For Many, Marriage Is Sexless, Boring and Oppressive: Time to Rethink the Institution?

Why am I discriminated against? I do not get tax breaks for playing house. Why am I subsidizing a failed religious institution?

Why are men so stupid that they are willing to waste 2 month’s salary for a rock? In the spirit of equality, the man should demand something frivolous that cost 2 months of the woman’s salary - maybe a Rolex.

Why are women so malicious that they proudly wear the product of colonialism, genocide, and child soldiers on their left ring figure? I guess “Save the Children” does not apply to Africans.

Who is the one spending $27,000 on that “special day”? Women spend money so freely when someone else worked for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...should be required reading to graduate from high school. Obviously Jane Austen sends the wrong message, even if she is tongue in cheek half the time. Unfortunately, most movies and novels about how hellish marriage can be end in equally hellish divorces, which kind of defeats the purpose (War of the Roses an excellent example). The French Lieutenant's Woman does somewhat, but that's more about the hypocrisy of Victorian standards than marriage per se. Ultimately any relationship that fosters too much emotional or financial dependence runs the risk of becoming exploitative, but marriage is far from the only one that fits such qualifications; it's just one of the more romanticized.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Common sense in the 21st century - what a concept!

In a different time, when opportunities for women were extremely limited, and the vast majority of people lived in rural areas, girls were "trained" almost from birth that they must go out and find a husband, or else you would be doomed to the life of a spinster - a sad and terrible fate as such was described.

But those bleak times no longer exist, which leads to the next obvious question - exactly what is the purpose and relevance of marriage in the 21st century?

Divorce no longer carries the stigma it once did, and women are no longer confined to marriage as their only option for life planning.

For men, the prospect of marriage in the 21st century is increasingly being seen as an expensive annoyance to be avoided if at all possible. Many men look at this current situation, and ask themselves, rightfully so, "why would I want this nightmare inflicted upon my life?"

Marriage has been reduced to the status of a business contract, with extremely costly and complex consequences if and when the marriage fails.

I'm currently 56, and am in no rush to get married, if I ever do at all.

From my vantage point, I have personally witnessed several marriages come to an unfortunate end, with the attorneys being the only ones who come out ahead in the aftermath of such debacles.

So, again, I ask the question, "why would I want this?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

myself I have always been to selfcentered to create a sucessful marriage..
while I listen to so many others who complain about the institution.the underlying refrain is what about the big I or ME.Being selfish brats is were we are at, don`t whine so much,there are many happy couples

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that some person, place or thing will fill me or complete me.

No one possesses good relationship skills, they're acquired through hard work, sacrifice and selfless willingness to understand one another.

Nothing meaningful comes easy. This is the part in the screenplay where the child becomes an adult or continues to play w/toys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Apparently, John Milton didn't think too much of marriage:

O perversencss ! that the law should be made more provident of peacemaking than the gospel! that the gospel should be put to beg a most necessary help of mercy from the law, but must not have it; and that to grind in the mill of an undelighted and servile copulation, must be the only forced work of a Christian marriage, ofttimes with such a yokefellow, from whom both love and peace, both nature and religion mourns to be separated.

PS: Dick Cheney reveals, Torture is GOOD for You.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People get married in other countries, and have been doing it for thousands of years, so it's probably more than just an excuse to get tax breaks, throw big parties, appease the right, and conform to middle-class norms. Despite all of the hatred, cheating, and so on, there is probably some biological basis for it, at least for part of the population.

The real message ought not to be whether it is good or bad, but whether or not it's for everybody. As the article suggests, easing some of the material, moral, legal, and social/cultural pressures might help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are raising two small children, usually in isolation. The daily pressure just to handle this is
enormous, much less trying to work on keeping magic
alive. It is astonishing if any marriages can
escape the damage - you barely have time to remember
why you married the other person.

And we actually have quite a number of supportive
relatives. But everyone has their own house and their
own separate lives, making shared support impractical
and inconsistent.

I'm not saying we have it particularly tough, or that
having live-in extended families is nirvana. But
this is a major, recent stressor on a traditional
cultural institution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the time we are born we are taught rules, regulations, guidelines, boundaries in order to conform and function within the society we are born into. The framework of marriage sets boundaries by which two people have chosen to live lives together, support one another, be a companion and a friend to say nothing of the man working and woman today to provide protection for children. We all need a 'vision' a guideline, a standard, a framework by which to survive. If rules are broken as in adultery, stealing, murder, physical abuse etc. punishment or criticisim follows. In India couples consult Astrologers. It is this system that determines the compatibility between people. Usually, those that stay married are truly compatible such as the moon sign or venus of one that falls in the same signs as the other. Still, cycles come along that force growth which we all must do! IF after several or many years a marriage grows stale then by all means divorce but follow the rules while married and don't cheat! So hurtful. Solves nothing. A famous German writer called marriage a 'state of tragic tension' and only the intelligence of the two and the recognition that at the heart of the human condition is suffering and growth, can a marriage survive.
We THINk happiness with another? Sometimes this occurs but love grows through the years as it should but too many not willing to grow. Marriage is about growth and accepting responsibilities. The tension is the dilemma between what I want, he wants, and what is best for the marriage, children, home, etc.When I grew up divorce was stigma. Later society stated an era of multiple marriages. So be it, but for GOD'S sake stay within the boundaries and do your level best until it has to end. Where is honor, dignity, courage, self respect these days?
Most women I know older, single, have a very hard time being alone (and no fellas, it's not because we're not getting sex). Married women have no idea what it is to be single in today's world. More married couples should have singles over to share a meal. Eating alone is worst.The breakup of families, the selfishness, the greed, along with horrendous, gauche, and crass TV programs, movies, porn is eroding our country. There is nothing more sacred and beautiful than sex with one you care for and love. (Contact aquariusmc@earthlink.net for a compatibility analysis.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't really matter whether or not they are married, but unless you are very extrovert and self confident, many activities are exceedingly difficult and can be soul destroying if done alone.

Loneliness is far more of a problem than marriage. Whilst most people want and need to spend sometime alone, many now spend almost their entire lives alone in a state of unhappiness.

Its not marriage that destroys lives, but the breakdown of marriage.

I personally think that people should live together for several years before considering getting married - and even then only do so - if both really want it - and it just seems the natural thing to do.

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Such an obvious statement, but the rush to be "accepted" by society has ruined many a life and family.

IMO, its the cash-centric focus of marriage that has been its ultimate downfall in the west. When money is the main reason that two people say "I do", it is almost always doomed to failure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I myself used to have to put up with pressure and teasing from everyone to "get married or else". It can really give us migraines when we singles are treated like that. After some traumatic experiences I went through in life, I'm not getting as pressured about it. I may be a single but even I don't have to be married to know that it takes mutual consent, love, and happiness of both partners to make the marriage successful and long lasting. Just ask one of my best friends who had to flee from her abusive husband. She and I were glad that he went to jail divorced but she's still having to get used to being a single all over again and fears getting mistreated by society who'll often blame her and not the man for the breakup. Some people complain that we ask too much or that we're not brave enough. Well, I'm glad I was brave enough not to subject myself to conceding to being a slave housewife. I don't think that abolishing marriage is a good solution. Instead, we need to get back the real meaning of marriage and it has nothing to do with money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gays are demanding the right to be miserable. Maybe if we allowed them to be married they would stop being so damn gay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All the money and energy that's focused, laser-like, on this ONE issue that's (supposedly) the one and only obsession of all gay people everywhere. No, for some reason it became the obsession of activists and gay professional busybodies - but I've always suspected that most ordinary gay people aren't that focused on it, and we just don't care that much about it.

I would love to see some polling numbers on that, but haven't seen any.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first time I married was a train wreck. It lasted 11 yrs and I knew after only 10 months I had made a mistake. Three kids and 11 yrs later we divorced.
I am now married 8 yrs. I have custody of my 3 kids from my previous marriage and adopted my 2nd wives son. I am happy beyond words. I will live longer because I am married and happy with my wonderful mate.
In my situation it is not the institution of marriage but the person I married that was both the problem and the solution. I feel I would have missed out on a chance for a happy life if I would not have given the institution marriage another chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My friends from college they're all married now
They have their houses and their lawns
They have their silent noons
Tearful nights, angry dawns
Their children hate them for the things they're not
They hate themselves for what they are
And yet they drink, they laugh
Close the wound, hide the scar

But you say it's time we moved in together
And raised a family of our own, you and me
Well, that's the way I've always heard it should be
You want to marry me, we'll marry

You say that we can keep our love alive
Babe, all I know is what I see
The couples cling and claw
And drown in love's debris
You say we'll soar like two birds through the clouds
But soon you'll cage me on your shelf
I'll never learn to be just me first by myself

Well O.K, it's time we moved in together
And raised a family of our own, you and me
Well, that's the way I've always heard it should be
You want to marry me, we'll marry

As a culture we are in love with the idea of Marriage but hate the reality of it. In fact our view is rather schizoid in that we cling onto the fantasy with a death's grip while deep inside we are very cynical about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm taking a page out of Gene Simons book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage hasn't failed people. People have failed people.

My acquaintances in successful marriages all have a few things in common: they have expectations of themselves as well as their partners and they communicate when their expectations and/or needs aren't being met or they are having problems meeting what's expected of them; they want to be married; they want their family.

Just as some people might idealize marriage and family in unrealistic ways thinking good marriages are made in heaven, with no heavy lifting needed, others who grow up in dysfunctional families will have unrealistic expectations that marriage and family is, by nature, a form of entrapment and bringer of emotional harm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A lot of very good points have been made in this discussion, but I haven't seen the best reason for dismissing marriage--children. In a world whose problems all stem from overpopulation, any institution that promotes childbirth should be condemned. We are biologically conditioned to want to pass on our genes, but society should make it as difficult as possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reading this article I got the feeling that the women's liberation movement never happened -- that it never raised any questions about marriage as an institution: its history, its purpose, its assumptions about male and female roles. I remember those questions, and I also remember the defensiveness with which mainstream feminists tended to react to the critiques of radical feminists, socialist feminists, and lesbian feminists. The Betty Friedans et al. took every critique of marriage (and of institutionalized heterosexuality in general) as an attack on their personal choices. The defensive reaction to Sandra Tsing Loh's writing about marriage is nothing new. Neither is Tsing Loh's story. Maybe if she'd paid more attention to earlier feminist critiques of marriage, she wouldn't have been so shocked by either her divorce or the reaction to her writing about it.

Marriage is a contract. When one party or another reneges on a particular contract, do we immediately question the existence of contracts in general? No, we don't. We look at the particular contract, the circumstances under which it was signed, the behavior of the two parties, their interpretation of the contract, and their expectations of each other. (If you think any of this is cut-and-dried, take a look at all the case law that's been devoted to contracts since the founding of the republic.)

The history, conventions, and laws about marriage are out there for all to see. The huge trouble is that plenty of people don't want to see them. I don't think Tsing Loh sees them very clearly, even now; if she did, her heart wouldn't "lift" at the sight of her daughters' Tiffany-blue wedding invitations -- she'd be bummed out. Plenty of people, even feminists and politically savvy women and men, manage to willfully suspend what they know (or at least deeply suspect) to be true: that marriage is a very problematic institution, and it's strong enough to shape its participants even when they're determined to "have it their way."

Sure, I've known a few married couples over the years who've managed to survive and thrive, both as individuals and as a couple, but they've also worked like hell to do it -- and quite a few of these marriages are second ones for one or both parties. But the successful marriages of a few, or even many, couples shouldn't limit our critique of the institution.

Marriage is the default setting in this society. It's not surprising that most people get married: they're expected to get married, and not getting married (especially for women) takes a lot of courage and determination. What's surprising is how many people who understand the history and nature of the institution and who are privileged enough to have alternatives keep sleep-walking into it, and celebrating when their friends and their kids do likewise. If Sandra Tsing Loh or Amanda Marcotte would address that perplexing question, they'd be making a real contribution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One would have thought that JFK and Bill Clinton would have ended the institution forever!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wish we could get past the simplistic statement that 1 out of 2 marriages fail. The divorce rate is far more complicated than this; check out http://www.divorcereform.org/real.html
for more info.

Marriage works great for some people; for others, it doesn't. Several of my friends have divorced, and it's usually issues involving incompatibility, money woes, and abuse (spousal and/or substance).

That said, I have friends who've been married for 25+ years. They're compatible, they have enough money, and they love each other.

Marriage is neither outmoded nor perfect: It's simply human, with all our flaws and virtues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seriously. We as a society do not know how to be married.

It's not always about fucking, or romance, or any of the "happily ever after" bullshit that's fed to us.

In fact, the fairy dust blows away in the first few years and then, when you've both let down your masks, you are in the position of actually having to deal with each other, for who and what you are.

Marriage is work. It's a commitment. A contract of sorts. It's a sanctuary from the rest of the world. It's a team sport. It's not always a warm fuzzy, more akin to a fart and a lot of snoring.

It's about idiosyncracies. It's about accepting the other AND yourself.
It's about deep, very very deep friendship. And it's about intimacy with your friend. And intimacy isn't about being naked and having orgasms.

It's about fun. It's also about dealing with hard times too. And is often mundane.

It takes a certain amount of maturity. It takes a willingness to grow and change, and accept that this will happen for you and your partner and not always simultaneously. Which means it requires skills in the art of communication.

I know. I've been married 16 years. It hasn't been easy. Often very challenging. But it gets better and better as I go along this path. And I wouldn't change a thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Life is already a series of soul-sucking enterprises, as Tsing Loh describes."
. . . . .

Buddhist saying: "Before enlightenment, carrying water, chopping wood; after enlightenment ... carrying water, chopping wood."

Maybe some enterprises in life are soul-sucking not because of their necessity or obligation, but because of how we approach them.

However ...

Some marriages should not be, and some should never have been; but many reflect the society in which they exist. Our society is based on dog-eat-dog competition and the supremacy of the individual, and these attitudes spill over into other human enterprises – including marriage. Marriages between people who fully embrace these unquestioned cultural "norms" are, for the most part, doomed to failure; I just hope that, in the long run, our society-at-large is not similarly doomed by its own unexamined, and unsustainable, beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what is the other option? Just have babies and leave the women to fend for themselves?!? That doesn't work in caveman days any better than it works here. Women want an emotionally dedicated man for a reason, and have an uncanny ability to pick out the ones going through the motions. Did you think that was an accident?

We get married for the children more than anything else, to provide them with a stable and secure environment to grow in. That is why women generally like successful men, no matter how funny or attractive a poor one may be. It's biology as much as anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A metaphysical view is that all relationships, romantic and otherwise, occur as learning experiences; once we have learned what we need, the relationship will (or should) naturally dissolve. As Shirley MacLaine has put it, some characters in your life have walk-on parts; others have run-of-the-play contracts.

In Getting the Love You Want and other books, Harville Hendrix suggests that we subconsciously choose romantic partners who embody the most challenging attributes of one or both of our parents in order to complete the work of growing up.

Understanding relationships from either of these perspectives should make it easier to move on when their purpose is served--to let each other go with gratitude, love, and good wishes. It wouldn't preclude feelings of sadness or grief, but would remove the "need" for anger and recriminations. For children, it's the negative emotions and blaming (expressed or suppressed; either way, they know) that are traumatizing, I believe, more than a separation itself.

I've thought for decades that marriage should cease to exist as a legal entity, along with any tax or other legal advantages or disadvantages. Some of it blatantly discriminates against single people: At one company I worked for, a form of life insurance ("survivor benefits," equal to at least a year's pay, if memory serves) was given (without charge) to employees who were married or had children; at another, the employee contribution to health insurance was the same regardless of family size--one or a dozen.

States should offer a standard but customizable "legal union" (perhaps there's a better term) contract for designating such currently marriage-conferred issues as financial obligations, employer benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation, medical power of attorney, etc; responsibility for children should be a matter of law regardless of cohabitation or lack of it. As with every other kind of contract, the genders of the signatories is irrelevant. And it should be relatively easy for couples to renegotiate or terminate their contracts mutually.

Doing away with the legal entity of marriage in no way eliminates the option to celebrate a union with a ceremony or ritual of one's choosing, including a $27K (or $270K, or ... ) conventional wedding.

I wish I could remember all (and the source) of a mock (at least, I think it was mock) wedding vow I heard or read decades ago; it ended with, "... for as long as we both shall dig it."

Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It would be good to de-sacralize marriage, which one hopes would mean de-fetishizing "white weddings" and ceasing to gush over
children . . .

But once you are married, realize the mistake, and go through the monstrous divorce proceedings, you might wonder whether the misery of staying married is less miserable than the hugely expensive, endless-seeming "legal" separation.

Legalized monogamy is unnatural, but it is enforced in a hundred ways by our criminalizing culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you, Amanda, for making the very important point that "We could start by untying all the benefits that lure people into marriage and expanding them to all people -- health insurance, hospital visitation rights, tax breaks -- so that married people don't get special status over the unmarried." Most people agree this should happen, yet it is seldom discussed as a serious, sweeping policy option. The Alternatives to Marriage Project is still the only advocacy organization dedicated to this cause. It is time for people to join our call to action!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The nuclear family has it's historical foundations in the patriarchal model of ownership of women by men, and control over the sexual life of women has been the inevitable battle ever since.
Before every one jumps out with the lash, stop and think. Something different is not only possible but also desireable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a little known, and entirely unacknowledged property of the human psyche known, for want of a better phrase, as the ‘nagging doubts’ department.

Remember the first time you set eyes on your now divorced partner. In the first 30 minutes or so of your meeting, ‘nagging doubt’ alerted you to a ‘warning sign’ that this may not be the right person for you.

However, because you were lonely and suffering from inner lack of confidence, even though you got a good degree, perform well in sports and not bad looking, you ignored the warning signs that somehow managed to rattle your ego when she one day says things like: ‘you know darling, even if we never had sex, I would still love you.’

Now, the reason she said this is that, even though you’re the randiest git alive and all you ever think about is screwing the best looking broads you come across every day, in this particular instance, although she is good looking, somehow the old sex thing never quite gets off the ground, and you can never quite achieve the ecstatic climaxes that your fantasy imagination tells you is just around the corner, if only you could muster up the courage to talk to the girls you really do fancy.

Thus, all the other issues which go to make up a relationship become important, such as making a good impression on her parents, not being too outlandishly political, or setting aside your religious convictions, especially when you’re atheistic and philosophical views are liable to conflict with their pro-religious, conservative behaviour.

Well things didn’t go too badly did they, she is after all of the right class and educational upbringing, and you just have to accept the fact that she can’t really deliver the perfect blow job, no matter how much effort she appears to put into it. And as regards giving her pussy a real good seeing to, well, she’s a respectable young lady, not a whore.

And so you kinda succumb to the unconscious pressure which is to get married, but alas, not live happily ever after.

And so by degrees, the marriage folds up, but in the meantime, the pair of you have made some really close friends, and one evening when things are really beginning to break up, she comes round. Hubby is away on business, and somehow, it’s down to you to drive her back home. She invites you into her house, and that’s when you discover what real sex is like.

Sex without commitment is the best aphrodisiac going. It does wonders for the metabolism, makes you come alive. Hell, you may even discover God and the meaning of life in the process.

And who better to discover this than with someone else’s wife. You plainly cannot commit to each other because you are both married to other people.

So, it turns out that the best reason for marriage is to be able to screw other people’s wives (or husbands). I know it sounds cynical, but to all those victims of unhappy marriages, you'll know just what I mean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriages and "relationshit" are marketed to women via service magazines and corporate leadership. Until the 1970's, women were fired when we got married. After that period, businesses realized that they were missing the opportunity to hire a well-educated class at dirt-cheap wages.

Human resources now wants married women or women with child support checks so they can keep women's wages subsidized and low. Men want a free houseworker and sex on demand and will take that deal with or without the marriage contract. As the recession erodes job security, employability, and wages, I predict that the "relationshit" sales job will be even more relentlessly high-pressured, with lesbian and gay pairings urged to reduce the wage base of those dyads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Closely allied to the institution of marriage is, I suggest, the art and science of cunnilingus.

According to the dictionary, cunnilingus is the erotic stimulation of the female external sex organs with the tongue/lips of a partner, as part of normal love play and which may induce orgasm. Christ knows who invented the word, it sounds like an Irish airline that has become much more adept at enticing passengers.

Now, for those of us who worship the female vagina, it would seem reasonable to assume that if you’re going to spend the rest of your life with one woman, then perfecting this art ought to be given high priority.

Alas, not a single mention in any of the books and magazines and journals and films etc that write about marriage.

The comedian Chris Rock said it best. In the 7 years that he’d been married, yes, he got plenty of vagina, but no pussy, if you can appreciate the subtle difference of meaning inherent in the two words.

So why is it that the passion tends to vanish in a marriage? My guess is that your wife’s vagina will also be the orifice that your kids will in due course come popping out of, and I suppose that at the deeper levels of consciousness, there is probably something unsavoury in mixing lust and sexual perversion with responsible parenthood.

So, Man is in a bind which I guess is why we tend to wait for the kids to grow up before we can once again resume our roles in life as sex crazed studs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage, in the true sense, is a state of being. It goes beyond commitment or obligation. It goes beyond being an institution or a tradition. If you are not fully into the marriage state of being, you are not truly married, you are seeking safety, comfort, acceptance, excitement, sex, companionship to name a few invalid reasons for marriage. By state of being, I mean a place where love and respect are innately entwined with the active seeking of the spiritual and emotional growth of yourself and your partner. It's a "soul pairing" and needs no laws or societal judgment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article flies in the face of the piece that was just written on the topic of marriage in the new york times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/fashion/28marriage.html that actually the institution of marriage has taken an upturn and is holding its own.

The question of the viability of marriage is not really helpful. It is the institution that we have developed over thousands of years to organize our own tribes. The commitment to build a family and a future with others is how we continue our culture and pass on our values for better or worse.

The real question is when will we start educating ourselves and our children to learn how to love and accept each other in our current imperfect state. The work of marriage and family is the hardest and most important work we undertake in this life. In the final ten minutes of your life, I guarantee that you will be thinking of those you love and not what you accomplished.

We continue to marry and celebrate union because underneath the failing and rhetoric what we all want most out of this life is to be loved and connected. It is the only thing that may save us from our steady decline.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Throughout most of history marriage was a pragmatic union, partly an economic union, partly social, partly the joining of two wider families for mutual benefit, partly as a secure framework for raising children, and partly to reassure men that they weren't being duped into raising someone else's offspring. Indeed, in England until Victorian times those of little financial worth often did not bother with benefit of clergy.

But now we tend to make the institution the repository of something called romantic love and then feel cheated when that chimera fades, as it will by its very nature. Apparently friendship, the bonds strengthened by life's up and downs, the common stake in children, and other pointless factors are just not enough to compensate for the loss of this emotional will-o-the wisp.

Well, I am reasonably happily married after more than thirty years of this outdated institution. But then, I stopped believing in romantic love when I was about sixteen, and was well aware from the outset that sharing my life with another would often constitute a bumpy ride. However, I accept that that's just me, and others will find other strategies for negotiating life's shoals. So why doesn't the author of this trivial piece grant me the same freedom of choice? And for crying out loud, why are so many gays so keen to have the right to wed? Shouldn't someone tell them to give up on the whole idea as the exercise would be pointless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage being a fifty-fifty proposition at best but is that an institution flaw or a people flaw. If marriage is such a bad institution, then why are gays fighting for it? Marriage is like a lot of things you get out of it what you put into it, and if you are tired of putting into it get out of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It really doesn't matter what the law, a lagging indicator of social progress, says or that of the increasingly irrelevant church of the sky god. Public behavior says that marriage is a dying institution. Anyone who works around children or has been paying attention knows that the bulk of kids are now born out of wedlock and many that are will end up being raised out of the institution. So what is the point other than to fund the businesses that feed upon marriage?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Within many cultures the formation of a pairing was done over time, with oversight and with the future in mind. Today a marriage is whatever one may deem it to be for the benefit of an individual, their secular views not the community or culture to which the individual may be a member.

In the past, marriage was a promotion of two fit and proper 'adults' from a community to be capable of raising children and be capable of parenting them. It was an honored and exhalted position, community, family and culturally driven by motives that fit the trends and requirements for the future. It was never lightly taken and much background work was done in making sure the two people were truly compatible, after all such an investment was critical for the future of that culture. It was never considered for those percieved as incapable of being the necessary quality, hence many were laid by the wayside both male and female. It was also done for many and all reasons mentioned in many of the posters comments as a considered basket of choices of the wayward.

One thing can be assured it was done with the best interests and consent of the community that endeared to the practise and misunderstood, irrespective often of the recipients percieved personal interests at the time. No true parent wanted their child to suffer in giving them away to this type of formation. We do have to remember that the combined wisdom of a true community is irreplaceable as an authority in it's choices, options and localized rituals to know what is best, supervise, have oversight and coerce those who didn't understand. Especially the young and foolish. Today it is just simply a contractual monetary transaction with post dowry benefits to females as exemplified by the mayhem created against the institution. If one was to watch the TV show Bridezilla and others of the same genre, it may shine a light. The issue is marriage as a choice for those who take that path is no longer for children it is for the individuals. As such it is no longer required to have married parents and we must lament the quaint idea that marriage had a purpose, lets just celebrate the pomp and ceremony for those who really shouldn't be marrying at all, worse the ill considered mess they leave behind when things go awry.

The shift from cultural based marriages to state supervised and commercial marriages shifts the goals, and also the outcomes especially when one party is by a majority raised as an entitled princess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is not an ecological institution, it is one of religious repression and morality policing with it's vows, sanctions, and eternal damnations...
When both partners were forced to work to even get along financially that was the end of it. Keeping up a home, family, and jobs in an increasingly complex and financially stressed world is only going to get worse as our eco-economic stresses continue to rise. There could be larger committed but open groups to combine resources, skills and raise an ecologically sustainable world with less speed and more caring. Places like China could have family units large enough to allow female children and still have zero population growth.
A world of geodesic families and more biodivesity in sexual relations and commitments with soulmates rather than a soul mate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No one is forcing anyone to get married, divorced, or stay single. For those of you who are unhappy in your marriage, maybe you didn't marry the right person or work hard enough at keeping your relationship healthy sex-wise and "unboring". I acknowledge that marriages fail often as a result of one person not holding up their end of the relationship but to write an article that we should be rethinking the "institution" is senseless unless the goal is to completely forget how to interact with one another in long-term or life committments by leaving an easy way out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...we will have the failed institution of marriage. At the very least, you will not have the ability to modify it for the greater good.

Religion has NEVER done anything for the greater good. It is always what is best for the religion...and that usually means staying in the Dark Ages.

So if you want to "...start by untying all the benefits that lure people into marriage and expanding them to all people -- health insurance, hospital visitation rights, tax breaks -- so that married people don't get special status over the unmarried," you can't put the cart before the horse. You have to get rid of the CAUSE of ALL hinderences to progress in this nation...RELIGION.

If you want "...the married and unmarried to be more equal, and more people to feel free to experiment with lifestyle choices that allow them to meet responsibilities without forsaking their own right to pursue happiness," you have to get rid of RELIGION.

And if you want "... as an added bonus, to get away from demanding that (especially hypocritical) politicians present idealized marriages to get our votes, and then punish them when they're not better at living up to the ideal than the rest of us,"...well you get the idea. Although I do not know who really is "DEMANDING" this from the bozos in the first place.

Only when the mythology and superstition business stops, can unparalleled social progress begin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both Sanford and Spitzer proved to the world that good sex is worth more than the position of governor. It is a message that should awaken all those that strive for a career that does not include enough time in the bedroom. They both deserve our respect and admiration for teaching us the truth and essence of life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you are expecting something don't, if your needs are not met find the right person because your needs are as improtant as your mates, if your not meeting your mates needs find out why and do something,,, or not if they are not true too you, and get away from the playcator, cuse life is too short to put up with fair weater marage mates, and be thankful anyone loves you at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You have an out-moted idea that is...

1. Societally painful
2. Socially controlling
3. Easily remedied, and most importantly
4. Very PROFITABLE

Hm. No problem here, citizen. Move along.

Sometimes common sense isn't as common as we think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fundies and conservatives have statistically higher rates of divorce, as well as instances of drug, alcohol, and spousal abuse, but how does the US compare to other countries? My guess is that we have among the highest rates of divorce in the industrialised world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I couldn't agree with you more, that is exactly what I think marriage is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I personally am far happier divorced than I ever was married and highly doubt I will ever try it again. But that doesn't mean it wrong for everyone. I think we should quit idealizing marriage and marginalizing those who are single/divorced. But I also think it is fine for those who are happy in them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's like saying, "My store closed down, no one should open another."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After having a long and thought-provoking discussion about same-sex (gay) marriage with a gay friend of mine, we both started to question if legal marriage (legal unions) itself is a form of discrimination and/or if marriage should be a legal right to begin with. Think about this for a moment, if someone is single or in a legally unrecognized relationship (which more and more couples and parents are in), they are not given the same legal rights and financial benefits as a married couple, so how is this not some form of discrimination toward people who are somehow unable to marry or choose not to be married?

Ultimately, the legal institution of marriage itself should be under scrutiny, as far as equal rights and discrimination are concerned. I think it was clear in the Gay Marriage thread that marriage itself is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So, is legal marriage itself a constitutional right, as others have asked? Let me restate, is legal marriage itself a constitutional right for anyone - gay, straight, black, white, purple, and so on?

Why do married individuals receive certain rights and benefits that their unmarried counterparts do not receive in this day and age?

What makes married individuals special or important enough in our present society to receive special rights and benefits that others do not receive?

Do marriage rights and privileges truly benefit the whole of society in this day and age, especially when we take into account divorce rates, the amount of single and divorced parents, and the amount of couples that have remarried?

Is the state(s) over-stepping their authority by giving special rights* and rights not afforded by the constitution to individuals who are married?

* special rights : "laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The point is that people are buying into the "fantasy" of marriage which is of course sold to us ad nauseum by movies, the wedding industry, society etc. The fantasy is that marriage is a big romantic adventure, with lots of great sex, candlelit dinners, cavorting on beaches with one's soul mate. The reality is of course very different. And when this fantasy come up against the reality the marriage collapses. So maybe we need to actually follow in the footsteps of a much-loathed (by millions including me) religious institution -- the Catholic Church -- and actually insist people do marriage preparation classes. So while they're dreaming about their sunset walks they're also figuring if they can deal with the every day mundane stuff of marriage.

On another note I have a theory that the chance a marriage has of lasting is in reverse proportion to the amount spent. So if the wedding cost an excessive amount -- I give it 2 years tops. If not, then it may last. 1111

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not work at love? What an amazing concept.

As a fundamentalist "traditional marriage" Christian, I was taught that "love is not a feeling ~ it's an act of the will." So ~ if love is not easy ~ if you don't "feel" love for your spouse ~ well, you just choose to love and leave the feeling part up to God.

Sure makes for a dry, tiring relationship. Sure is a lot of work.

I am no longer basing my love life on the narrow precepts of an ancient text intended to keep the women "loving" their husbands whether they felt like it or not.

Love that is heartfelt ~ natural and easy ~ the sort of love which "just is" ~ Love that is NOT WORK ~ is incredibly more satisfying and fulfilling than anything which I could produce as an act of my own will.

No Longer Quivering

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whats better for children than a stable home with 2 parents? Unfortunately people divorce and parade their partners through their homes and their kids have to be around creepy weirdos all the time. That is not good. Better for parents atleast that they stay together and focus on their family no matter what gender they are)

Marriage is about building a family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, there's no scientific data supporting the idea that humans are by nature monogamous, or that they mate for life. If it was, wouldn't be an "institution" would it.

tedbohne

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It appears not. This is a weak op-ed not journalism.

I just celebrated my 18th wedding anniversary which is also my birthday. My wife is the best gift I have ever received.

Fortunately my mom gave me some good advice a long time ago.

She said, "marriage is the hardest job you will ever have. you are going to wake up some days wondering who is this person (spouse) and what have I done? Other days you are going to feel like the luckiest person in the world and wonder how you could ever get along without them in your life."

If you are selfish, self-centered and a taker your marriage is likely to be miserable and fail as your spouse will not live up to your expectations and you walk away at the low points rather than work through them.

Marriage is about giving... unfortunately most people and our society at large are takers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sandra Tsing Loh was sexually attracted to and had sex with someone other than her husband and got a divorce. Fine. No big deal. Happens all the time.

But turning the failure of her marriage into an indictment of the institution smells like sour grapes to me. Can't Americans ever fail without blaming someone or something else? We're so insecure and myopic.

Some marriages suck, some are great, and some are in between. For many, marriage is sexual, joyful and nurturing.

This reminds me of the post modern crap that went on in the 90s. Bunch of affluent libs focusing on the wrong things, turning off everybody with their meaningless extremist posturing, and letting the right-wingers win the hearts of a majority of Americans.

This attack on marriage is a losing battle for us progressives. Let's not let some quirky anti-marriage fools -- who seem to have no problems with forcing their wacky agendas down all of our throats -- divert us from the more important agenda of freeing America from the real oppressors: war-mongering imperialists and Wall Street wealth destroyers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In our culture we seem to have this fear of being alone--like it's the worst thing that can happen to somebody, even worse than death.

But living alone is far more common and much closer to "normal" than popular media and the "romance/marriage" industrial complex would have you believe.

Interestingly enough, those people who "can't not be alone" are often the very same people who drift from one unfulfilling marriage to another, continually making the same mistakes because they are afraid to look into themselves and find what they need in order to grow. (It's necessary to go off by yourself to do this properly.)

Very happily divorced after 17 miserable years, I found out that being alone isn't such a bad thing; it's certainly not the end of the world.
In fact, I like being alone precisely because I like myself. A bit of casual companionship on the occasional weekend would do me just fine!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Formalized marriage and monogamy began for practical reasons, unrelated to any religious notions of "sanctity". Once ancient hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies and ideas of private property and inheritance came about, socially sanctioned monogamous marriage began as a way to control women's sexuality so men would know which children were actually theirs. Polygynous marriage existed for the very rich, but the women in such marriages were still monogamous, though men were not. It is because of this original reason that women are punished more severely for infidelity than are men, as men couldn't be sure of who their children were unless women's sexuality was tightly controlled.

Religious insistence on monogamy was soon added, as it gave the force of law to a practical idea in societies where religious leaders were the law. "God said it" leaves no room for debate.

People did not marry primarily for love until around the 18th century. It was strictly a practical arrangement, a vehicle for joining powerful families for the rich, along with inheritance reasons, and to have a socially sanctioned partner to have children with and work together for survival for the poor. Love, if it happened, was icing on the cake, not the reason to get married in the first place.

People lived shorter lives then, so "until death do us part", did not include decades of the "empty-nest syndrome". Most people were lucky to live long enough to see the youngest child to adulthood. Life itself was harder and more survival oriented, thus people did not worry overmuch about love or personal fulfillment then.

Still, infidelity occurred all throughout history for both sexes, despite sanctions against it, as it's very difficult to overcome basic human nature. It's always been a big scandal for women, but not so much for men until the 19th century or so. The feminist movement no doubt influenced the increasing disapproval of male infidelity, rather than freeing women to male norms.

Today, we marry for love, life isn't strictly about survival, DNA tests prove paternity, overpopulation discourages large families, we live longer lives, women can support themselves, and the abolishment of legal distictions between marital and nonmarital children have removed much of the valid reasons for legal marriage and monogamy. Thus, marriage as it's currently understood has become maladaptive for modern needs. It's no wonder we're seeing what we're seeing.

In light of this, marriage needs to be redefined if it is to survive in a workable form(s) and adjusted to reflect the realities of modern life and human nature. One of the first steps would be to cease mandating monogamy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

6 billion people on the planet, every damn one of them flapping their lips about whatever. No wonder there's global warming. If only HALF of us listened once in awhile, we'd slow down the ice-cap melting.

Course, every damn one of us is just like me...I want to be one of the ones talking, in the highly mistaken idea that some of the rest of you will listen. Ain't gonna happen. Fergetaboutit.

Veteran, '66'68

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By The Empire to Collect Taxes and keep Consensus.. Sad but True!!

One would need a Professional Astrologer to help prepare The Perfect Match and or to forewarn of difficulties or things within their future, to prepare two people for marriage, today.

Love is One Thing but it does not require Marriage! If you want a Family, children and the white picket fence, then make sure your partner is in it for the long haul!!

Marriage is a Business Arrangement. An Agreement that I will LOVE you till death due us part! That includes Emotional Death!

Please DO NOT GET MARRIED UNTIL YOU ARE WELL IN YOUR 60'S!! Until then, have fun being FREE!

LIVEFREE
Kachina

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fundamentalist Christers like Tony (the PAC man, not the actor) Perkins are against same sex marriage is that their own is so boring they might get shown up. I mean, doing it in the missionary position a couple of times a year with having babies in mind isn't exactly tantric sex, is it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I was growing up, it was stated marriage is a union or a bond, what happen too this? many years ago I asked a question why do people look for love elsewhere other than their spouse, I was told people that do this are not happy with the one they are with, they stay for false pretense, I was married once have had the opportunites to remarried a couple of time, to this day I am single by choice and have no intention of getting marry again, I don't think it would be worth it. If you truly love someone you would not cheat on them no matter what, once the vow has been made that should says, you're minds until death. A person never really know what the other person they are with will do. It's always best to expect the unexpected. One never know what is on the mind of another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bin married 4 times, for a variety of reasons... and liked some aspects of all of them. A committed relationship after all has its attractions... but things do not always turn out as you expect. The dissolution of a marriage does not necessarily constitute a devastating failure. Surely there will be regrets and guilt... but it is not the end of life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for this post. I've been writing about these themes in my book, Singled Out,

http://tinyurl.com/5l6g6y

and on my Living Single blog,
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single

I posted about this Atlantic article and will add a link to this piece in the comments section

--Bella DePaulo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It least Honky does not hold back his feelings and tells it the way he sees it...unlike some of the mean-spirited PC posters I have seen here.

There are many of you here who are so easily throwing stones in glass houses. Hypocricy is the purest form of insincerity and dishonesty...and you think you are better than Honky. So sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

免費視訊聊天|辣妹視訊|視訊交友網|美女視訊|視訊交友|視訊交友90739|成人聊天室|視訊聊天室|視訊聊天|視訊聊天室|情色視訊|情人視訊網|視訊美女一葉情貼圖片區|免費視訊聊天室|免費視訊|ut聊天室|聊天室|豆豆聊天室|尋夢園聊天室|聊天室尋夢園|影音視訊聊天室||
辣妹視訊|美女視訊|視訊交友網|視訊聊天室|視訊交友|視訊美女|免費視訊|免費視訊聊天|視訊交友90739|免費視訊聊天室|成人聊天室|視訊聊天|視訊交友aooyy哈啦聊天室|辣妺視訊|A片|色情A片|視訊|080視訊聊天室|視訊美女34c|視訊情人高雄網|視訊交友高雄網|0204貼圖區|sex520免費影片|情色貼圖|視訊ukiss|視訊ggoo|視訊美女ggoo|
080苗栗人聊天室|080中部人聊天室ut|ut影音視訊聊天室13077|視訊做愛|kk777視訊俱樂部|上班族聊天室|聊天室找一夜|情色交友|情色貼片|小瓢蟲情色論壇|aio交友愛情館|
哈拉聊天室|洪爺影城|kk123視訊俱樂部|6K聊天室
情趣用品|情趣用品|情趣用品|情趣|情趣用品|情趣

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the business of raising children. Romance is entirely too frivolous and shaky to base a marriage on that has to last 20+ years to get the kids raised properly. Run it like a business and use affairs to satisfy the romantic urges.

This is not something that Sarah Palin is going to buy into anytime soon...or my wife either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not all kill ourselves now, since we will all die someday anyway?

Why not just marry (or not) and enjoy every day that you can, whatever your circumstances?

And shut up about abolishing marriage!!

Are you trying to give the nutball right, whom we just deposed in 2008 elections, a chance to make a quick comeback????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know that my single life can be that way!

Singles still have to work all the time, pay taxes (some say there's a marriage penalty for taxes, if both spouses work), don't have time to get out an meet people, sit home alone on weekend nights -- not even anyone to fight with! ... talk about sexless and boring!! I love how the married idealize being single. (And vice versa, I suppose) Not trying to be trite, but life what you make of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are conditioned to expect too much of marriage. Being in love is a form of madness, well distanced from reality, and yet we're expected to agree to mate for life while in such a condition. Marriage traditionally served to protect and support females, who bring forth life, responsible for perpetuation of the human race. In advanced nations such as Belgium, females are provided that protection and support by the government, so that marriage becomes a choice, not a necessity. Since males are by nature not monogamous, this should suit them just fine. But being males, self-involved to the max, they resent even paying the taxes necessary to facilitate their own natural tendencies and apparent needs. Why? Because the mysterious and live-giving female (too godlike for males, who reserve such claims for themselves) might be on the receiving end. Until the well-being of females is perceived to be of vital importance to humanity and to society, and until males grow up and face reality, our inter-gender relationships will continue to be based on all the wrong things. Despite the claims of religion, consensual sex is not wrong, or sinful, as they say. Sin, a religious concept used to keep control of the masses, after all. By now, it should be clear, empirically, that lifelong marriage works only for the very few. Nevertheless, families exist (including and especially, given the circumstances, those of females and their offspring) and must be supported, or civilization is just a bad joke. As for "straying" politicians, it's the hypocrisy, far more than the natural tendency, that so offends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

save yourself the trouble of a marriage: find a woman you don't like, and give her your house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

even today you see societies that brutalize women, eg. honor killings focus primarily on women, women have to cover their head/hair... women have to wear a hijab ... women must be killed and buried with their husbands the list is endless, ad nausea...

To hell with marriage... if you love someone or something tell em and if you don't anymore that's fine too, but the key is communicate it

In a world that's evolved communications into a science why is it we cant communicate properly with the ones we love and are loved by?... why are we such a patriarchal monotheistic society that all about controlling and owning... people...

just love one another the rest is hubris and a waste of words

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem with MODERN MARRIAGE is that it is based solely on the primeval concept of procreation-SEX or preservation of the specie.
Women & Men want more but the brainwashing SEX INDUSTRY reduce marriage to a sex relationship, period.
WHAT SHOULD BE THE PURPOSE? Teach children the importance of life- knowledge/respect of self,having purpose IN LIFE, sharing VALUE SYSTEMS AND GOALS, ENJOY PLAYING WITH EACH OTHER (other than sex).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a small minority of married couples who seem to actually still be enjoying romantic excitement with each other decades into their marriage...and they aren't the ones with shrill denouncements of "attacks on marriage".

Amanda is mostly right and I also read the Vanessa Richards article , which is also prompted by the Tsing Loh story, with some interest.

Richards points out the class and career angle more and I think that matters here. It seems like her condemnation of marriage stability as the prime objective that has triumphed over romantic excitement has merit. Marriage seen as a career tool HAS become an institution propped up by external considerations and tax breaks and another possession we parade about in like a Mercedes to show how we have succeeded.
But neither that image of marriage nor the often hollow conception as in-love-forever+kids are logically necessary outcomes way down the road from the initiating lust.
I think the institution of marriage is capable of hosting both possibilities ... it is simply one of the best petri dishes we have in which to grow and demonstrate self fulfilling prophecies.
And that is why it should not be saddled with EITHER possibility: they just aren't inherent in our natures but rather they are the choices we make...and break.
(I have an old essay on "procreation contracts" that I'd gladly sell you;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No ideal can be lived 100% here on earth. Not a one--not choice, not democracy, not tolerance, not ANY ideal. So why just pick on marriage? Or, alternatively, why not give marriage as an ideal the same benefit of the doubt you give an ideal like democracy?

"Is it possible that Tsing Loh upset so many people with this essay not because she's wrong, but because she's right?" No, she's not right. She is a train wreck happening right before our eyes--and she'd like us to rejoice in her train wreck and she'd like us to ask why we all don't have train wrecks because they are so wonderful. No wonder people are reacting viscerally--she is a nutcase parading as a prophetess.

Can we talk about some of the most important reasons we idealize marriage? Like because then children get to live with the two people who made them, and children just seem to want that for some reason? Or that marriage, when properly overseen by the state to prevent abuse, is the most important promoter of societal gender equality? Men can't learn how to live with women as equals unless they . . . live with women in a committed, enduring relationship. Or that it is horrifically unfair to expect women to reproduce in a context where the person who impregnated them has no responsibilities and makes no commitment for the pregnancy and child? Or that marriage teaches all sorts of virtues--selflessness, sacrifice, self-discipline, love, tolerance--if we but let it?

I agree with a previous poster . . . why not apply this crazy analysis to life? Life isn't all it is cracked up to be and never is: so should we all put a bullet in our brains?

Wow, I think someone forgot to tell these folks the facts of life before they encountered it: you do the very best you can, knowing neither you nor anyone else can be perfect. But we only praise those who actually do the best they can--and Tsing Loh did NOT.

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is that actually possible?

It is amazingly. It works on any man but has to be done by a woman.

The reason is phenomenal. Man has always had a weakness for women. Physically and mentally,he has an unseen weakness. Any woman can hypnotise any men using the ancient artform of Hypnotism.


Do we ladies have the last say? We look after the kids. We cook his dinner. We keep the house in order. At the end of the day,we deserve a little tenderness. How many times has he taken us for granted? We do the shitload and there he is glued to the screen watching his
football.

I needed to change things alittle when it came to my husband and now his twirled round my little fingers.

THINGS are about to change Ladies!!!


Lets control our men through the power of Hypnotism. Lets turn the tables around. Get him to cook for you. Get him to wash those dishes.Get him to give you that massage while you tune in to your favourite episode of Desperate Housewives.


Ive done it and you can too.Enough is enough. Its time to put him under Hypnosis and I'll tell you just how. It sure as hell works for
me and it will for you too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My husband and I have been married for 8 years. we had a simple, but beautiful marriage, not costing the thousands of dollars, as what the alleged "national average" costs. We do not have any children, at least currently. It isn't boring. I like the sex. I like the fact I have a warm body sleeping next to me at night. I like the fact I can make dinner for someone, and vice versa. I am glad I have a partner who confides in me, and I in him our fears, successes and hopes and dreams. We have both risked our lives and careers for one another. Why? because we are in love and hope it lasts forever, but we know it won't. we will just enjoy it as long as possible. After reading this article, I just realized how truly blessed I am to be married. Long live the institution of Marriage! (even with the hardships!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]