Has marriage become an outdated custom?

[Cyrano]

(That's a question, not a statement of fact.)

The institution of marriage has been around for a few thousand years. Why? Because men are stronger than women? It's possible that this is the one single factor that turned marriage into an institution.

In effect, women became chattel/property/slaves, to be bargained for, exchanged, and fought over. -- Sex? That was but one of the benefits of owning one or more women. But there were/are very few people on this planet that still think you have to be married to have sex.

In earlier eras, women were trophies and signs of wealth and power such as a herd of sheep, cattle, or a Ferrari, or Rolls Royce. And for many stupid, wealthy men; Donald Trump to name but one, women are still just that. And why do women go along with it. Security, or stability, or wealth, or for some indefinable entity called love.

No, I'm not a total cynic. I believe love exists. But I also believe it is transient. Yet, occasionally, it can last a lifetime.

It's become obvious over the past 30 or 40 years, that the rate of divorce has been constantly increasing. And, I believe, much of this is due to the fact that women have rightfully seized a great degree of autonomy through both the workplace and an enlightened view of themselves as self-empowered human beings.

But what about children? What is the responsibility that parents have toward them? Well, one thing for sure is that it hasn't slowed the divorce rate.

So my question stands. Has marriage become an outdated custom? I'd like to hear your opinions.

[skygazer]

1. Well, first of all, marriage evolved because of property and inheritance

Not so much because of the relative strength of the parties involved. This is one reason why arranged marriages were once the norm in most societies - because parents wanted to be sure their offspring married into a family that could provide upward mobility.

Marriage was important dynastically because it legitimized offspring, making dynastic inheritance an easier and more stable process. It offered women financial security but in many cases it offered men the same thing. In many cultures, women had very strong property rights even after marriage.

In plenty of western civilizations, marriage was not considered nearly as important among the poor as it was among the rich, precisely because of the property aspects of it - no property, no real reason to worry about it. In colonial America, many couples lived together and had multiple children without the benefit of marriage until some time when clergy was available to make it all legal. It was not considered any kind of horrible sin but more of a common sense thing. Slave marriages were not considered legal at all.

Things began to change in the Victorian era when the idea of marrying for love became popular. Now people tend to think of that as the only reason to marry though it makes no sense to me - you can love without being married. Marriage in a legal sense is still about property and inheritance as well as other rights such as medical decisions, etc.

Is it an outdated custom? I think to a certain extent and to some people, yes. It is, after all, more or less a business contract albeit between two people who also have a personal relationship. But there are plenty of people who have religious beliefs concerning marriage and there are those who feel it strengthens their relationship. It also provides a stability for children though there are plenty of long-term unmarried relationships in which the children have a stable family platform.

In my opinion, it's a personal choice and no one should be disbarred from entering into it nor should anyone be adversely judged for choosing or not choosing it.

[Shine]

16. What a thoughtful, well-written post, skygazer.

:thumbsup:

:hi: :hug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. i think marriage has changed and will continue to change like every other aspect of civilization

at some point 2 marriages will be considered part on a normal life cycle and not an exception etc.

just my take.

i'd like to get married though.

[LaraMN]

5. Yup- marriage is as much an idea as an institution.

From the non-institutional standpoint, it's somewhat open to individual interpretation.

[idgiehkt]

3. many, many different types of marriage have existed over millenia

in many different types of cultures. The whole 'caveman to feminism' eurocentric timeline is inaccurate. Some polynesian tribes practice polyandry and Lugu lake in China is matriarchal. Cultures evolve and devolve depending on what deity is being worshipped and who is in charge. It seems like there are certain strains of thought that keep cycling and recycling, like trends towards civil rights for all citizens, vs. totalitatrianism and religious dominance of culture. I don't think parental responsibility toward children is related to marriage very much, not in a legal sense, because of DNA testing. That may be what is making marriage obsolete: proof of paternity. The practice of taking the father's surname and the family going by that name is in itself only about 700 years old or so in european cultures.

[MoseyWalker]

4. I think that just because people live longer these days

they outwear their welcome.

[SteppingRazor]

7. That's certainly a valid point. When the institution of marriage was created...

the average lifespan was, what? 30? 35?

[Hosnon]

10. I don't think that is correct though I don't have a link for support.

I remember reading somewhere that that common misconception is due because 30-35 is the average life expectancy. The incredibly high infant mortality rates prior to the modern era artificially depressed the average.

I'd be willing to bet that among those that lived to maturity, i.e., 13 or so, the life expectancy for humans has always been pretty high.

[Deja Q]

19. Definitely not 700, like Noah... I wonder what happened...

:eek:

Still, maybe all marriages (including those controversial GLBT ones 99.9% of the gay people I know don't seem to care about in the first place) should automatically be disbanded after age 35? I believe it's a feeble excuse to say people lived to ~35 as justification for divorce, et al... heck, if people can rmeain interested in the same sports teams all their lives, and sports is the same small quantity of possible actions played over and over again. It's rather like sex!

I wonder how older generations who lived through thick and thin see their offspring, ditching the moment things get thick... for themselves. Jealousy, perhaps?

I dunno. Making and breaking vows the way folks like Britney does doesn't say much that's good. It only affirms the crooked belief people are disposable objects.

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. That is correct only in its mathematical purity, but not in its reality

Average of 30-35, yes; but only because people had a tendancy to die at an age of less than five years, or at an age of 60-plus. The infant/child mortality rate was so incredibly high (circa 50%), that it makes the average lifespan to be in the 30-35 range, even though very few actually died at that age.

The average of 1, 1, 1, 70, 70, 70 is 35.5 --> a quantity not very descriptive of the actual numbers.


Not to shit on your post, but it is a common misperception that average life span means most people died at age 35 in olden times.

[SteppingRazor]

28. HOW DARE YOU SHIT ON MY POST??!!!!1111!!

:evilgrin:

Actually, quite the contrary, thank you for clarifying. :hi:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. i think this is true too. its easier to promise rest of your life...

when its like 10-20 years. not 50-60 years.

[skygazer]

11. Perhaps

I also think people's expectations are different which goes with what I originally said about their reasons for marriage. When you marry for love, there's no real reason to stick around if the love doesn't last. People who married for financial security or social position were a little more flexible about staying in something they might not have been emotionally happy with. Social expecatations make a difference too - when divorce was considered highly taboo, people were less apt to choose it as an option.

[Oeditpus Rex]

6. It's not outdated

to those who want to do it.

:shrug:

[querelle]

8. Outdated?

Now you tell me! Just when it becomes legal for me to marry my partner in my country (Canada), I find out that it's an outdated institution! And here I thought that we homos were always the trend setters in society. I'll have to consult the "handbook" and get back to you on this one.

Q

[Deja Q]

12. Life is what we make of it.

And that line can be used in hundreds of ways.

What is the responsibility parents taught children? Ask a child what they want. Oprah thinks all American children want the latest fashions and ipods... others treat a plate of food in a trivial matter.

People talk of rationing as means to further our society. Yet oursociety of recent seems to encourage the exact opposite.

Women still look for men who have power and influence; even if they say they want a decent man. Actions speak louder than words. And for those who don't act, well they must be hypocrites who can say what they want because they'll never have a chance to make good on their words (yes, some people are so immature and tawdry they impose their own cynical attitudes onto everyone else because they believe everyone else has to act like them. Some people ARE moral, and can be moral, even in this day and age. )

Men still want trophies. Some want money, others want human sex toys, others want possessions. And in the end, our society treats them all the same: Disposable commodities. And people pick up on that and act accordingly. (that's a glib generalization, but not utter hyperbole, I regret to say.)

I think our society is about selfishness and greed.

OTOH, when looking at all the pieces, there is no coherent puzzle. No plan by anybody.

I'll save any judgment. I'd rather be confused than cynical. I don't know what people think, never will. All I know is, all but one of the marriages in my family remained together, even through tough times. The only one that failed wasn't a marriage in the first place. Maybe I've got the wrong set of relatives to see as role models. :shrug:

All I know is, unsafe sex leads to diseases and heartache. And the consequences of causing either to happen, and some people still don't give a damn for their actions. That's sad. One can protect to a certain extent with prophylactics, but they are no cures. And often enough, people forget about the greater good. Even if they didn't mean to forget.

I dunno. All I know is, maybe we should be looking out for #1 only. At least we'd be fully honest with ourselves at that point. It's hard trying to help others when they only want to take advantage of you...

[Wapsie B]

13. Yes.

With respect to living with one person for 30, 40 years or more. The till death do us part in the marriage vows can be taken literally, meaning the physical death of the spouse. Or it can be seen as the death of love in the marriage. Every relationship has its own lifespan. Some are fortunate to have been perfectly matched with their spouse and celebrate many happy years together. Many others though are not so lucky.

[Deja Q]

14. Maybe everyone else is right and I'm wrong...

A concept I ought to be used to, but still...of all the mixed signals we get from society's people and the media messages we get...


But when the ex calls ya back years later, isn't that kinda weird? (flattering depending on the circumstances, but for my own instance of that, between then and now I ended up a broken man. I work my own way and that's that. Can I trust? Probably. Do I want to? Not unless I'm on prozac.)

[MoseyWalker]

15. Only if you're one of those who have something against

divorce.

[dysfunctional press]

17. i've been trying to convince my wife of this very thing...

so far, she's not buying it.

[AirmensMom]

18. I suspect

you'll hear a lot of different opinions here. I'm all for marriage, but it's not necessarily for everyone. And I would never marry someone who did not consider me his equal and I would certainly never be considered anyone's trophy. I married for love over 30 years ago, as did my husband. We are still in love and it has grown deeper than it was when we first married. Having shared over 30 years of history together, we have a connection with each other that we could never have with any other person. That actually makes it stronger, knowing what we've been through together and how we've grown through it. We certainly wish the same for our kids, so I guess I'm not considering it outdated.

[Redstone]

20. No, my wife did NOT become my property, nor my slave, when we got married.

And Mrs R has plenty of autonomy, as do I.

Our marriage ceremony was, in effect, a public statement of our commitment to a partnership.

Marriage is NOT outdated for us.

Redstone

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. One can only hope it's finally in its death throes. Let's watch it die the death

it needs to die, and then rebirth something better out of the puddle of shit it leaves behind.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

24. Don your flame suit, it's Rabrrrrrr.

:)

:hi:

[bluethruandthru]

22. Marriage has lots of benefits..

and drawbacks. People who look at it as something they'll do til they get tired of it (or their partner) shouldn't do it. And, once you have kids...it's about them..not you. The divorce rate wouldn't be so high if people worried a bit more about their children's happiness rather than their own. Yep, it can be hard work..but the rewards are worth it.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

23. I'd rather have the marriage rate decrease than the divorce rate increase.

Somehow, we're getting both, but mostly the increasing divorces.

Hmmm.....If 50% of marriages nowadays end in divorce, what does that tell you about the quality of marriage now? Not so hot, apaprently. And somehow I don't think those evil (:eyes:) gays are to blame.

Marriage is a personal, but not a private, thing. Love is private. Marriage, by it's nature, is public--the whole point of getting married, both historically and in contemporary times, is to solidify one's relationship with another (in theory, that would be a loving relationship) and to make this known to a community. Marriage and love are not mutually inclusive, of course--one can be married and despise the partner, just as one can love somebody but not see a need to be married.

The "personal" part of marriage means that it different people see it different ways. Some people are appalled at the idea of not being married, some people would like it but are willing to wait, some people don't really want it but might consider it if they found the correct partners, some people are appalled at the idea of being married and consider it sexist and outdated indeed. I personally think much of the customs of traditional marriage are wedded in sexism and the idea of the woman as the property of the husband, even if most people today, while still using those customs, do not make that association.

Of course culture and language, as with pretty much all things related to humans, are dynamic, and their different facets change from generation to generation, as well as with what is deemed socially acceptable. Some people don't mind the history of, say, a veil, or of the woman wearing an engagement ring but the man not, or of the woman changing her last name etc., and claim it is irrelevant to modern life. There is a good argument there, and I won't stop anyone from doing those things--what matters is what those things mean to them. However, with the knowledge that marriage seems inherently public in mind, I am afraid of what those things would mean to other people, and waht they might or might not assume. Plus, on a personal level, I am not a big fan of pomp, especially for pomp's sake, and personally cannot get over a basic level of nausea at the idea of changing my name (which, to me, represents sacrificing my past for his or perhaps giving up my past for a "harmonious" family where everyone has the same last name--as if any children would be traumatized by Mommy and Daddy having separate last names :eyes:) or of being veiled (what is the purpose of that? I submit that there is none, at least not a practical reason--and sheer tradition does not a good idea make sometimes). Those things just don't jibe with my personality, and just don't jibe with what I think gender equality means.

But, to each his/her own, of course.

[LeftyMom]

26. Personally I don't see why people need to check in with the gov't about who they love or

why doing so effects their taxes. I don't see the point of signing lifelong legal paperwork for a relationship that could last much less than a lifetime. Sure, it's romantic, but like a lot of romantic notions it doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

Want to throw a party and tell your friends and family about how much you love each other? Go for it, but there's no reason to involve the law in what is ultimately a private matter- it's 2007, we don't need the approval of the state or the church to have sex, live together or make babies.

I'm too young to be jaded, but I'm too young to be divorced too so perhaps I'm just an overachiever.

[Evoman]

27. Yes, but don't tell my girlfriend

:scared:

[barb162]

32. LOL

and her parents

[Patiod]

29. It has in our house

but my S.O.'s inability to get health insurance on his own may make it come back into style.

[barb162]

30. No way

Why are so many people married if it's outdated?

[ContraBass Black]

31. No woman I would be interested would become my property.

I might marry someday. If I do, it will be partnership, not ownership.

[IdaBriggs]

33. I don't think so. It is a legal relationship, and it means that the person

*I* choose is my family, and that "our" wishes now supersede those of the families we are born into if there is ever a conflict.

I love him, but marriage is about more than LOVE. Its about Trust, Communication, Shared Values, Shared Goals, Etc. We are partners, working to better our lives TOGETHER; we will be raising our twins TOGETHER, and hopefully sharing with them the things that are important to us.

We are both hard workers who value our intelligence; we have some different interests that we bring to the table (which keeps things interesting), and some common ones that we enjoy together. He is my best friend and my lover, and I am his. I love him on all levels -- intellectual, emotional, physical and spiritual. I trust him with my life. If something happens to me, then he would be the person I would want to have care of my most prized possessions -- my unborn babies. We've got our wills drawn up to reflect our values, and the medical power of attorney in case its needed.

We've been together "in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer" for fifteen years -- ten of it married/five of it in courtship/engagement. There is (for me) a huge level of security knowing that I can always count on him, and I hope I provide that to him, too.

If you've ever had to fill out a form at a hospital saying who you want to make the decisions in the event you aren't capable of doing so, then maybe you can understand how good it feels to know the person who is going to be in charge is the man you KNOW you can safely trust with your life -- and the decision to let it end, if need be. He knows me better than the family I grew up with, and while I love/value my friends, he is the one who I am most loyal to because being loyal to him is being loyal to the "family unit" we've created together.

Neither of "owns" the other; I consider us "partners" in the truest sense of the word, and he's the one who taught me to trust in that, and him.

Then again, I'm one very lucky woman! :)