Thoughts on this one?

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Revolver

women are not conditioned or brainwashed to get married. thats the fucking dumbest thing ive read in a long time.It comes down to genetic programing.Human beings are biologically encoded to seek out a mate,reproduce,and have a secure and stable enviroment to raise offspring.

Most modern psychologists agree that it is not 100% a genetic thing that contributes to these behaviours, but rather a combination of genetic and environmental (nature vs. nurture). A lot of study has gone into adoptions, separated twins and similar filial situations and they've learned that generally
- genetics determine your "range" of potential
- environment determines where you end up placing in this "range"

This applies to a number of different metrics - income, familial stability, personality attributes (I'd even venture to guess homosexuality would be one - remember that too is a spectrum).

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by Grapes

I somewhat agree with this... I think it depends what kind of lens you're looking through. The more you're focused on individual variations as opposed to the trends and mores of socieities and cultures, the more you pay attention to this brief moment in human history as opposed to the history of our species as a whole, the truer your comments ring. Course... one could insinuate something about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

I remember something that stuck with me from my trip to Japan. I was visiting the historic village of Nikko, about 2 hours outside of Tokyo, on the advice of the friends I was staying with. The whole trip was a bit of a missed opportunity, actually.. I delayed too long in getting on transit, and by the time I made it out a lot of the main attractions were closing. But I did have time to wander aimlessly for a while, and enter the occasional shrine or enclosure.

Doing so, I came across an unusual tableau.. I regret I can't recall any details about its origin, but I assume it was some piece from a relatively distant age. It featured a sort of illustrated series of steps of the life of a monkey, and, fortunately for me, it also featured english translations. It went something like:

1) The monkey is born to a father and mother
2) He is raised to adolescence
3) He seperates from his parents
4) He questions the nature of his existence and his place in life
5) He finds a mate with whom he can share his life
6) They give birth to a child

That's really rough from memory.. in hindsight I wish I'd taken a photo. But the general impression of the tableau will never leave me. It spoke to our connection to nature, and the base patterns and engines that have driven human history and regeneration. I was particularly fascinated by that middle step being included.. the unquestionable uniqueness of the human experience had been acknowledged, without ever once being so arrogant as to portray us as anything other than members of the animal world.

The tableau wasn't a list of "Rules to Live By". For some people in this world, it won't ring true to their personal experience. But for humanity as a whole, this was the cycle that's driven us to where we are, boiled down to its most innate components.

Fuck Modern Bride. We've been doing this since the dawn of time.

nice one...both the daves are droppin some knowledge!

[Grapes]

Originally Posted by Revolver

wont really go back and do multiple quotes so here gose.

humans are just animals with multiple neurosies. there are plenty of animals that display characteristics of logic, reason and life long mates. like primates,whales,various mamals ect. ect.

as long as a child is raised in a loving nurturing enviroment then that is what matters most.

women are not conditioned or brainwashed to get married. thats the fucking dumbest thing ive read in a long time.It comes down to genetic programing.Human beings are biologically encoded to seek out a mate,reproduce,and have a secure and stable enviroment to raise offspring.

all of the marrige hoopla,magazines, social expectations of marrige just play upon and exploit those biological urges to breed and the need for stability. stability=survival

marrage=security=stability=prime conditions to raise children end of story.

spare me the people who will say "thats dumb,i dont beleive in marrige,i dont want to have kids,i was raised single parent ect.ect."

this is true,there are expetions to every rule and generalization. there are amazing single parents out there and some downright amazing people that have been raised in a single parent household but the fact remains the same...it is easier with two.

kir mokum will die alone and unhappy.

but of course,above ALL else and above ALL of our own unique veiws and outlooks one thing is certain...LOVE is the most important ingredient.

Steeped in awesomeness.

[robyn]

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Crowds flock to monkey 'wedding'

i guess dave was right

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by robyn

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Crowds flock to monkey 'wedding'

i guess dave was right

I give it a year.

[kir mokum]

Originally Posted by Revolver

women are not conditioned or brainwashed to get married. thats the fucking dumbest thing ive read in a long time.

Originally Posted by Revolver

all of the marrige hoopla,magazines, social expectations of marrige just play upon and exploit those biological urges to breed and the need for stability. stability=survival

exactly. i think you're really arguing extent. seriously, ask 10 women if they want to get married, then ask them why. i would bet at least 9 of them want to get married and at least 8 of them will give you regurgitated answers at best. that's pretty much what i see going on in this thread (though i'll admit there have been a handful of good responses).

Originally Posted by Revolver

marrage=security=stability=prime conditions to raise children end of story.

so why get married if you're not having kids? why not get married when you have a kid?

while i agree that statistically marriage is safer for kids i also think it would be obvious that those statistics would inherently be skewed to to the above. there's nothing inherent in marriage that makes the home safer or more secure (other than being legally bound to it).


my point is that all the associated benefits of marriage can be had without it, so why get married?

Originally Posted by Revolver

kir mokum will die alone and unhappy.

because i wont get married because i think marriage is a giant load of shit and i can articulate why? possibly, but i'd rather stick to my ideals and understanding of the world (and myself) rather than stop thinking and give in to cultural norms simply because it makes my life easier. fuck that noise.

Originally Posted by Revolver

but of course,above ALL else and above ALL of our own unique veiws and outlooks one thing is certain...LOVE is the most important ingredient.

love is a recent addition to the marriage formula. few hundred years i believe.

[Grapes]

Sorry, you're saying love was invented a few hundred years ago?

[tiedye]

What's love got to do with it got to do with it got to do with it

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by kir mokum

love is a recent addition to the marriage formula. few hundred years i believe.

Citation pls.

[tiedye]

I like the idea of dowries. Bitches gotta pay to get with this.

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by kir mokum

exactly. i think you're really arguing extent.

sorry wat?

Originally Posted by kir mokum

so why get married if you're not having kids? why not get married when you have a kid?

cause people find comfort in the institution of marriage. they feel comfortable expressing there devotion to each other through the act of marriage. SEAN! made a excellent point about that a couple pages back

Originally Posted by kir mokum

my point is that all the associated benefits of marriage can be had without it, so why get married?

you seem to think your smart. you should be able to figure it out.

Originally Posted by kir mokum

i wont get married because i think marriage is a giant load of shit and i can articulate why?

yeah you should do articulate the word shit good. im sorry, why dont you beleive in marriage again? cause your bitter about women being brainwashed by magazines or something like that?...im going to guess you dont date much or do all to well in the women department do you?. i dont mean for you to take that as a cheap shot or anything...im just sayin.

Originally Posted by kir mokum

possibly, but i'd rather stick to my ideals and understanding of the world (and myself) rather than stop thinking and give in to cultural norms simply because it makes my life easier. fuck that noise.

your understanding of the world?. if i may ask...how did you come to your 'understanding of the world'? have you travelled to many places? have you loved and lost? have you spoke with many different people from many different cultures?

what is so wrong with cultural norms?

Originally Posted by kir mokum

love is a recent addition to the marriage formula. few hundred years i believe.

GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!! really?..i didnt know that.

can you link me to your source please?...i tired to search on wikipedia who invented love and added it to marriage but nothing really came up.:sad2:

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by kir mokum

exactly. i think you're really arguing extent. seriously, ask 10 women if they want to get married, then ask them why. i would bet at least 9 of them want to get married and at least 8 of them will give you regurgitated answers at best. that's pretty much what i see going on in this thread (though i'll admit there have been a handful of good responses).



so why get married if you're not having kids? why not get married when you have a kid?

while i agree that statistically marriage is safer for kids i also think it would be obvious that those statistics would inherently be skewed to to the above. there's nothing inherent in marriage that makes the home safer or more secure (other than being legally bound to it).


my point is that all the associated benefits of marriage can be had without it, so why get married?



because i wont get married because i think marriage is a giant load of shit and i can articulate why? possibly, but i'd rather stick to my ideals and understanding of the world (and myself) rather than stop thinking and give in to cultural norms simply because it makes my life easier. fuck that noise.



love is a recent addition to the marriage formula. few hundred years i believe.

IM A REBEL, FUCK THE HETERONOrMATIVE EVEN THOUGH I FIT PRECISELY WITHIN IT, I HANG OUT WITH DYKES AND EAT ORGANIC FOOD, HELL YEAH, FUCK SOCIETY o

[mapleleaf4ever]

Originally Posted by Grapes

Sorry, you're saying love was invented a few hundred years ago?

Of course! It was invented around the same time as the Bicycle. It just took a little longer to be adopted by the general public.

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Pretty specio-centric view. I personally don't think there's much different between us and animals except that we've got a more developed language (due to our highly evolved hands and mouths). The only thing really keeping monkeys from being able to converse with us is their inability to generate our phonemes.

Believe it or not, "survival" is probably one of the number one drives for humans. Be it genetic survival, memetic survival or even just corporeal survival (nobody wants to die). People want to have their ideas and philosophies carried on to the next generation. They want to have an impact on society. Most goals (marriage, family, schooling, effective career) are usually based in the survival instinct. Your individual view is just how you perceive is the best way for you to enact on this instinct.

People still always say "trust your instincts" and stuff like that, because frankly there are parts of our consciousness and behaviour that even we don't necessarily understand and we kind of need to take at face value.

Ability to reason and discern is something we generally assume that we have over animals, but I think that's a little arrogant to assume, since we all have the same general structure anyways. Only thing that scientifically separates us from other animals is our inability to procreate with them (despite countless attempts as documented by the internet and certain scenes in Clerks II).

What I was trying to get at is that humans aren't solely focused on survival. Yes, most of us have the same end goal - live long and prosper, heh - but there are so many different ways of getting there. We have way more options than animals, there are so many more factors in our lives - albeit we created them - and our views and goals aren't always based on survival. So many people make choices that are so damaging to themselves and others, I don't think those decisions really fall under "survival instinct".

The ability to reason debate is a whoooooole different discussion!

[kir mokum]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

IM A REBEL, FUCK THE HETERONOrMATIVE EVEN THOUGH I FIT PRECISELY WITHIN IT, I HANG OUT WITH DYKES AND EAT ORGANIC FOOD, HELL YEAH, FUCK SOCIETY o

you're assumptions are cute, but weak as hell. still.

[kir mokum]

Originally Posted by Revolver

cause people find comfort in the institution of marriage. they feel comfortable expressing there devotion to each other through the act of marriage. SEAN! made a excellent point about that a couple pages back

i find that sad and i also think it's a cop out. some people feel comfortable expressing there devotion to each other by doing all sorts of fucked up shit. i'm asking why, especially if you don't have to? "i dunno, i just feel like it" isn't an answer and reinforces my point that people do it because of irrational and archaic social obligation.

Originally Posted by Revolver

you seem to think your smart. you should be able to figure it out.

no, i can't. i seriously do not understand. the idea is completely alien to me and makes absolutely no sense. much like the "the concept of god gives people comfort and meaning to the world therefore it needs to be respected" argument. it's an intellectual black hole.

Originally Posted by Revolver

yeah you should do articulate the word shit good. im sorry, why dont you beleive in marriage again? cause your bitter about women being brainwashed by magazines or something like that?...im going to guess you dont date much or do all to well in the women department do you?. i dont mean for you to take that as a cheap shot or anything...im just sayin.

say/think whatever you want. but for the record you do mean for me to take it as a cheap shot. you're trying to get me to divulge my relationship history so you can argue against that and not my actual points. how is your history with women? i'm guessing you get a lot of bites but never can keep a catch. so you constantly long for "the one". (well, not really. i don't know you at all).

you're right that i don't date much. i don't quite understand how that works either. i haven't needed to try and have a bunch of emotionally shallow relationships to find someone worth sharing my life with. if you want any more juicy details about my love life you're simply going to have to ask me in person.

just curious as to how you "believe" in marriage? that's like not believing in trees. what i don't believe in is the inherent value of the institution.

Originally Posted by Revolver

your understanding of the world?. if i may ask...how did you come to your 'understanding of the world'? have you travelled to many places? have you loved and lost? have you spoke with many different people from many different cultures?

those are terrible questions. everybody has an understanding of the world. it's called a "world view". people usually get them via the sum of their total life experiences.

Originally Posted by Revolver

what is so wrong with cultural norms?

did i say there is something inherently wrong with cultural norms?

Originally Posted by Revolver

can you link me to your source please?...i tired to search on wikipedia who invented love and added it to marriage but nothing really came up.:sad2:

did i say that love was invented and added it to marriage?

love was fairly recently added to the reason that people got married. cultural changes, women's rights and social placement, and criticism of traditions (like what i'm doing) changed it. but this is all a side note really. i would think it difficult to prove this one way or another without some serious research into the history of western civilization. feel free to prove me wrong. just remember "yeah right, you're stupid" isn't proof. someone much smarter than me (my english teacher) told me this while we were studying a midsummer's night's dream. maybe another play. it was a long time ago. but i trust he was accurate.

if you want to argue/discuss/debate, knock off the straw man and ad hominem garbage and step up your game.

[galaxie]

^ I thought you said you were "done here". I'd like my thread back, k thx.

[Courtney]

Marriage Is Just A Way For Woman To Claim Her Man, And Then The Man Goes Crazy With That And Has Sex With Many Other Women Behind Her Back
Say No To Marriage

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by kir mokum

no, i can't. i seriously do not understand. the idea is completely alien to me and makes absolutely no sense. much like the "the concept of god gives people comfort and meaning to the world therefore it needs to be respected" argument. it's an intellectual black hole.

if a idea is completely alien to you and makes absolutley no sense then SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop preaching as if it dose make sense to you.

Originally Posted by kir mokum

but for the record you do mean for me to take it as a cheap shot.

no i really didnt, i was just comming to a conclusion based on the info you have provided in this thread.


information like this:

Originally Posted by kir mokum

you're right that i don't date much. i don't quite understand how that works either. i haven't needed to try and have a bunch of emotionally shallow relationships to find someone worth sharing my life with

how do you know they will all be emotionally shallow relationships? a person needs to go through and experience those emotionally shallow relationships. how eles would they be able to recognize a amazing relationship when it comes their way?

Originally Posted by kir mokum

just curious as to how you "believe" in marriage? that's like not believing in trees. what i don't believe in is the inherent value of the institution.

you dont beleive in the value of takeing a vow of lifelong devotion to someone you love before the eyes of god and the eyes of the law? you must be able to grasp what that means to most people.

Originally Posted by kir mokum

those are terrible questions. everybody has an understanding of the world. it's called a "world view". people usually get them via the sum of their total life experiences.

NO those are excellent and extremely valid questions. answer them. where have you been? what have you seeen? what have you experienced? i want to know what the sum of YOUR total life experience is so i can better understand where you are comming from. how have you come to your conclusion of marriage? have you visited places and have seen the devestating sociological effects on young woman that arranged and polygamous marriges can have? or is your conclusion based on the all to typical 'urban alienation' syndrome.....if its the latter then im not suprised at all you would dismiss my questions as terrible.

Originally Posted by kir mokum

did i say there is something inherently wrong with cultural norms?

gah? are you for real? your whole stance is your dis-beleife in marriage and other cultural norms...i beleive you said 'FUCK THAT SHIT'.....

Originally Posted by kir mokum

did i say that love was invented and added it to marriage?

you did not say inveted but you did say it was added.

Originally Posted by kir mokum

i would think it difficult to prove this one way or another without some serious research into the history of western civilization. feel free to prove me wrong.

how could i prove you wrong when you havent even come close to proving anything you say is right and not merely your own social opinion?

Originally Posted by kir mokum

if you want to argue/discuss/debate, knock off the straw man and ad hominem garbage and step up your game.

^ad hominem! lol...

.that was easy.

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by galaxie

^ I thought you said you were "done here". I'd like my thread back, k thx.

lol..where did your thread go?

were not talking about golf or cars here....were talking about the concept of marriage. thats basically the topic of the thread right?

[kir mokum]

am i speaking chinese?

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by kir mokum

did i say that love was invented and added it to marriage?

love was fairly recently added to the reason that people got married.

CITATION OR STFU

My counterexample is the fact that 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 has been recited at just about every marriage in the last two millenia.
edit: Christian marriage

[rawb]

CAN'T WE ALL AGREE THAT KIRM HAS UNIQUE AND UNPOPULAR VIEWS ON MARRAIGE AND A NEED TO DEFEND THEM, AND JUST LET IT SLIDE l

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by rawb

CAN'T WE ALL AGREE THAT KIRM HAS BIASED AND UNPOPULAR VIEWS ON MARRAIGE AND A NEED TO MAKE UP FACTS TO DEFEND THEM, AND JUST LET IT SLIDE l

Fixed

[kir mokum]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

CITATION OR STFU

alright. here's the first google hit for "history of marriage in western civilization"

link to full article

Marriage in Modern Europe and America


The gradual emancipation of marriage and divorce laws from the control of the church resulted in greater individual freedom and further raised the status of women. The parents began to lose influence over the marital choices of their children, and romantic love became an important factor in marriage. Even so, for most couples until well into the 19th century marriage was still basically an economic arrangement. Moreover, the husband was usually the one who profited most, because he was the "head of the household" and controlled his wife's property. He also had many other rights denied to his wife and was favored by a moral double standard that allowed him considerable sexual license. Under the circumstances, women continued to press for further reforms, a process which even today has not yet fully reached its goal. (See also "The Social Roles of Men and Women.")

here's the second google hit for "history of marriage in western civilization"

link to full article

Marriage, a History
Long ago, love was a silly reason for a match. How marriage has changed over history.

By: PT Staff

Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match. Even during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, adultery and friendship were often more passionate than marriage. These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate.

Antiquity-Renaissance

What's love got to do with it? In early history, politics and money trumped emotions.

* Ancient Greece: Love is a many-splendored (manly) thing. Love is honored—especially between men. In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.
* Rome: Wife-swapping as a career move—Statesman Marcus Porcius Cato divorces his wife and marries her off to his ally Hortensius in order to strengthen family bonds; after Hortensius dies, Cato remarries her.
* 6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.
* 12th-century Europe: Marriage is good for loving…someone else—Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.
* 14th-century Europe: It takes a village—Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry either. The lord of one Black Forest manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.
* 16th-century Europe: Love's a bore—Any man in love with his wife must be so dull that no one else could love him, writes the French essayist Montaigne.


1600s-Victorian Era

It's a family affair: Married love gains currency, but for intimacy and passion, people still turn to family, lovers and friends.

* 1690s U.S.: Virginia wasn't always for lovers—Passionate love between husband and wife is considered unseemly: One Virginia colonist describes a woman he knows as "more fond of her husband perhaps than the politeness of the day allows." Protestant ministers warn spouses against loving each other too much, or using endearing nicknames that will undermine husbandly authority.
* 18th-century Europe: Love gains ground—In England and in the salons of Enlightenment thinkers, married love is gaining credibility. Ladies' debating societies declare that while loveless marriages are regrettable, women must consider money when choosing a partner.
* 1840, England: Virgin lace—Queen Victoria starts a trend by wearing virginal white, instead of the traditional jeweled wedding gown. Historically thought of as the lustier sex, women are now considered chaste and pure. As a result, many men find it easier to have sex with prostitutes than with their virtuous wives.
* Mid 19th-century U.S.: Honeymoon suite for three—Honeymoons replace the older custom of "bridal tours," in which the newly married couple travel after the wedding to visit family who could not attend the ceremony. Even so, many brides bring girlfriends with them on their honeymoons.