Marriage? Think again.

I personally will never get married. I think if two people want to spend their lives together, it should have nothing to do with church or law.

The very IDEA of marriage suggest that one person Owns another person. That doesn't resonate well with me at all. I personally can't stay exclusive to one lady. And chances are she probably won't want to stay exclusive to me either. Because I know from experience of being in long term exclusive reationships, that after about six months, I lose my arousal for her. Plus i notice all her imperfections, even though I love her dearly. To me it would be unfair to her if i became the guy that she didn't fall in love with, because i can't get aroused by her, probably because i became tolerant to her pheremones. I UNDERSTAND her sexual needs are as important as her need for trust and companionship. ok So i would be doing her and myself a diss-favor by being exclusive to her. Even if i had stayed exclusive, for the sake of commitment, she would eventually cheat behind my back. And i know this because I have had it happen to me.

I have no intention of remaining celibate because of this. quite the contrary, i love women. I like making them feel good about themselves, because that makes me feel good about myself. If i meet someone with the right chemistry I always try to tell them the straight dope. Some don't go for it and some do.

I should add that I have been in a twelve-year relationship, which will probably last forever. Even without getting married and having kids, things get more complicated when you are with someone for a long time, and entropy sets in.

In an evolutionary sense, I wonder which would win out, monogamous couples or non? On the one hand, monogamous couples tend to have a better financial situation, and on average brighter children. Also, the relatively recent spread of STDs would not hinder monogamous couples (given they are sex-after-marriage).

On the other hand, would these benefits be dwarfed by the genetic variability that polygamy provides?

(Wow. How cold am I? Discussing the science of it instead of the love/commitment/emotion/whatever!)

When you say polygamy, do you actually intend to say multiple partners but only one at a time. Or do you actually mean simultaneous multiple partners?

I am not saying that marriage doesn't work. I know some couples that indeed "in death till they part" If that works for you all the power to you! I, for good reasons, don't choose that life style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

When you say polygamy, do you actually intend to say multiple partners but only one at a time. Or do you actually mean simultaneous multiple partners?

---

oh yes, it can mean both.

Humans naturally tend towards polygamy; specifically, polygyny. Successful males have more than one partner, unsucessful have none. That means females share the successfull males.

Monogamy is enforced in our current culture by religion, tradition, etc. Actually it makes society more stable because unattached males cause trouble, so that's why it was promoted in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

When you say polygamy, do you actually intend to say multiple partners but only one at a time. Or do you actually mean simultaneous multiple partners?

---

In this case, I mean reproducing with more than one partner. It must produce offspring to give the benefit of increased genetic variability.

The other benefits of polygamy (without actual reproduction) are emotional/individually satisfactory in nature, and don't mean diddly on the evolutionary scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Humans naturally tend towards polygamy; specifically, polygyny. Successful males have more than one partner, unsucessful have none. That means females share the successfull males.

Monogamy is enforced in our current culture by religion, tradition, etc. Actually it makes society more stable because unattached males cause trouble, so that's why it was promoted in the first place.

---

Looking at our relatives, the great apes, I'd agree that we began as polygamous, and hierarchical. But society and religion have endorsed monogamy. But still, we are now becoming more liberal in almost all aspects of living. On the whole, we've been heading towards restricted marriage (peaked during late 1800's here in America, I think). Do you think this trend will continue?

I think monogamy is the way.

Have kids with one partner and stick with them, focus on them, nuture them.

As opposed to 10 women getting "knocked up" and having 10 kids for want of a father and a decent upbringing.

These days passing on ones genes is not enough, a man must stick with his kids and pass on his experience.

psychology student, its alright if you cant find it, its obvious you have the same stance as me in the thought of marriage.

Ive heard about the supposed "children make you less happy" study, but I find that this only happens with selfish people. For example, my neighbor's parents seem unhappy about having him and his brother by treating them bad, buying all stuff for themselves, ect. On the other hand my sister is so enthralled with her three children, every time we see them, no matter what kind of situation it is, you can see the light in her eyes with taking care of them, it is a wonderful thing to see.

also, my mom's cousin and her husband decided not to have kids. When they got old enough that she couldnt have kids, she regretted it deeply, they died almost alone with only my parents and I and a few old friends coming to each of their funerals, it was a very sad time...I usually never cry at funerals but I did at this one

Not to be critical on people who choose not to have kids, some do have a good reason not too, some are selfish, some just weren't exposed to kids enough to know how to treat them. All of these things are just so so subjective to even have a definitive debate about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

Looking at our relatives, the great apes, I'd agree that we began as polygamous, and hierarchical.

---

Also looking at primitive cultures; plus the relative size difference between males and females correlates with a slight tendency toward polygamy (nothing like walruses or something where there are 100's of females for every male).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

But society and religion have endorsed monogamy. But still, we are now becoming more liberal in almost all aspects of living. On the whole, we've been heading towards restricted marriage (peaked during late 1800's here in America, I think). Do you think this trend will continue?

---

Yea, I think so--people are close enough to monogamy anyway, polygamy's not a huge force like some animals. The occasional male can handle two or more families; I don't think many really can anymore with the economics of it. (I'm talking more than one real families, not just screwing around.) Only the super-wealthy or welfare-dependent can pull that off.

That's a shocking theory about having kids. I can believe the money theory much easier than the kids one. :lol: For me, not working would turn me into a miserable couch potato. It really is true that excessive money doesn't make you happier, assuming you have at least an average, stable income to begin with.

So about the kids thing: I can definitely see how having kids can put a huge strain on your relationship with your partner, your health, your social life, your work life, etc. (Anyone ever see Super Nanny? :P ) I think if people were more educated about the matter, happiness levels would go up. But anyway, that is really very interesting. I wonder if anyone has studied levels of happiness in long-term couples who have not had kids? I guess that would depend on whether or not it was a choice to not have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Monogamy is enforced in our current culture by religion, tradition, etc. Actually it makes society more stable because unattached males cause trouble, so that's why it was promoted in the first place.

---

umm ok. Tell me how do unattatched males cause trouble in society? I see that it makes sense in terms if the guy has offspring. But even then, How can that guy be absolutely sure it's HIS offspring? and recent Statistics suggest that 35 percent of people who were suspicious their kids weren't their own. got DNA testing and found out that they weren't the real father. That's only the people that were suspicious, the statistic could very well be much higher.

Is there anything REALLY wrong with a guy, who sleeps with a variety of women, because that's what he likes to do, and he does it for his own reasons. That's saying If he's 100% honest with every partner, and makes clear to them, that he is not interested of playing the role of a husband or commited BF, That he understands she's a woman who has sexual needs as well as him and only because he truly enjoys her company?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

I think monogamy is the way.

Have kids with one partner and stick with them, focus on them, nuture them.

As opposed to 10 women getting "knocked up" and having 10 kids for want of a father and a decent upbringing.

These days passing on ones genes is not enough, a man must stick with his kids and pass on his experience.

---

I agree that kids should be raised in a nurturing and loving enviroment. But what if a guy chooses to not have kids? because he understands that the act of having kids si the most selfish thing one can do: clone yourself. how would a person like that fit into your model of society?

Yes there's something wrong. He's bound to transfer STDs. And let's face it, if all guys slept around like that, we'd have a lot more homeless kids right now.

I don't know what kind of person those lectures are bringing out in you. :P




I heart you. Don't take offense. ;)

Oh and wtf was that about kids being your clones? :wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Yes there's something wrong. He's bound to transfer STDs.

I don't know what kind of person those lectures are bringing out in you. :P



I heart you. Don't take offense. ;)

---

Well he'd be very stupid to contract and spread disease to other people. That's what condoms are for. lets put our hypothetical man as a person, who dosn't contract and spread STD's because he knows that it is detrimental to his life and to other peoples lives, NOW I'm pretty sure he'd be smart enough to take the right precautions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranma187

umm ok. Tell me how do unattatched males cause trouble in society?

---

Well, they are rivals of the men that are attached. Also they are a lot more likely to commit crimes, etc. Monogamy was purposely encouraged to cut down on that. In many times and places, wars have served of getting rid of excess males. Without that, there needs to be some plan for their control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranma187

I see that it makes sense in terms if the guy has offspring. But even then, How can that guy be absolutely sure it's HIS offspring? and recent Statistics suggest that 35 percent of people who were suspicious their kids weren't their own. got DNA testing and found out that they weren't the real father. That's only the people that were suspicious, the statistic could very well be much higher.

---

That's a seperate issue. A female might be the partner of a "successful" male (older, richer) but still be attracted to a different male (younger, good genes).

I'm talking evolutionary and instinctive stuff here Ranma, not how people plan to do things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranma187

Is there anything REALLY wrong with a guy, who sleeps with a variety of women, because that's what he likes to do, and he does it for his own reasons. That's saying If he's 100% honest with every partner, and makes clear to them, that he is not interested of playing the role of a husband or commited BF, That he understands she's a woman who has sexual needs as well as him and only because he truly enjoys her company?

---

No, of course not. Like I said, I'm just talking how people are programmed by evolution. I think we can and should defy our instincts, to live the lives that make us happy, whatever that might be. People can free themselves from all the crap that our genes want us to do for their benefit and reproduction, and live for ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranma187

Well he'd be very stupid to contract and spread disease to other people. That's what condoms are for. lets put our hypothetical man as a person, who dosn't contract and spread STD's because he knows that it is detrimental to his life and to other peoples lives, NOW I'm pretty sure he'd be smart enough to take the right precautions.

---

It's all true about a hypothetical guy. A realistic guy, on the other hand? Mmm, not so sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, they are rivals of the men that are attached. Also they are a lot more likely to commit crimes, etc. Monogamy was purposely encouraged to cut down on that. In many times and places, wars have served of getting rid of excess males. Without that, there needs to be some plan for their control.

---

How is it that an unnattached man is more likely to commit crimes? And why would they rival with attached males?

Quote:

---

That's a seperate issue. A female might be the partner of a "successful" male (older, richer) but still be attracted to a different male (younger, good genes).

I'm talking evolutionary and instinctive stuff here Ranma, not how people plan to do things.

---

you also have to consider the fact that there are a very large numer of people who don't always plan things. Especially since attraction is so primal and emotional, it quite often ovverides reason.

Quote:

---

No, of course not. Like I said, I'm just talking how people are programmed by evolution. I think we can and should defy our instincts, to live the lives that make us happy, whatever that might be. People can free themselves from all the crap that our genes want us to do for their benefit and reproduction, and live for ourselves.

---

well evolution has gotten us this far, it's our battling against evolution that created these paradigms that we live under. and look, we're destroying the planet, we're destroying ourselves. How is very successful genes brought about by millions of years of evolution just crap? it's gotten us this far hasn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I would rather find a different right girl as often as I can. I don't trust love to last a life time for anybody outside of my family.

---

That's very wise. I totally agree.

As regards kids (since that seems to be what the topic is heading towards) I personally don't like the idea of having kids at all. Apart from all the money and effort you have to put in, what if the kid leads an unhappy life? What if they wished they'd never been born? The guilt of bringing up an unhappy, or somehow disadvantaged child would be too much for me to bear. To me it just doesn't seem right to bring a consciousness to life because of your own desire to have a child, when the consciousness doesn't have a choice. I know that's a paradox, since before birth there is no consciousness and therefore it never can have a choice, but something about it doesn't sit well with me.

I agree with what ranma said about having kids being selfish - raising a clone of yourself. I think that's very true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Let me find my source, Mes...I read a book a while ago on happiness..BRB.


OK, the book is "Stumbling on Happiness" by Daniel Gilbert. He has a graph that shows marital satisfaction according to the ages of the kids, and the graph drops dramatically at the birth of the first, bottoms out in the teen-age years, and doesn't go back up until the last one leaves home.

Basically, what he says is that people say that their kids make them happy, and they really think that they do, but if their satisfaction is actually measured, it is shown to be decreased the more kids they have, starting with the first one. Their highs and lows of happiness are more extreme, and they think about the highs more than the lows, evidently.

---

I for one couldnt argue with such a study. My wife was desperate to have kids, as if she were looking for her happiness through them. Having kids didnt really matter to me one way or another. We have three now, 2 boys and a girl, 18, 15, and 10.
There is a certain amount of joy to having kids, but if you balance it out, the strain of the marriage and other factors seems to weigh heavily in comparrison, more so as they grow older. There are alot of variables to consider in looking at the situation, variables that would change things from couple to couple.
For me the kids part was never much of an issue till probably the last few years, it is the marriage relationship that became the issue. Even so , this downturn in the kids aspect for me is also related to the marriage relationship. Having kids is great unless you let it interfere with the personal relationship between the husband and wife. If/when that happens such throws a wrench in the workings of everything else in the family setting. this is where things went wrong in the relationship between my wife and I. She dove headlong into the kids and left our relationship stagnant. I began feeling jilted after a few years of this stagnation and began adding stress to the relationship, stress which lead to near divorce on several occasions.
The only thing that seeems to have saved things is my turning to psychology, philosophy and spirituality and calming my stress over the relationship. Understaning my own feelings and how the relationship dynamics had developed and was currently working.
Only now in this late part of the child raising are things just starting to show signs of improving now that one is about to leave the house. My wife is slowly starting to pick up our realtionship again. At this point for me, I love my kids, but I cant seem to wait for them all to move out.
For me the study you brought up seems to ring true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranma187

How is it that an unnattached man is more likely to commit crimes? And why would they rival with attached males?

---

Well, statistics show that most violent crimes are committed by young (unmarried) men. The answer to your second question is obvious.

Ranma I'm not saying you are criminal or anything, I'm just telling you what I read about why monogamy has become what society expects from people, contrary to what our genes would have us do, as you pointed out. Both males and females have reasons to not always be mongamous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranma187

you also have to consider the fact that there are a very large numer of people who don't always plan things. Especially since attraction is so primal and emotional, it quite often ovverides reason.

---

That's exactly my point. Most people don't think about what they are doing, so a combination of their own drives and societal expectations tells them what to do. I think anyone can resist both of those, and live their life the way they rationally and logically think is good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranma187

well evolution has gotten us this far, it's our battling against evolution that created these paradigms that we live under. and look, we're destroying the planet, we're destroying ourselves. How is very successful genes brought about by millions of years of evolution just crap? it's gotten us this far hasn't it?

---

I think you are exactly right, that's why people need to start using their heads. Everyone doesn't need to breed and further destroy the planet, and I was saying that they will probably be happier for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

psychology student, its alright if you cant find it, its obvious you have the same stance as me in the thought of marriage.

---

I thought I private messaged it to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

That's a shocking theory about having kids. I can believe the money theory much easier than the kids one. :lol: For me, not working would turn me into a miserable couch potato. It really is true that excessive money doesn't make you happier, assuming you have at least an average, stable income to begin with.

So about the kids thing: I can definitely see how having kids can put a huge strain on your relationship with your partner, your health, your social life, your work life, etc. (Anyone ever see Super Nanny? :P ) I think if people were more educated about the matter, happiness levels would go up. But anyway, that is really very interesting. I wonder if anyone has studied levels of happiness in long-term couples who have not had kids? I guess that would depend on whether or not it was a choice to not have them.

---

Until the kids get into school theres no time to be a couch potatoe. Raising the kids and being a stay at home mom is a full time job with much overtime, even with the husband helping in his time off work.
After they get into school then you would need something to direct your time towards. My observation anyhow.

Some of the super nanny episodes look like they were shot at my house over the years, not quite that bad though. The one thing that that show drives home for me though is the need for the parrents to have a solid relationship that is well maintained. You cant effectively teach your kids self discipline without it, especially when one parrent wont hold the line while the other one does in disciplining and teaching. It requires a cooperative effort, nothing else will do.
Case in point is I am a neat freak to a degree. My wife is the opposite. I try to teach my kids to at least keep things picked up and be semi neat, respecting other people stuff, mine to be exact. My wife just lets them do whatever and leave their stuff everywhere. Needless to say my efforts get nowhere and I am stressed out about it all the time. I dont even go out in my shops anymore to work on furniture of mechanical stuuf. My kids have got both shops a disheveled mess. I'll have to wait for them to move out before I can have the shops back to work in I guess.
The one upside is it give me more time for meditation and discussion time here on DV.

I agree that love comes and goes, but I'm anti-marriage for a completely different reason.
I think marriage as a legal institution should not exist. (when I say marriage in this post, I mean marriage as a legal institution, not religious marriage)
Think about it, if marriage in its current form didn't already exist, would you... invent it?
(And now I quote a line from Doug Stanhope)
Would you say "Baby, this love we've got, this connection, we can't just have it 'tweenst the both of us... we gotta get the government involved"?
No, and the only reason people get married is because their parents' generation did, and their parents' generation did(and so on).
(Again, Stanhope)
"If you want tax breaks, fucking incorporate."
I don't have any problem with marriage in the sense of a religious marriage.
Go to your church/temple/mosque/altar/pentagram (whatever), have your priest/pastor/rabbi/(mosque leader?)/cousin/den mother do their rain dance around you, and poof you're married. You don't love each other anymore? Poof, now you're not. Legal Marriage only exists because governments were extremely influenced by the religion of that period/place.

[quote=Moonbeam;680784]Well, statistics show that most violent crimes are committed by young (unmarried) men. The answer to your second question is obvious.[/quotes]

Let me tell you something. I'm not saying what you're saying is false. This is just another very important factor, that society lets happen, and people don't talk about. It is also something a lot of women don't even consider, when they ask themseves "why are there all these creeps out there? why do they rape women? why do they fight over women"

And these guys exist for either 2 reasons. reason 1: They have bought into the mentality that society puts forth: That men Own women. A "real man" will beat up a stranger if his gf even talks to this stranger and enjoys being in his company. These guys treat their women like crap, and when she cheats on him, He blames her, for the situation. That is not fair. If enough guys were educated enough they would have no need to claim ownership on their long term partners they wouldn't be so insecure. They might instead say "I don"t own her but i belong to her" And if she feels the same way, she would say the same things. Now if people break up yes, it hurts, and no, it's not anybody's fault. people get over things. BUT because these men hold on to these ideas as if women are their property, are also very insecure that, they will never find another girflriend, or wife, or they can't trust women in general et etc. this leads into reason 2.

Reason two: There are millions of males in north america. who are 22, 29, 33, 40. or any legal age, who have never experienced, and have great apprehenshion towards intimacy with a female. I was one of these guys. I used to think Having a gf was as rare as winning the lottery. I had this idea that women hated sex, Why did I believe this? because all throughout my life, people told me "All men are dogs who only care about sex," or "Don't use women for sex" and these statements lead to the belief that: having a gf is rare and you're not supposed to have sex with them or they will hate you.
And I accepted these beliefs without question, even though they didn't make any sense Whatsoever. And the sad thing is, both men and women accept these kinds of rules, that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And as a result of this, I would creep women out, badly. Because i would come of age where my hormones kick in. I would feel guilty, for having these natural desires. I couldn't look any girl in the eye, so instead i would look at one i liked and look away. I would do this ALL THE TIME. At one point a friend said to me one day "your really creeping my gf out, she thinks you wanna rape her". I was absolutely shocked that she would think that.

I'm not the only guy who thought like this. I have run into countless other guys who have told me similar things. There are millions of guys who are SO sexually frustated because they buy into this moral code that society puts out. And because they are so frustrated, because they can't express themselves, This is what leads to guys stalking women, raping women, beating up women, some serial killers, some who can't commit violent acts, commit suicide. I had VERY strong urges when i became older, And I am glad i never acted out on them. And I would have, If i didn't find the right opportunities to educate myself in social dynamics, other people aren't so lucky.
And there are many other potential violent people out there because they buy into thinking like this and see no other way to express themselves. So i Really think society should put forth another paradigm, that educates people in this area properly. If that happened. the whole world would be a much happier place.

Quote:

---

Ranma I'm not saying you are criminal or anything, I'm just telling you what I read about why monogamy has become what society expects from people, contrary to what our genes would have us do, as you pointed out. Both males and females have reasons to not always be mongamous.

---

very true.

Quote:

---

That's exactly my point. Most people don't think about what they are doing, so a combination of their own drives and societal expectations tells them what to do. I think anyone can resist both of those, and live their life the way they rationally and logically think is good.

---

I agree, in a sense. People, will always find the opposite attractive, and generate babies, period. I'm just saying you can resist all you want and all that does is make the tension a lot tighter. I have a way in which i make my own decisions about choices like these. And the way i make them is this : does this choice feel good?, Does it reasonably make perfect sense to me? Is my concience trying to battle this decision?
Now if all three of these mechanisms agree with eachother on that choice. It's without a doubt, the right choice. And why should i care, if some passerby on the street thinks less of me, if i make that choice?

Quote:

---

I think you are exactly right, that's why people need to start using their heads. Everyone doesn't need to breed and further destroy the planet, and I was saying that they will probably be happier for it.

---

Of course, I think i understand you for once. That makes good sense. i ahve my own crackpot theories about overpopulation. I think, that our problem isn't overpopulation. There is enough food on this planet, to feed everybody, there is enough resources that don't damage the enviroment. The main problem is greed. Only a small percent of people own everything.