Why is it necessary to live with a spouse

[swirlman07]

You're assuming the 50 that stay together are actually happy and go the distance. There's a large number of people who either stick out for religious financial familial obligations(the kids are young) and let's not forget the small percentage who is really good at lying and cheating. So my conservative estimate would be more like 65/35 fam.

Except, everything you state is merely supposition. You've no idea what, if any but a very small percentage of people aren't happily married.

 

[AfroLove]

You're playing semantics.
In traditional cultures, there's no difference between normative and traditional behavior.

The previous poster posited the idea that the Western concept of marriage and co-habitation isn't the universal standard definition of marriage, because for example it's done differently in Africa.

That's fine, if we were IN Africa. But what's 'normal' or traditional among African countries is irrelevant to this discussion.

The assumption is that we're talking about marriage and its customs as it relates to a Western cultural perspective.

If the previous poster went around the USA attempting to re-define marriage based on African tradition, 90% of Americans would look at him like he was missing half his brain.

Divorce may be commonplace in the U.S., but it's not an inevitability. Remember that half of all marriages in this country go the distance, until death do us part.:smt023

I dunno, but if you give me 50/50 odds in most situations that include variables beyond my control such as a spouse, I'd take my chances and hope for the best.

I think you missed the point, I could just as well tell some South Asians that although arranged marriages are the norm in their culture, Westerners have a completely different view of it.

I don't think anyone believes it's an innate biological disposition to want to live with one's spouse. I assume everyone agreed at the outset that marriage is a cultural tradition and not part of some evolutionary impulse.

People might understand that the modern, Western practice of basing marriage on romantic love isn't necessarily the norm in other cultures so marriage is a social construct but they generally don't accept that their idealized view of romantic love isn't in sync with how it actually is. Pointing out that the more often a man ejaculates inside of a woman, the more sexually desensitized to her he becomes over time (due to an increase in prolactin immediately after orgasm) is tacky and unromantic but it's true. Pointing out that almost all coupled humans who claim they only have eyes for their partners, as sweet and endearing as that sentiment is, are sexually 'and' romantically attracted to people besides their partners might also be crude but it's true, whether they admit it or not, their attraction to their partners is based on characteristics that are shared by other people, their brain doesn't reorganize to only respond to these characteristics in their partner, being open to people with those characteristics is what allowed them to be drawn to their partners to begin with. How romantic love really is doesn't jibe with the scripted, fairy tale love that Hollywood perpetuates.

But if you enter into the institution of marriage in the West, it is extremely irregular for a husband and wife NOT to live together. It's not right or wrong, just atypical.

If you don't believe in marriage or romantic love, don't get married.
But attempting wholesale to redefine marriage because it doesn't agree with your personal preferences is the wrong approach.

It's ironic that you say I want to 'redefine' marriage when you've admitted that marriage on the basis of romantic love is a relatively recent concept. I 'believe' in romantic love, I just believe that people would be better off if they let go of the idea that it has some sacred value that platonic attachment doesn't as well as certain implications that come with that idea (like the idea that there is 'supposed' to be a higher goal to romantic love as expressed through moving in together or marrying).

Swirl also makes a good point. Just because people stay married doesn't mean the romantic passion in their marriages remains the same, happily married people will admit that it comes and goes. I think this is exactly why the best marriages are based on friendship, because they have something in common besides just romantic infatuation.

 

[The Dark King]

Except, everything you state is merely supposition. You've no idea what, if any but a very small percentage of people aren't happily married.

Neither do you but you'd assert the opposite simply because people are still together. Being together doesn't mean you want to be together a lot of times people stick it out for other reasons.

 

[swirlman07]

Neither do you but you'd assert the opposite simply because people are still together. Being together doesn't mean you want to be together a lot of times people stick it out for other reasons.

I'm not asserting anything other than it's meaningless to suppose what you can't prove. I can't divine why people are together and neither can you. For all we know the greatest number of people who choose not to be together, divorce. Among those who're left, who knows, but to assume anything is just holding a finger to the wind.

 

[The Dark King]

I'm not asserting anything other than it's meaningless to suppose what you can't prove. I can't divine why people are together and neither can you. For all we know the greatest number of people who choose not to be together, divorce. Among those who're left, who knows, but to assume anything is just holding a finger to the wind.

Its called a deduction, an educated case.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/recession-divorce-rates-n_n_821752.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/c...ot.com/2010/06/staying-together-for-kids.html

If you read the links I posted you would see that I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. These are legitimate reasons as why people stay together. People who aren't divorced aren't always married because they still love each other. That's my main point so the number of marriages that aren't working spikes a bit higher than 50 percent wouldn't you agree?

 

[andreboba]

Romantic love isn't the same as being 'in lust' with someone.

'In lust' with someone inevitably fades. Being in love with someone romantically is more than just sexual passion. It's about an emotional attachment, a psychological fulfillment that only your significant other can thoroughly satisfy.

If intimate relationships between men and women are drilled down to only chemical reactions and hormonal releases, you miss entirely the non-physical aspect of being in love with someone else.

 

[The Dark King]

Romantic love isn't the same as being 'in lust' with someone.

'In lust' with someone inevitably fades. Being in love with someone romantically is more than just sexual passion. It's about an emotional attachment, a psychological fulfillment that only your significant other can thoroughly satisfy.

If intimate relationships between men and women are drilled down to only chemical reactions and hormonal releases, you miss entirely the non-physical aspect of being in love with someone else.

You ever been in love?

 

[swirlman07]

Its called a deduction, an educated case.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/recession-divorce-rates-n_n_821752.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/c...ot.com/2010/06/staying-together-for-kids.html

If you read the links I posted you would see that I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. These are legitimate reasons as why people stay together. People who aren't divorced aren't always married because they still love each other. That's my main point so the number of marriages that aren't working spikes a bit higher than 50 percent wouldn't you agree?

Here's the problem with that kind of analysis. You suggest that we should look inside the lives of married people and assign some level of unhappiness to them as the reason for them remaining together, despite the fact that they're still married. So, you come away with an idea that the "actual" divorce rate would be higher, if only people weren't bound by issues beyond their control, like the economy or their own religious beliefs.

However, you don't give due consideration to those who enter marriage and divorce, for reasons having nothing to do with whether love existed in the marriage, in the case of "gold digger", men or women; sham marriages, in order to gain immigrant status; the other side of the religious coin, marriages resulting from unplanned pregnancies rather than love. The effect of divorce in those cases is an inflation in the divorce rate, because these marriages never should have occurred and divorce was inevitable. This percentage may well outweigh the percentage due to the issues you mentioned that favor couples remaining together, but who knows..

In view of this assessment, my point is that your claim of a spiking beyond 50% is not supported, wouldn't you agree?

 

[AfroLove]

Romantic love isn't the same as being 'in lust' with someone.

'In lust' with someone inevitably fades. Being in love with someone romantically is more than just sexual passion. It's about an emotional attachment, a psychological fulfillment that only your significant other can thoroughly satisfy.

If intimate relationships between men and women are drilled down to only chemical reactions and hormonal releases, you miss entirely the non-physical aspect of being in love with someone else.

Some psychologists, like Lisa Diamond, believe that romantic love exists independently of sexual attraction. Even she bases her argument on the fact that infants can emotionally attach to male or female caregivers and thus can be 'romantically' attracted to men even if they're sexually attracted to women, but what makes non-sexual attachment 'romantic'? I think the general consensus among psychologists is, or has been traditionally, that romantic love is sexual desire mixed in with emotional attachment. If being 'in love' involves more than just sexual attraction, would you consider a romantic relationship with a man or a woman you aren't remotely sexually attracted to? If you remove the sexual attraction from the love you have for your partner, how is what's left different than the emotional attachment between platonic friends, parents and their children, sisters etc.?

 

[andreboba]

No one said romantic love can exist without a sexual component. Just that it's more than only physical. Really being 'in love' with someone is a psycho/sexual phenomenon. It happens simultaneously in the heart, the head and between the legs.

It's totally different having sex with someone you love as opposed to fucking someone you have an intense sexual attraction for.

The argument that a 'loving relationship' is regulated by the rise and fall in the intensity of sexual attraction between partners is just wrong.

DK, I don't understand your question.

 

[andreboba]

Here's the problem with that kind of analysis. You suggest that we should look inside the lives of married people and assign some level of unhappiness to them as the reason for them remaining together, despite the fact that they're still married. So, you come away with an idea that the "actual" divorce rate would be higher, if only people weren't bound by issues beyond their control, like the economy or their own religious beliefs.

However, you don't give due consideration to those who enter marriage and divorce, for reasons having nothing to do with whether love existed in the marriage, in the case of "gold digger", men or women; sham marriages, in order to gain immigrant status; the other side of the religious coin, marriages resulting from unplanned pregnancies rather than love. The effect of divorce in those cases is an inflation in the divorce rate, because these marriages never should have occurred and divorce was inevitable. This percentage may well outweigh the percentage due to the issues you mentioned that favor couples remaining together, but who knows..

In view of this assessment, my point is tat your claim of a spiking beyond 50% is not supported, wouldn't you agree?

Excellent counter point.

 

[The Dark King]

Here's the problem with that kind of analysis. You suggest that we should look inside the lives of married people and assign some level of unhappiness to them as the reason for them remaining together, despite the fact that they're still married. So, you come away with an idea that the "actual" divorce rate would be higher, if only people weren't bound by issues beyond their control, like the economy or their own religious beliefs.

However, you don't give due consideration to those who enter marriage and divorce, for reasons having nothing to do with whether love existed in the marriage, in the case of "gold digger", men or women; sham marriages, in order to gain immigrant status; the other side of the religious coin, marriages resulting from unplanned pregnancies rather than love. The effect of divorce in those cases is an inflation in the divorce rate, because these marriages never should have occurred and divorce was inevitable. This percentage may well outweigh the percentage due to the issues you mentioned that favor couples remaining together, but who knows..

In view of this assessment, my point is that your claim of a spiking beyond 50% is not supported, wouldn't you agree?

No I wouldn't agree because it goes back to my original and over all point. The current incarnation of marriage isn't working. The institution itself is failing.

 

[The Dark King]

No one said romantic love can exist without a sexual component. Just that it's more than only physical. Really being 'in love' with someone is a psycho/sexual phenomenon. It happens simultaneously in the heart, the head and between the legs.

It's totally different having sex with someone you love as opposed to fucking someone you have an intense sexual attraction for.

The argument that a 'loving relationship' is regulated by the rise and fall in the intensity of sexual attraction between partners is just wrong.

DK, I don't understand your question.

Have you ever been in love. Btw the heart is a muscle nothing emotional takes place there. Its all in the brain

 

[swirlman07]

No I wouldn't agree because it goes back to my original and over all point. The current incarnation of marriage isn't working. The institution itself is failing.

No, it really doesn't go back to any point. I provided a rebuttal to your argument, and you simply abandoned your position as it was shown to be untenable.

As to your original point of marriage being a failed institution, well...that's your opinion, but you've not set forth any credible proposition in support of that position, just your opinion.

From my perspective, the institution is fine, and intact, it's the individual actions and decisions of people that are at fault.

 

[swirlman07]

Excellent counter point.

Thank you. I think that you set out some great points as well. There seemed to be a suggestion of "romantic love" as some Hollywood style ideal, and not the reality that most people understand in their lives. Romantic love doesn't exist without a feeling of friendship. Romantic love doesn't mean that people don't find others physically or sexually attractive. Married people still enjoy porn and may find others attractive, but those who're committed don't act on that attraction.

 

[andreboba]

DOn't be so literal DK. 'Heart', as in the emotional center of one's being. It's a metaphor; ' he doesn't have heart', ' she broke my heart',' that team has more heart than etc.,'.

Have I ever been in love??
I know this is the internet and we don't really know each other all that well, but why the fuck would I even be commenting in this thread???
Why would I be arguing that I think your view on marriage is ass-backwards???

Damn man.

Yes, I have.
And your point?? Or were you just being snarky??

Don't go passive aggressive on me. If you disagree, say that. If you think I'm full of shit, say that too.

There's no need to be condescending.

 

[The Dark King]

No, it really doesn't go back to any point. I provided a rebuttal to your argument, and you simply abandoned your position as it was shown to be untenable.

As to your original point of marriage being a failed institution, well...that's your opinion, but you've not set forth any credible proposition in support of that position, just your opinion.

From my perspective, the institution is fine, and intact, it's the individual actions and decisions of people that are at fault.

I didn't abandon a thing. I gave you articles and presented a logical line of thinking that you rejected which is fine but don't act like my position isn't credible.
You assume that if people get married for the so called right reasons opposed to those who get married for the wrong reasons they'll stay together? When asked why people got divorced its rarely about marrying the wrong person as it is money or simply growing apart.
If you want to call a system that fails millions of its participants functional then so be it. We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[The Dark King]

DOn't be so literal DK. 'Heart', as in the emotional center of one's being. It's a metaphor; ' he doesn't have heart', ' she broke my heart',' that team has more heart than etc.,'.

Have I ever been in love??
I know this is the internet and we don't really know each other all that well, but why the fuck would I even be commenting in this thread???
Why would I be arguing that I think your view on marriage is ass-backwards???

Damn man.

Yes, I have.
And your point?? Or were you just being snarky??

Don't go passive aggressive on me. If you disagree, say that. If you think I'm full of shit, say that too.

There's no need to be condescending.

Dude you've been on this forum long enough to know that I don't do passive aggressive. Its not in my nature.
The only reason I asked was because you seemed to be coming from a very romanticized perspective on love. That's all fam
And just like I've seen on this forum, you don't have to actually date ww or bm to have a romanticized vision of them. So I'd assume the same would go for love.

 

[swirlman07]

I didn't abandon a thing. I gave you articles and presented a logical line of thinking that you rejected which is fine but don't act like my position isn't credible.
You assume that if people get married for the so called right reasons opposed to those who get married for the wrong reasons they'll stay together? When asked why people got divorced its rarely about marrying the wrong person as it is money or simply growing apart.
If you want to call a system that fails millions of its participants functional then so be it. We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

It wasn't credible or you would've provided a rebuttal, you didn't...

But, I agree that we can respectfully agree to disagree

 

[naija4real]

You write very poetic, sensual and empathetic. I've only met two Nigerians in my life, both were very charismatic, kind and charming, but also pretty shrewd..lol..as you are, too

I will take this as a complement. I like the sensual part.

I am a person of adventure, so you tickle my sense of curiosity, now. I've always made a great fuss about Nigeria, I don't have the strong protection in that country that is necessary to survive there--lol--but as much as I've heard it must be a very interesting and rich country in some areas..do you go back there from time to time?

Christine, you said tickle, uhm, that is also kind of nice. My home is Nigeria, even though I stay out of it , sometimes for extended period of time. I also understand your sentiments about survival in the country. It would take a lady that is really into her man to make such a huge sacrifice. Nigeria has potentials to be very rich, but it is still in the process of trying to define herself.

Sorry my response is coming rather late. I hope I was shrewd enough?