
| 57.22 | | RSTS32::TABER | | Fri Aug 15 1986 12:02 | 11 |
| Thanks, "sm"... That's exactly what I meant about "... he didn't
care enough to marry me...". It was a sarcastic interprettation
of how society might have viewed my living with Pat.
It CERTAINLY was the view my Dad had about it -- he just about disowned
me when I moved in with Pat.
fidelity: a technique employed to keep you from screwing up and
using the wrong name on the person you're with.
Bugsy
|
| 57.23 | It depends on the situation! | NIMBUS::OHERN | | Wed Aug 20 1986 11:32 | 18 |
| For a number of years I worked as a counselor for displaced homemakers.
A displaced homemaker is a woman who has spent a number of years as
a homemaker (wife, mother, nurturer etc) and for some reason (death,
divorce, abandonment etc.) finds that she is involuntarily forced out
of that role and must be responsible for her own support.
In the overwhelming majority of these situations, the women who
were previously married made out legally, financially, and
therefore emotionally better than those who were not married. The
breakup of any relationship is very painful, but when that breakup
is compounded by real survival concerns for food, clothing, housing
etc., and when the woman's entire identity has been tied to the
husband, the breakup can literally and figuratively destroy the
woman. If married, she has some legal rights, and sometimes
that is the only thing she may have!
|
| 57.24 | from a liberalist | AITG::LING | | Thu Sep 03 1987 18:00 | 30 |
|
Well, I wonder if Jonny Carson's exwife thinks "marriage is not
a good *deal* for her" ?! 8^)
I agree with many of Dave's thought. I think marriage is not a
*big* (instead of *good* or *bad*) deal if you figure out all the
pros and cons of the legal issue you are facing and see if both
of you willing to do it for any reason.
Nomatter married or not married, it is nice to have a life-time
partner who you know is always there that both of you care about each
other, support each other and trust each other just like the way
parents-children loves. This kind of relationship doesn't come
from nothing. It takes time and effort.
Quote from Dr Leo (psychologist):
"People is always looking for the right person.
There is no such thing as a right person.
You have to make it right..."
Quote from ??? (don't remember the name):
"If there is love in your life, it will make up all the things you
lack.
It there is not, no matter how much you have, it lacks."
Well, enjoy whatever kind of life you enjoy the most.
/a liberalist
|