Screw Marriage: Bring on the Communes

[Leo Volont]

Screw Marriage: Bring on the Communes Since it was a good movie, I had taken up the recreational reading of Lauren Weisberger’s “The Devil Wears Prada”, from which the Screenplay was loosely based. What stands out is the struggle between boyfriend and girlfriend – both are working, both have careers and so both have individual and independent Agendas and Interests. So they fight. So there is always tension. Drama. Drama. Drama. No, I am not about to bemoan the loss of the Good Old Days where Men and Women had complimentary and compatible Agendas – Men took care of the Barn and the Fields while women took care of Home and Children as well as being the Family’s Social Interface to the Larger Community. It was indeed splendid, and one can remember such Days wistfully, but one can hardly wish them back. Our Social Revolutions had veritably salted that earth and now such institutions are dead, and the best we can do now is to remember them with some respect. But we can no longer continue as is. We have only to consider that the Institution of Marriage was integrally from that same dead and gone past. With this new Equality between the Sexes, what sense does it make to continue the fiction of Husbands and Wives? We now have Male Husbands with Female Husbands, and the contest is over whom gets to screw whom. Yes, yes, yes. People cannot be expected to go it alone. Especially women with children. We know children need parental authority and role models. Well, I am reminded here of Hilary Clinton’s book from several years back – “It Takes a Village”. Indeed, there is the answer right there – return to a Village kind of Organization. Rather than relying upon the Nuclear Family level of Organization – a Wife and a Wife Beater and a cluster of abused and dysfunctional children – we could go to a form of Community Living. Women would live with and close-by with their female friends (come on, we know deep down inside that any Woman’s real Best Friend is always another woman), and children could be clustered more together than they are now. And Men could visit when they are sober enough to behave themselves. Such a System would be compatible with this New Era of Equality between the Sexes. After all, considered practically, one could hardly have an easy time joining such a Commune unless one had a good job, or enough personal promise and potential to be sure of having a good job or career. Each person would be his or her own Individual while still being integral to the Group as a whole. The hyper-dependency that traditional married couples place on each other, which results in such serious clashes between differing career interests and personal agendas – all would be smoothed out by the buffering effect of communal living. If Debbie is away at the office so very often, then one could drop by and have tea with Susan. Or if Jack was called away on an extended business trip, then Bob could take over coaching the children’s Team during the interim. And the Men would not be confined with nagging shrews, nor the women with abusing and angry wife-beaters. Indeed, hasn’t anybody ever wondered of so many anecdotes describing just how often individual men and individual women cannot get along with each other when cooped up privately with each other. And yet we can see how few people argue and fight when they are out in public. Only when trapped in the same rooms does aggression and hostility come to a boil. And then, it was the World of Marriage that gave expression to the all too true clique “Familiarity breeds contempt”. In a larger Community, those who are temporarily experiencing friction, can keep some distance for a while… until “absence makes the heart grow fonder”. Or roles can permanently be substituted and exchanged. Does it really matter whether it is Jack or Bob, Debbie or Susan? Life can be a Dance, where one changes partners once in a while. Who needs to keep score anyway? ‘It takes a Village’ should mean just one big happy family. Also, I should remind the guys especially, that Marriage hasn’t the advantages it used to have. Really. Women really were once our virtual Slaves. It may not have been right, but it sure was convenient. But now marriage is simply a great big liability. All detriment. No benefit. Yes, men continue to get married, but simply out of some sense of Cultural and Traditional momentum and inertia. They are carried along by some sense of Social Habit to marry the women they are fond of. It’s expected. But what for? In the old days it was like recruiting a live-in maid that would have one’s children, and whose property would become one’s own property. But now it is quite the opposite. Now, Marriage makes your property into Her property. The Divorce Judges take from Him and give to Her. Always. Never the other way around. A friend of mine had a very wise Father who told him, “Don’t waste your time getting Married. Just find a woman you hate and buy her a house.”

[wombing]

marriage is archaic and, on the whole, it seems, more harmful than beneficial. i have never seen a single happy marriage. what the fuck does a legally binding agreement have to do with the spontaneous, ever-changing relationship between two individuals? ------- the religious connotation attached to most marriages (especially in the judeo-christian-islamic conceptions of the world) seems to be the reason for this particular social arrangement's continued existence. why, my older brothers are both contemplating marriage, and it is laughable on the rare occasions where i hear them discuss wedlock with my mom or dad. my mom actually tells them to make sure a potential wife is "submissive", and particularly in the case of my one brother (whose potential wife has a 5 year old girl), emphatically tells him he must make sure that she "will respect your role as head of the household, even if she disagrees with how you wish to deal with her daughter".d i'll never get married. and while i intuitively feel that communal living is the best environment in which children (and we are all children) may grow, i also strongly feel that a moreorless unique, mutually beneficial, committed relationship is possible between two people within the framework of a commune. for instance, i am close to two "ex-hippies" who have been happy living with each other for over thirty years, and still genuinely laugh and cry and appreciate each other. they told me explicitly that they never married because they knew it would kill their dynamic, mutually invigorated relationship. or to use another example, yesterday i saw a childhood friend whom i had not seen for a year or so. we used to spend almost every waking moment together, and moreorless shared the same mind...completing each other's sentences and all that. well, about four years ago we grew apart for quite some time as we each pursued different aspects of our personalities. he became fully the social butterfly he's always been, and i retreated into an introverted shell. we rarely spoke. but yesterday it struck me so strongly that we are still essentially as close as we were in school. we still get each other, and trust each other completely, on any subject. ours is almost certainly a lifetime bond. yet it is elastic, and neither of us tries to lay claim to the other's life or attention as an obligation to which we are entitled. we both feel completely free to grow in our own ways, and share this growth whenver we happen to be together, even if it means we disagree on certain aspects of life. when this type of relationship is constrasted with wed-LOCK, it is so obvious why most marriages grow stale, and "familiarity breeds contempt". --------- openess, honesty (even when one knows their lover may disagree and be shocked with some opinion one has grown to hold), and trust are the basis for any lively relationship. anyone who needs a legally binding agreement made offical by the power of state or religion to feel that they share the three aforementioned qualities with another human being is likely to end up regretting that same arrangement eventually. marriage seems to show that openess, honesty and trust are absent to begin with. the openess and honesty to admit to one another that one or both could change so drastically within ten years that both would be happier alone or with someone else...or to realize that perhaps one may need to spend a few years on a personal project or exploration, without their partner. and the trust to believe the account of their lover after a period apart, and based upon this, to decide whether it would be best to walk together on their separate paths for awhile. marriage to me can be symbolized by two adjacent paths coming alongside one another and the two wanderers being infatuated by how similar their lives/minds/hearts are. and saying to one another "we are so much happier walking together...let us promise to never separate. let us make this heaven eternal" and then, months, or years later, their paths (which seemed to be one, but were always separate) suddenly diverge, sometimes even in opposite directions. each person would be truly happiest, and experience fuller growth if they followed their own path for awhile...if they truly loved on another (and had honesty and trust) they would be able to embrace and allow one another the opportunity to be happy. but it seems when the paths of two married people diverge, they pretend otherwise, and sit down at the crossroads, and even fall asleep. that last step before divergence becomes a prison with psychological bars, and it is only natural to eventually despise one's cellmate when both subconsciously know that it is only a fearful pact between the other and oneself which keeps both unfulfilled, stuck in a rut, and resentful for lost opportunity. and usually children are the excuse for "staying together" physically, even though minds and hearts may be light years apart. in a communal living arrangement, both parents may continue to impart into their child's life, without their own weakening relationship being an issue. or one or both could even leave their child's upraising mostly to others who love the child just as much, adn are better suited to influence it. simply from my own experience, i know that it was only fear, and conditioning, and obligation to "the children" which kept my parents together all these years. and that my siblings and myself suffered greatly for it. in a communal arrangement, i could have spent time learning from other adults, instead of being constantly subjected to the contempt which characterized my family. my mom feeling like a slave, adn resenting it. my dad feeling like a slave and resenting it. and both feeling that they were under greater slavery than the other. ------- can anyone truly imagine a marriage in which the two people said "it appears we both need time to grow on our own...you pursue your path, and i will pursue mine. and we will reunite in time"? ------- most men seem to desire a mother when they marry, not a spiritual lover. ------- those who do not live by the law of Love require the stagnant, life-draining legal system in order to live in psuedo-harmony with others. those who do not relate to others (and especially lovers) with a spontaneous, spiritual, elastic bond require the legally binding, wed-locking shackles of marriage. *laughs* i hope no married person takes offense...there are exceptions to every rule, and i am sure there must be a handful of fhappy marriages. never get tired of discussing social relationships, particularly marriage, and the resulting type of family which takes shape. extremely fascinating.

[Gwendolyn]

Marriage does work for some, though. Take my parents, and both sets of grandparents. They are all in happy marriages to the people they origionally married, and are very happy. Granted a lot of work is put into marriage, but that doesn't mean that is altogether not worth it. Nothing is ever easy. However, there are situations and people which might respond to a commune situation in a more positive way, than if they were in a marriage. That's fine. People are different. But just because marriages don't always work for some people does not mean that they are bad for all people. I say, do what makes you happy.

[Leo Volont]

Marriage does work for some, though. Take my parents, and both sets of grandparents. They are all in happy marriages to the people they origionally married, and are very happy. Granted a lot of work is put into marriage, but that doesn't mean that is altogether not worth it. Nothing is ever easy. However, there are situations and people which might respond to a commune situation in a more positive way, than if they were in a marriage. That's fine. People are different. But just because marriages don't always work for some people does not mean that they are bad for all people. I say, do what makes you happy. [/b] Yes, some marriages do 'work'... but look at that word ...."work". Doesn't sound like "fun", does it? for a marriage to work, one of the two, or even both, have to sacrifice their agenda for that of the other, or both have to surrender both of their agendas for some ideal of marriage that works against them both. And some people would be happy, no matter what. Happy in chains. Happy with a load on their back. Which does not mean that they would not be HAPPY-ER without chains... free of the load. If they would be happy with marriage, then they would be happier with something better. Unless it was a Traditional Marriage with differentiated sexual Roles -- Husband focussed on Career, and Wife focussed on House and Social Life. In Traditional Marriages, the two agendas are compatible and complementary. But when both Spouses each have careers... then there must inevitably be a struggle -- one spouse CANNOT simply move somewhere to pursue career advancement, or work late, or sleep with the boss... all that stuff.

[irishcream]

I guess it's all about compromise at the end of the day, we live in a more modern age with more opportunities for both parties, but more especially women. Both sexes have to try to be more understanding of each other's needs, and if that doesn't happen, that's when it falls apart. My boyfriend's parents have been married 25 years, my parents for nearly 18 years...somewhere it must be working... And leo, what you said about 'work'. If you're with someone you truly love, you dont' feel like you have to work at it. It comes naturally to want what's best for the other person...even if it means making little sacrifices yourself. I know one thing...Marriage isn't for selfish people...

[Gwendolyn]

I guess it's all about compromise at the end of the day, we live in a more modern age with more opportunities for both parties, but more especially women. Both sexes have to try to be more understanding of each other's needs, and if that doesn't happen, that's when it falls apart. My boyfriend's parents have been married 25 years, my parents for nearly 18 years...somewhere it must be working... And leo, what you said about 'work'. If you're with someone you truly love, you dont' feel like you have to work at it. It comes naturally to want what's best for the other person...even if it means making little sacrifices yourself. I know one thing...Marriage isn't for selfish people... [/b] Exactly. If you love someone, it doesn't matter how hard you have to work, because you always have that companionship that is unwavering and true. I know I am a lot younger and more inexperienced than some, but it isn't fair to say that marriage isn't for anyone at all. I know that it is the institution that is right for a lot of people, or else nobody would ever get married.

[The Blue Meanie]

Okay, Leo, bemoaning marriage is one thing. And, I half agree with you, it is often an outdated and heavily archaic tradition. I personally think it still has a place, but, that's not the point I want to bring up, as I'm sure others will (and it seems, have). But communes? The situation you describe sounds very "ideal", but the reality is somewhat different. All too often in communes, cases of sexual abuse and rape of younger female (and sometimes male) commune members (often just children) by older, more seniour (usually male) members abound. Perhaps this is because of the type of people who decide to join such communes... Now, I think it was you who brought up the point of abuse and violence in families? Sure, I can accept that perhaps, this means that marriage is often bo better, maybe even worse, than commune-type situations. But, to my mind BOTH "living/family arrangements" have a pretty equal potential to produce fucked-up situations. The problem is the people, not the type of social structure within which those people choose to live.

[Original Poster]

I had similar ideas and though I would like my children (if I have any) raised in by a community, I have to say I feel drawn to the idea of spending my entire life with a woman I loved.

[irishcream]

hmm...i'm very sceptical of the idea of children being raised in a community that way, by lots of different people as well as their parents. I watched a tv show where the kids were raised like this, and they turned out really nice, and well behaved. But doesn't it depend on the people in the community and their values? Wouldn't everyone in the community have to have similar values and ideals so that the children grew up well rounded and well adjusted individuals? I know if i had kids now, the only community they'd have would be myself and my boyfriend, and his parents. I couldn't do like they do in america, and all mix together. Maybe i've watched too much television...

[Leo Volont]

Yes, some marriages do 'work'... but look at that word ...."work". Doesn't sound like "fun", does it? for a marriage to work, one of the two, or even both, have to sacrifice their agenda for that of the other, or both have to surrender both of their agendas for some ideal of marriage that works against them both. And some people would be happy, no matter what. Happy in chains. Happy with a load on their back. Which does not mean that they would not be HAPPY-ER without chains... free of the load. If they would be happy with marriage, then they would be happier with something better. Unless it was a Traditional Marriage with differentiated sexual Roles -- Husband focussed on Career, and Wife focussed on House and Social Life. In Traditional Marriages, the two agendas are compatible and complementary. But when both Spouses each have careers... then there must inevitably be a struggle -- one spouse CANNOT simply move somewhere to pursue career advancement, or work late, or sleep with the boss... all that stuff. [/b] What happens when that person you love so much wants you to give up your career and follow him to ... Texas or some godforsaken Red State? Especially when once the initial romance has worn off, and you are both a little older... him having personal interests going one way, and you another. Your True Love will be an albatross around your neck. You'll end up getting divorced at 45 and regret for the rest of your life he hadn't gotten divorced instead at 25, or even 35, and cry when you think that you might have never married at all, and then been happy with what YOU wanted to do with your life. hmm...i'm very sceptical of the idea of children being raised in a community that way, by lots of different people as well as their parents. I watched a tv show where the kids were raised like this, and they turned out really nice, and well behaved. But doesn't it depend on the people in the community and their values? Wouldn't everyone in the community have to have similar values and ideals so that the children grew up well rounded and well adjusted individuals? I know if i had kids now, the only community they'd have would be myself and my boyfriend, and his parents. I couldn't do like they do in america, and all mix together. Maybe i've watched too much television... [/b] If one belongs to a Commune where everyone is friends.. and more importantly where you feel that you can befriend enough people to be a solid core for one's social and family life... where there are so many worthy friends, then one hardly has to pay any regard to abstract 'values' and blah blah blah. Do you think modern two worker families with the parents being run ragged, do you thinK THEY even have the time for "values"? What we have now isn't working. So Going Back the Village, which has worked at socializing Human Beings for a Million years now... let's go back to what works. And the Nuclear Family isn't it.

[Original Poster]

I find it's the very fact that the community is made up of people with different values that makes it so appealing. Children should be brought into cosmopolitanism rather quickly, in the way highschool does but better because it's not just students your age telling you what's right, and the parents telling everyone in the community they have no right to tell said parent how to raise their child, but on the contrary, it would be completely socially acceptable for a neighbor or a teacher to raise the child, not just heir friends and their parents.

[Leo Volont]

I find it's the very fact that the community is made up of people with different values that makes it so appealing. Children should be brought into cosmopolitanism rather quickly, in the way highschool does but better because it's not just students your age telling you what's right, and the parents telling everyone in the community they have no right to tell said parent how to raise their child, but on the contrary, it would be completely socially acceptable for a neighbor or a teacher to raise the child, not just heir friends and their parents. [/b] Yes. In a broad and well rounded community, no single extreme 'value' could do any lasting harm since the children would be able to see such abhorrent 'values' in context. But now, with children isolated in insular little nuclear families, they may come to accept any screwball social philosophy as simply 'given'... the only thing they know. Which brings to mind "Home Schooling". Often a child's only hope that he should ever adapt himself to a healthy relation to the rest of society is that he should see and experience enough of the healthy and wholesome World while at school, or coming to and from school. But children kept prisoner by crazy paranoid parents and fed exclusively on the delusions of parents who have made exiles of themselves... well, such children might as well be tatooed with "Damaged Goods" stencilled right on their foreheads, or be forced to carry about warning signs, or register with the police. The best that will ever come of them is that they will be entirely useless, but it is more likely they will be a problem and a detriment wherever they should go in life, once released from the prisons of their crazy homes.

[purple raevyn]

well, i havent read the entire topic, yet, but here's my thoughts. i think 2 people who love one another and pledge their lives to one another till death do they part, or they just get sick of one another is sufficient. i dont think its right for the law of the land to stick their noses into it, or try to force a couple to stay together when they no longer desire each other. i think marriage was instituted to control sexuality, particularly female sexuality, and used the hymen as a way to convince the woman that she was meant for one man only. and they threw in the whole stuff about sex outside of marriage is dirty or wrong. in societies both past and, yes, even present, if a woman fails to bleed upon consumation of her marriage, it is assumed she has already had sex, and will likely be divorced forthwith or possibly killed. and yet, this whole hymen business seems to also give the man the false idea that it is only on the women's shoulders to save themselves for marriage, because men dont bleed the 1st time, and thus it would seem that it is socially acceptable for men to go screw everybody they can get their hands on. but they dont realize that there are a myriad other things that cause hymenial rupture, and yet so many people with such hard-core relentlessness, believe that this was a way that god made for us to guage a woman's virginity (or lack thereof) it was also a way in which men could stake their claim on a particular woman and eliminate any possible competition from other males who might seek to impregnate her-speaking from a purely scientific point of view. thus i feel that marriage was first brought into being as a direct result of men desireing to exercise control of their women folk, and this was a way to legally bind her to him and with the rest of society's nose all up in their business, together with the percieved stigma placed on women who are divorced helps to keep her bound to him no matter what misery may befall. in one certain culture, women face murder for attempting to leave their hubands , and no one seems to care how bad her life is with that man, and indeed dom. abuse is frightenly widespread there as well. and these ideas, i feel, have been etched into our subconscious over the centuries. thus, even though we in the western world have redefined marriage and love and stuff, i feel that this sense of ownership over the women tends to weasle its way out anyway. i hear about a lot of women who were dating a guy and everything was cool....till they got married. and these are often the men who tend to be abusive, too, mind you. as soon as they get married, they start acting like the woman is part of his property, and starts acting like a bastard. that's what happened in my own marriage. its almost as if, subconsciously the marriage contract is seen as a contract of ownership like we sign when we buy a car or a house, this is like buying the woman-and indeed in some cultures the groom really does buy the wife off by paying money or property to the bride's family. now the village ideal that leo spoke of.... i thought of that myself before, as well. i feel that we have become so lonely in our huge cities. and i can only imagine why crime is greater the larger the city. and smaller towns in which everyone is more familiar with one another are so nice. and why when you drive thru a residential area, it seems there's no life. you see a person here or there, but hardly any interaction among households. how lonely. i think a smaller, more intimate communities, would help more people have a sense of belonging, security, and would help deter crime. and of course having multiple role models might be a healthy thing.

[Invader]

An interresting suggestion. Of course, there will always be problems that arise. How is the financial income dealt with among the parents? How do you know who should be watching the kids? What happens if one member decides to simply leave, etc etc. The idea is sound, but I wonder how flaws such as these would be overcome.

[Wolfie]

I like the idea of hand-fasting. You agree to be '''married'' for either a year and a day, a lifetime or eternity. If you chose a year and a day you can renew it every twelve months. No lifetime obligations (unless the both of you chose it), no messy divorces, the possibility of freedom and above all hand-fasting is flexible! About the idea of children being raised in a group: I think it's a great idea! Me and my siblings all went Guides/Scouts. Spending time in a group of people all varying ages and personalities taught me a lot, was fun and in a tribe/village situation is practical. Why have one or two parents tied to a few children when you could have three or four adults looking after ten or more? After all, isn't that what playgroups and nurseries do?

[SpaceFlower]

Yes, this is very interesting. The idea of communal living definately has it's merits but of course has drawbacks as mentioned above. Can't there be a happy medium? Here is my experience: Both of my parents come from large families. When I grew up I did not directly live with my extended family but we did spend quite a bit of time together. evenings, weekends, etc. I do have both older and younger cousins and while it is imortant for a child to have interaction with children thier age I think it made me more well-rounded to have older and younger cousins as well. As far as my parents were concerned - Even with 4 kids in my family I remember times when my parents could get relatives to watch us so they could have some time alone. I don't know how much this helped but I can tell you they have been married for over 30 years and they seem to be happy. Now, a typical family engaement: My dad, uncles, older cousins outside bar-b-quing, drinking beer, talking. My mom, aunts, littler kids etc. inside talking, laughing. Kids running around everywhere. We did not live actually in a commune but we did have a social enviornment that allowed my parents time together when they needed it and thier time apart as well. The fact that we are family made my parents comfortable as they know the type of "values" my aunts and uncles have. Here is another thing I think is important is REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. Expecting ONE single person to provide all of your spiritual, sexual, and intellectual needs is unrealistic. It puts too much pressure on a couple. That is why it is important to have extended family or close friends. My aunt brings out a side of my mother that I love to see. WHen they are together they talk and giggle as if they were children again. My mother loves my father, but he dosen't make her laugh the way that my aunt does. The same goes for my dad. Another pro of extended family or communal living that I have not seen mentioned - It helps alot as a teenager. For example, there is a girl in our help forum that posted about a guy that is stalking/scaring her. Everyone tells her to talk to her parents or counselor. Let's face it, sometimes we don't feel all that comfortable telling momNdad everything when we get ourselves into trouble. Having a younger aount to talk to or maybe an older cousin could help bridge the age gap, just make a teenager feel more comfortable. There is someone there for them that really cares and has their heart in the right place.

[Leo Volont]

Yes, this is very interesting. The idea of communal living definately has it's merits but of course has drawbacks as mentioned above. Can't there be a happy medium? Here is my experience: Both of my parents come from large families. When I grew up I did not directly live with my extended family but we did spend quite a bit of time together. evenings, weekends, etc. I do have both older and younger cousins and while it is imortant for a child to have interaction with children thier age I think it made me more well-rounded to have older and younger cousins as well. As far as my parents were concerned - Even with 4 kids in my family I remember times when my parents could get relatives to watch us so they could have some time alone. I don't know how much this helped but I can tell you they have been married for over 30 years and they seem to be happy. Now, a typical family engaement: My dad, uncles, older cousins outside bar-b-quing, drinking beer, talking. My mom, aunts, littler kids etc. inside talking, laughing. Kids running around everywhere. We did not live actually in a commune but we did have a social enviornment that allowed my parents time together when they needed it and thier time apart as well. The fact that we are family made my parents comfortable as they know the type of "values" my aunts and uncles have. Here is another thing I think is important is REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. Expecting ONE single person to provide all of your spiritual, sexual, and intellectual needs is unrealistic. It puts too much pressure on a couple. That is why it is important to have extended family or close friends. My aunt brings out a side of my mother that I love to see. WHen they are together they talk and giggle as if they were children again. My mother loves my father, but he dosen't make her laugh the way that my aunt does. The same goes for my dad. Another pro of extended family or communal living that I have not seen mentioned - It helps alot as a teenager. For example, there is a girl in our help forum that posted about a guy that is stalking/scaring her. Everyone tells her to talk to her parents or counselor. Let's face it, sometimes we don't feel all that comfortable telling momNdad everything when we get ourselves into trouble. Having a younger aount to talk to or maybe an older cousin could help bridge the age gap, just make a teenager feel more comfortable. There is someone there for them that really cares and has their heart in the right place. [/b] Yes! Exactly! And as further support for this argument for a broad communal setting for the upbringing of children, as you had been raised, I can point out that seem so very mature and well-adjusted... if exemplary diction and narrative is any clue...

[Leo Volont]

Oh, and there may be some beneficial dirty little secret about communal living. Consider the following: studies have shown that women are promiscuous but tend to have affairs with men of greater social status, and men are promiscuous but will tend to have affairs with anybody who winks back. What does this mean? Well it means that the children born within a communal context will more likely be breed to be of ‘higher’ status. It may be a moral problem, when wives cheat on their workaday husbands that they had settled for in marriage, but when close communal living can occasion easy and unsuspected affairs, where the dominant males can have a broader influence upon succeeding generations, then it is a Good Thing for the progress and evolution of the Species as a whole.

[AdAstra]

I know I shouldn't post here because I'm not that active in the community. That being said, I just can't read one more of Leo's fanatical woman bashing posts and stay silent. This communal living arrangement seems far more unrealistic and unnatural than any institution of marriage. The nuclear family unit is something very natural and instinctual for the human being. Communism... not so much. Have there been any instances of true communal living that have worked out well? Why would eliminating marriage rid a society of all of it's problems? Family violence would end because there is no longer a nagging shrew to beat? I'm seriously asking these questions; I just don't understand how anyone that lives around people can see this actually working. It goes way beyond marriage. You're talking about true communal living. No property, no family, nothing that is yours. People simply aren't wired that way. If human beings were actually capable of living like this, then wouldn't at least some of them actually live like this? Pretty much every war or conflict throughout history has been over resources and securing them for your people and family. Let's look at land ownership. Private land is well taken care of and preserved, while public land is polluted and misused. It is easy for a person to abuse something that belongs to everyone. After all "somebody else" will always clean it up. People do not take the same attitude with something that is their responsibility. This private/public paradox applies to much more than land; look at a public bathroom. How are people going to treat their public children and public houses? What stops some people from contributing absolutely nothing and relying on the people with work ethics to sustain them? If you impose restrictions or requirements on all citizens, how free and superior is the resulting communal society? There is one thing that hasn't been addressed and throws a big fat wrench into this plan. Sexually Transmitted Infections. Don't blow smoke up my arse with condom talk, it does nothing for herpes, which is incurable. And they aren't totally reliable, or unbreakable, if you will. In fact, there is no sure fire way to protect the citizens of such a communal society from such diseases. How well adjusted and cared for are the little children going to be during a chlamydia epidemic? And what about birth contol? Putting everyone on the pill wreaks havoc on the local aquatic ecosystem. Barrier methods and IUD's don't protect people from disease, which is something that would seem to be pretty essential for such a community. Animals that are not meant to be monogamous typically aren't threatened by STI's; if they were, they would be doomed. Are we that different? How would a communal polyamorous society deal with these problems? Why do so many marriages fail? Is it really because monogamous relationships and nuclear family units are unnatural and socially imposed? Or could it perhaps be the way society views marriage, which Leo has illustrated quite well. The old ball and chain. The nagging shrew bitch wife. The violent husband, the hateful children. This is the image of marriage that most people grow up with, even if it does not accurately describe their parents' relationship. How many times are children told about wonderful marriage where people are happy? Marriage is seen as something that you will eventually have to do, like death. A duty to your society, something that you put off until you are done living and have resigned yourself to becoming a procreating workhorse. Is it really that surprising that so many marriages end badly, when so many begin badly? Can 2 people enter a marriage with these preconceptions and actually be expected to succeed? Look at the bachelor(ette) party. A final sexual send off before your life of mundane servitude. Perhaps if children weren't taught that marriage is this awful eventuality that sigifies your independent life is over and being replace by Death's waiting room, people would enter marriages in a better mindframe and more would succeed. So is this actually a discussion? Communes sound great, but is it even remotely possible for it to actually work? Or for our society to make such a transition? Or is this just an old man lamenting the penis serving days of yore? And all this sexual equality BS-- I assume that you are only referring to Western societies? Or should I just come out and say it; the only people that really matter. Most women in the world still live in archaic societies and are oppressed by men. These women aren't just in the third world. There are more slaves in the US today than at any other point in history; an alarming percentage of these slaves are female sex slaves. Women currently occupy 16% of corporate officer positions; in other words, actually make the corporate decisions that affect all of us. A wife taking 10 years off to raise her children has her lifetime earning potential cut in half. Is that really offset by a few years of maintenance? After a divorce, the wife and children's standard of living typically decreases by 40%, while the husband's increases by about the same percentage. Always. Rarely the other way. Today, a woman is expected to take on both roles in a traditional marriage, breadwinner and homemaker, even if she has a husband. Working women spend 56% more time with their children than working men, and women take more flex time because of their family than men. Typically, they do more housework and financial managing than their husbands. Is this the sexually equal world that you are referring to? If you are a referring to a different world, what is the average price of a three bedroom house there? I'll move. BTW, in my parent's social circle, apparently 2 divorces "never happened" according to you, Leo. In both instances, the wife made far more than the husband during the course of the marriage. When it were disolved, the person who made more made maintenance payments to the person who made less, so their standard of living would not plummet. And it was the woman! That's right, the courts didn't care who had the vagina in 2 instances! Of people I actually know too, it's not an urban legend! I've seen you state several times that the divorce laws take from the man and give to the woman. Could you please site these laws? And explain why, according to several studies and census information, the woman and childrens' quality of life spiral downwards while the man's flourishes? Your stodgy old man friends and their crappy one sided divorce stories aren't divorce statistics and your "buy the bitch a house" line does not reflect the laws or current state of divorce in the western world. It just so ironic. Old men blaming the problems of the world and society on the evil greedy temptress. When every awful thing that has ever "salted the earth" was brought about by men. War, religion, corporate greed and soulless capitalism, democracy, Imperialism; all of it was brought upon the world and its people with very little if any female influence. I don't know about you, but I'll take a bitchfest and downright theft over a brutal rape torture murder any day. But I'm just a wicked illogical woman, what do I know?

[Leo Volont]

Why do so many marriages fail? Is it really because monogamous relationships and nuclear family units are unnatural and socially imposed? Or could it perhaps be the way society views marriage, which Leo has illustrated quite well. The old ball and chain. The nagging shrew bitch wife. The violent husband, the hateful children. This is the image of marriage that most people grow up with, even if it does not accurately describe their parents' relationship. [/b] So, society is falling apart all over the world, just a century or two since Extended Families and Clan Living was suspended for the Universal Experiment of Nuclear Family Living, all because people have bad attitudes and have made too much of the failures and not enough of the rare successes. Yeah, people's attitudes suck. But that is my point! People HAD BETTER ATTITUDES when they had more Society, More Communalism, and less stiffling isolation, with, YES, nagging bitches on one side and Wife Beaters on the other .... who wouldn't DARE do that shit if they were among a greater society... with responsible adult witnesses left and right. So is this actually a discussion? Communes sound great, but is it even remotely possible for it to actually work? Or for our society to make such a transition? [/b] Again, somebody who has never read History. Nuclear Family has been the experiment. We have come from a number of civilizations where people lived in the unit of Extended Family, Clans and Villiages. It is the Nuclear Family that has been the Revolutionary Change, and the vast huge failure that it has become. And then, I must commend you for your intellectual honesty. In telling me that I was wrong about one half of what I had to say, you proved my point of the other half, by enumerating all of the divorces and personal family tragedies that are within your own knowledge. So what is it? Are you letting your Romantic Optimism... your wanting to Marry a Knight in Shining Armor... to delude you into forgetting what you already know. That marriages are dysfunctional... that some people grind it out and tolerate it for the sake of family and appearances, while everybody who can be expected to act for their Best Interests OF COURSE bail out. You say it but you don't bother to listen to even yourself.

[irishcream]

Hmm...i wonder if people do change when they get married. My boyfriend and i have been together a year, and while we know that we'd like to get married one day, neither of us is in any rush to go about it. We want to get our respective careers sorted out, and settle down first. We've had many long discussions on it, and we're not bothered whether we marry or not, and the only thing i stipulated was that if we wanted to start a family i would like to get married and he agreed, because that's what we've both been brought up with. But at the end of the day, people breaking up isn't about whether they are married or not. It's about the condition of the relationship to begin with (in my opinion) If you're strong together, and you really love and care for one another, and respect each other, whether you get married or remain unmarried but together, i think it survives. to my mind, marriage is only a bit of paper for the world to see. What matters is what's in the hearts of the two individuals concerned. if they love each other, they have nothing to prove. It doesn't need a piece of paper to cement it, because it's already there. (ok, so it's handy for buying houses together and such...) I do agree with what someone said about a lack of community. No one says hello to anyone any more. I'm lucky enough to live in a small town, with mostly the older generation and when you walk past someone in the street they will say 'good morning' and i will reply to them. It's not so close that everyone knows everybody's business, but you can kinda guarantee that when you go out your door you'll see at least ONE person that you know.

[Leo Volont]

Hmm...i wonder if people do change when they get married. My boyfriend and i have been together a year, and while we know that we'd like to get married one day, neither of us is in any rush to go about it. We want to get our respective careers sorted out, and settle down first. We've had many long discussions on it, and we're not bothered whether we marry or not, and the only thing i stipulated was that if we wanted to start a family i would like to get married and he agreed, because that's what we've both been brought up with. But at the end of the day, people breaking up isn't about whether they are married or not. It's about the condition of the relationship to begin with (in my opinion) If you're strong together, and you really love and care for one another, and respect each other, whether you get married or remain unmarried but together, i think it survives. to my mind, marriage is only a bit of paper for the world to see. What matters is what's in the hearts of the two individuals concerned. if they love each other, they have nothing to prove. It doesn't need a piece of paper to cement it, because it's already there. (ok, so it's handy for buying houses together and such...) I do agree with what someone said about a lack of community. No one says hello to anyone any more. I'm lucky enough to live in a small town, with mostly the older generation and when you walk past someone in the street they will say 'good morning' and i will reply to them. It's not so close that everyone knows everybody's business, but you can kinda guarantee that when you go out your door you'll see at least ONE person that you know. [/b] Remember, Irish, no matter how much you love each other, you are talking about being ROOMATES. No relief ever from each others personal and annoying habits. How can ANY marriage work? Try something new. Do get married. But you take a flat with a nursery for you and Baby, and he take a flat not far away. That way you will always be eager to see each other. He will not be dropping his socks in the hallway and won't be farting outloud in the kitchen. And you won't be bitching to him about it. and when you schedule to see each other, see each other with mutual friends. Be like that TV show "Friends" who would have all hated each other had they paired up and never had any relief from stifling couples. Take myself as an example. My ex-wife claims to anybody that I am a wonderful man, and a fabulous father, a man destined to be a mile-stone of History... but as a roomate one of the greatest ASSHOLES who ever lived, and she would have killed me with her own hands had the divorce taken another 2 and a half minutes to go through. It might have worked, had we been married but not been imprisoned together as ROOMATES. You are a woman. Your fiance is a man. Face it. Besides your love you have absolutely nothing in common. So get separate places and keep on with the LOVE, and then it might work forever.

[purple raevyn]

hahaha, good point leo. reminds me of a story i once heard. a loooong time ago when mankind was still living in caves, everyone slept by himself under the stars, and no one's farts bothered anyone. then they invented the concept of marriage which required that men and women sleep side by side in enclosed huts, and suddenly nocturnal farting became an issue. for the smell, having no where to go, festered in the room, wreaking havoc on the other spouse (after all, a fart tends only to bother the unguilty party). and plus the sound was more amplified. but being so determined not to revert back to the days of greater freedom (this was probably about the same time that the disease of greed began to show up, and women were starting to recieve the 1st shackles of their oppression), they decided rather to invent a filter of sorts. after much trial and error, they finally found something that worked, but was soft enough not chafe the couple's naked arses. it would contain the smell, and even help subdue the sound. they called it.....a blanket. but i agree with one thing above. society does have a pretty bummed out view of marriage. and why not. it seems to have a bum rep, historically speaking. and what with the nagging bitch/wife beating bastard ideal, it further makes the idea of ''marriage'', a rather bleak situation. even the men fear losing all freedom, and for some reason it seems that the woman, upon marrying a long time love, has suddenly become less appealing. when they were dating he was like, "hey, guys, meet my girlfriend. aint she a hottie? wow, what a sex goddess, she is sooo sexy, i love her to death." after they get married, or at least after she gets pregnant, he more like '' oh, her? yeah, she's just that fat, pregnant bore i live with. c'mon, lets go before she makes me kiss her *cringe* lets go have some fun. dont worry about her, she'll have dinner ready by the time we get back.'' it seems more novel when they arent living together, the whole absense makes the heart grow fonder. they 're not all up in each other's faces all the time, and they have their own private space to retire to. personally, i like sleeping in my own bed, gives me freedom to stretch out and i dont get disturbed by his snoring and tossing & turning. im probably a rarity though. i dont nag at all, i dont consider it my business as far as how often he shaves, or whether or not his shirt is tucked in. i let him handle him, and i handle me. and i dont gross out at farts, unless it produces a particularly raunchy smell. i usually laugh at how funny the sound is. hehehe. i dont expect him to devote all time and attention to me, i like when he goes out with his friends, i like to spend time apart. its good to strike a balance btwn Us time, and Girls/Guys only time, or just simply Alone time. i prefer monogamy. so i disagree with the idea of people in a community pairing off with different people every night-especially with the STD issue, which was a very good point. but i do support the idea of everyone being as family to one another, and raising the kids all together, as i think the idea of the nuclear family, where it concerns child rearing, is pretty flawed-and lonely. especially if the child has no siblings. and i should know. im an only child. what's worse is we lived in the country for the 1st 8 years of my life, so i didnt even have other kids to interact with. by the time i got to kindergarten, i was socially fucked up. i think this is the main reason why i was an outcast all my childhood. i feel it would have been different if had even one sibling and lived in a residential neighborhood. but oh, well, im fine now. i didnt become some psycho, suicidal freak or anything. as i implied before, i feel that larger cities, and the way in which we, in the west, go about our lives having little to do with our neoghbors makes for lonely, fucked up people. why else is crime on the rise? i also blame it for the increase in depression, and i saw a report recently (CNN i think) that says that americans are feeling more lonly than before, and the number of close friends-that you can trust your deepest secrets with-that a person has has dropped. how bleak.

[Leo Volont]

hahaha, good point leo. reminds me of a story i once heard. a loooong time ago when mankind was still living in caves, everyone slept by himself under the stars, and no one's farts bothered anyone. then they invented the concept of marriage which required that men and women sleep side by side in enclosed huts, and suddenly nocturnal farting became an issue. for the smell, having no where to go, festered in the room, wreaking havoc on the other spouse (after all, a fart tends only to bother the unguilty party). and plus the sound was more amplified. but being so determined not to revert back to the days of greater freedom (this was probably about the same time that the disease of greed began to show up, and women were starting to recieve the 1st shackles of their oppression), they decided rather to invent a filter of sorts. after much trial and error, they finally found something that worked, but was soft enough not chafe the couple's naked arses. it would contain the smell, and even help subdue the sound. they called it.....a blanket. but i agree with one thing above. society does have a pretty bummed out view of marriage. and why not. it seems to have a bum rep, historically speaking. and what with the nagging bitch/wife beating bastard ideal, it further makes the idea of ''marriage'', a rather bleak situation. even the men fear losing all freedom, and for some reason it seems that the woman, upon marrying a long time love, has suddenly become less appealing. when they were dating he was like, "hey, guys, meet my girlfriend. aint she a hottie? wow, what a sex goddess, she is sooo sexy, i love her to death." after they get married, or at least after she gets pregnant, he more like '' oh, her? yeah, she's just that fat, pregnant bore i live with. c'mon, lets go before she makes me kiss her *cringe* lets go have some fun. dont worry about her, she'll have dinner ready by the time we get back.'' it seems more novel when they arent living together, the whole absense makes the heart grow fonder. they 're not all up in each other's faces all the time, and they have their own private space to retire to. personally, i like sleeping in my own bed, gives me freedom to stretch out and i dont get disturbed by his snoring and tossing & turning. im probably a rarity though. i dont nag at all, i dont consider it my business as far as how often he shaves, or whether or not his shirt is tucked in. i let him handle him, and i handle me. and i dont gross out at farts, unless it produces a particularly raunchy smell. i usually laugh at how funny the sound is. hehehe. i dont expect him to devote all time and attention to me, i like when he goes out with his friends, i like to spend time apart. its good to strike a balance btwn Us time, and Girls/Guys only time, or just simply Alone time. i prefer monogamy. so i disagree with the idea of people in a community pairing off with different people every night-especially with the STD issue, which was a very good point. but i do support the idea of everyone being as family to one another, and raising the kids all together, as i think the idea of the nuclear family, where it concerns child rearing, is pretty flawed-and lonely. especially if the child has no siblings. and i should know. im an only child. what's worse is we lived in the country for the 1st 8 years of my life, so i didnt even have other kids to interact with. by the time i got to kindergarten, i was socially fucked up. i think this is the main reason why i was an outcast all my childhood. i feel it would have been different if had even one sibling and lived in a residential neighborhood. but oh, well, im fine now. i didnt become some psycho, suicidal freak or anything. as i implied before, i feel that larger cities, and the way in which we, in the west, go about our lives having little to do with our neoghbors makes for lonely, fucked up people. why else is crime on the rise? i also blame it for the increase in depression, and i saw a report recently (CNN i think) that says that americans are feeling more lonly than before, and the number of close friends-that you can trust your deepest secrets with-that a person has has dropped. how bleak. [/b] Oh, what a nice post. You really do understand how space and privacy within a marriage would actually be strengths. No, I don't believe that any promiscuity in communal living should be overt. No. In the Animal Kingdom, all such illicit laisons are always on the sly, and Humans should at least be as wise as animals. But we must understand that people DO fall in love, and the Best Lovers should be expected to fall in love MORE, not less. But they owe it to their spouses to be discrete about it. Nature Researchers used to have these long lists of 'monogymous' animals, that is, until they had the tools of genetic tagging when suddenly they found out who the father really were. The Scientists were shocked... they really were. But it honed their complaciency in observation. Now they suddenly realized what was happening when first one bird would fly off behind the barn, and then another. and not the usual squalks and whistles of love making. These animals were actually off sneeking in quickies. What spouses do not know does not hurt them. But exercise in Love makes Lovers feel full and alive. Now, much of that can be satisfied with healthy 'flirting'. So it is that at dinner parties the seating is always "boy girl boy girl" and they try to separate the spouses so that new conversations can be engaged in. But it really allows for 'flirting", that is, mock courtship that is not intended to go anywhere, but is only intended to let these people know they "still have it". Married couples need to know they can still ignite that spark and sizzle in other people. So flirting, at least, should be allowed, even encouraged. One of the most common complaints about "Bitching Nags" is that they are "castrating", and this means that they would desire to rub out and neuter all traces of masculinity in their men. and once they are successful there, they can hardly be satisfied now, can they? It is better to just let the Old Man flirt with the waitress, or flirt with Mrs. Abercroft at the dinner party. If Old Ralph feels like a Man, then who benefits the most but the wife? No, its not all about sex, but living with somebody who is interesting and happy and fulfilled.

[SpaceFlower]

Today, a woman is expected to take on both roles in a traditional marriage, breadwinner and homemaker, even if she has a husband. Working women spend 56% more time with their children than working men, and women take more flex time because of their family than men. Typically, they do more housework and financial managing than their husbands.[/b] I was discussing the same thing with my mother the other day. When we were young my mother was a homemaker, she did not go back to work until we were all in school. I think the reason our generation has such a higher divorce rate is becuase we do not have the "defined roles" that we used to have. When I was growing up my mom-n-dad didn't argue over who was gonna do the dishes or how to spend money becuase these were seperate duties. One of the things that I think hasn't been brought up yet is the fact that most women of my generation HAVE to work to sustain financial stability. back in the day, a man could get a simple factory job and make enough to support his family. Sure he would work his ass off at a job he didn't like all day - but at least he knew he would go home to a nice meal and a clean home. Things just aren't the same anymore! The average middle class family needs two working adults. So now we have two working adults who come home tired and hungry. Then we have to argue about stupid little things like who's turn is it to cook dinner, why didn't you take the trash out?, where did you leave the baby's pacifier? When we split our duties 50/50 it is really hard not to argue becuase you must come to a collective decision about every little thing. It's not just just 50/50 freedom, i'ts collective decsion making and therefore collective things to stress and argue over.