Post by mirrororchid on Jan 3, 2023 5:28:36 GMT -5
I wrote some unhappy things on a post meant to be more uplifting, so I removed it and will be putting it here.
Some things need to be said.
Stay tuned.
Until then, here's a light hearted salute to our revered institution:
iliasm.org/thread/3910/marriage
While I suspect polyamory would be a good thing to go mainstream, it needs to have powerful enthusiasm behind polyandry. The tendency of ladies to seek out teh cream of the crop and the chauvinistic expectation of monogamy from women could leave lots of guys with no one.
For society to benefit from poly, we'll need to destigmatize prostitution, eliminate slut-shaming entirely, and bring about approval of rapid-cycle serial monogamy as a choice rather than emphasizing the comfortable cozy, secure model of romance as a superior relationship status. Exciting discovery of a new partner seems to be valued only in teh context of nostalgia. Something to snicker over after having bought a house together rather than recognizing its value in our own capacity to love and appreciate our fellow man. Circling the wagons around monogamous coupledom is exclusive, haughty, insular and as the song says: "Two. Can be as bad as one. It's teh loneliest number since teh number on."
Since I made this promise/threat a month and a half ago, iron hamster posted this:
iliasm.org/thread/6255/ Ron Sullivan sorry
Sweet Mary-Joseph.
So happy for our metallic rodent friend, but so sorry for Mr. Sullivan.
Then again, maybe somehow, Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan are extraordinarily well matched. He's a podiatrist, and foot massages give her orgasms (who knew?), and she reciprocates? Well, live and learn.
Perhaps Sullivan knows what he's getting, and expects nothing more than a companion into his golden years; a partner to visit him on his death bed, a travelling companion cross country in an RV.
Bully for him, if so.
If I.H.'s fears are well founded, though, a pox on his ex-wife for allowing a second man to undergo a repugnant delusion. WTF, Mrs. Sullivan? Why do you get on that horse again? With a heterosexual man, anyway. (Again, if he plays for "the pink team", bully for him.)
What is it about that insidious life check-box that drives people to, in theory, partner for life with someone under false pretenses? How is the re-casting of the most intimate relationship as mere friendship something you justify twice?
Some refusers, no doubt, don't consider marriage intimate, at least not for long. Marriage, for them, is a secure, solid, permanent bond of holiness forged by God to rise above animal, carnal desire. Their refused ex-spouses were earthy failures that didn't reach the transcendent state of celibacy that they aspired to and achieved; fulfilling a productive, focused life of eating, drinking, sleeping, and defecation, along with some random assortment of accomplishments. You know, the same shit you would have done if you lived alone.
Filing jointly with the IRS appears to be a top-ranked accomplishment for large swaths of society. This unquestioned rite of passage is commonly undergone with the expectation of intimate physical connection with the spouse, but intimate, physical connection with another is also available to single people. Now, more than ever.
So... what's with that dopey piece of paper signed at the courthouse?
Why do we hitch our wagon to a horse, with red and blue wires connected to a clock and dynamite?
When the gay marriage debate was going on, they cited the package deal of inheritance and hospital visitation marriage provided. The copious legal work previously needed to duplicate marriage was onerous and expensive. Justifying homosexual physical intimacy outside wedlock was a non-starter with the public, generally. Marriage was not going to help relieve the condemnation of that component of a relationship; married gay sex wasn't going to be respected a lick more than gay fornication by those inclined to judge.
The romantic vision of growing old together didn't come up much in the gay marriage discussion, either, to my recollection. Growing old together was something you could do while unmarried.
How would marriage be viewed if heterosexuals explained their drive to jump the broom in this same sterile, innocuous manner?
"Hey, you two, when are you going to ensure all your belongings go to each other if one of you dies?"
"Oh, we've already set a date to be allowed hospital visitation, by default."
"Congratulations! I hadn't heard!"
Shotgun weddings are out of vogue these days with paternity testing and child support fulfilling the function of burdening young rakes with the consequences of their seductions. (as uncertain as enforcement of such decrees can be) Rabbit-hole research nerd note: I could not find any resource saying whether marriage made child support after divorce more reliable than that from former cohabitating partners.
According to uncorroborated internet posts (it's always a good idea to quote those) 5% of divorcing marriages have pre-nups and about half of pre-nups are honored in court.
15% of U.S. adults surveyed signed a prenup, which is up from just 3% in 2010.
It also found that 35% of unmarried people say they're likely to sign a prenup in the future.
There's a lot more bet hedging out there.
So, much can be observed about that when it comes to the romantic view of marriage.
It is a rejection of most of the vows. In sickness? For worse? For poorer? Check, please! I gots me a pre-nup!
Pre-nup enthusiasts likely see themselves as inevitably cresting the mountain and fearing the tether to their partner that would end their mountaineering adventure.
They don't see themselves as the future weak link.
The pre-nup is an agreement to stay in a sufficiently beneficial marriage only. Detrimental marriages can be retained up to the point tolerated by the unencumbered spouse, at least as far as the State is concerned (always noting the dicey 50% enforcement level of those pre-nups by the courts.)
Is hospital visitation and avoiding inheritance probate reason enough to tie the knot?
Are those the best reasons to marry? To have your best friend with you everywhere and hand off all your stuff when you die?
Why is sex in there at all?
That question gets wrapped up in morality, but the morality, like so much of the other reasons to marry, was based upon maintaining order in primitive societies. God or gods dislike infighting. If your people are "the chosen" (and let's be real, aren't we all?), hurting each other, engaging in unproductive bickering, and internal struggle is bad, long term. Rules will help diminish the struggles.
You don't steal food, tools, or clothing, you don't hurt each other, and you don't lag about expecting everyone to give ya stuff (out of pity or concern you'll just steal what you need.)
Out of these come the dictums against sloth (if you don't work, you'll need to beg or steal, dragging society down).
Worse still is the creation of even greater need than your own, need that is unavoidably more needy and slothful than your own. Specifically, babies.
Making babies produces four or five years of unproductive humanity as well as incapacity for another citizen (the mother) for several months, tied down with the offspring.
As a father, you better be ready to step up or have proven your worth, Mister.
That parasite on society, the baby, will pay great dividends in due time, but no small part of it will benefit the parents who are expected to direct the actions of the child. Children used to be the retirement plan of the elderly. Having a quiverful of children was more reasonable when birth control was as difficult to come by as it was and the "rhythm method" was sometimes all that was on hand.
Should the father not wish to participate in the upbringing (skip out), it fell on the mother or society to attend to those four or five years of low utility. There was little guarantee that you would come to enjoy the larger benefits later, any bond less than parental being less strong or imposed by society. Unaccountable children were to be avoided and the expectation of having means before children were born was paramount. Men who would casually impregnate their neighbor could scarcely be expected to provide for a multitude all by themselves. The behavior that resulted in such an unmanageable brood was to be condemned. Unguarded innuendo was a conversation that led to financial ruin for the flattered maiden and society at large.
Therefore, if you wished to engage in adult activity, you were expected to either be a productive citizen, or to pair up with one. Parents of the aspiring lovers had a stake in these matters, neither seeking to raise the child themselves from a promiscuous dauhghter, or an impoverished man who could not see to their needs in their golden years, nor afford resources to feed and raise their grandchildren. It took time to sift wheat from chaff as well as determine if censure and pressure could identify a diamond in the rough. Choices were limited in days when sexual morality was developed. Taking it slow made for better decisions by the lovers-to-be, the parents, and the inner circles of all parties.
Ah, that was nice. History lesson over.
Birth control is inexpensive and readily available now. Babies are born on purpose, or through inattention.
A secular society allows most reluctant mothers to cancel the pregnancy in the middle, if they choose, even if it may mean a road trip across state lines. (just the facts on the ground, not pursuing the issue here)
The burden of sex on society is largely addressed; the bonding of marriage to protect society from rakes not as urgent. The recent angst about low birth rates may erode the concerns about single mothers someday to teh point of encouraging what was seen as reckless behavior previously.
Society has reflected this, and it should surprise no one who is not basing their whole lives around pious adherence to scripture. We have sex when we want it, like any other biological drive and just as we might temper out appetites for food out of caution against health problems, we'll need to attend to our libido with some level of cerebral engagement.
New Relationship Energy (NRE) is an intoxicant that can drive people to do very foolish things they later regret, just like alcohol or cocaine.
Unlike drugs, food is a pleasurable thing that absolutely must be partaken.
Sex is not necessary for survival, but abstinence, for healthy adults, can produce psychological obsession and distraction that is uncomfortable and potentially damaging to mental health, our employment, our social interactions and maybe out physical health as well.
So why is the condemnation of "free love" still there? Inertia, I'd assume.
Some things need to be said.
Stay tuned.
Until then, here's a light hearted salute to our revered institution:
iliasm.org/thread/3910/marriage
While I suspect polyamory would be a good thing to go mainstream, it needs to have powerful enthusiasm behind polyandry. The tendency of ladies to seek out teh cream of the crop and the chauvinistic expectation of monogamy from women could leave lots of guys with no one.
For society to benefit from poly, we'll need to destigmatize prostitution, eliminate slut-shaming entirely, and bring about approval of rapid-cycle serial monogamy as a choice rather than emphasizing the comfortable cozy, secure model of romance as a superior relationship status. Exciting discovery of a new partner seems to be valued only in teh context of nostalgia. Something to snicker over after having bought a house together rather than recognizing its value in our own capacity to love and appreciate our fellow man. Circling the wagons around monogamous coupledom is exclusive, haughty, insular and as the song says: "Two. Can be as bad as one. It's teh loneliest number since teh number on."
Since I made this promise/threat a month and a half ago, iron hamster posted this:
iliasm.org/thread/6255/ Ron Sullivan sorry
Sweet Mary-Joseph.
So happy for our metallic rodent friend, but so sorry for Mr. Sullivan.
Then again, maybe somehow, Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan are extraordinarily well matched. He's a podiatrist, and foot massages give her orgasms (who knew?), and she reciprocates? Well, live and learn.
Perhaps Sullivan knows what he's getting, and expects nothing more than a companion into his golden years; a partner to visit him on his death bed, a travelling companion cross country in an RV.
Bully for him, if so.
If I.H.'s fears are well founded, though, a pox on his ex-wife for allowing a second man to undergo a repugnant delusion. WTF, Mrs. Sullivan? Why do you get on that horse again? With a heterosexual man, anyway. (Again, if he plays for "the pink team", bully for him.)
What is it about that insidious life check-box that drives people to, in theory, partner for life with someone under false pretenses? How is the re-casting of the most intimate relationship as mere friendship something you justify twice?
Some refusers, no doubt, don't consider marriage intimate, at least not for long. Marriage, for them, is a secure, solid, permanent bond of holiness forged by God to rise above animal, carnal desire. Their refused ex-spouses were earthy failures that didn't reach the transcendent state of celibacy that they aspired to and achieved; fulfilling a productive, focused life of eating, drinking, sleeping, and defecation, along with some random assortment of accomplishments. You know, the same shit you would have done if you lived alone.
Filing jointly with the IRS appears to be a top-ranked accomplishment for large swaths of society. This unquestioned rite of passage is commonly undergone with the expectation of intimate physical connection with the spouse, but intimate, physical connection with another is also available to single people. Now, more than ever.
So... what's with that dopey piece of paper signed at the courthouse?
Why do we hitch our wagon to a horse, with red and blue wires connected to a clock and dynamite?
When the gay marriage debate was going on, they cited the package deal of inheritance and hospital visitation marriage provided. The copious legal work previously needed to duplicate marriage was onerous and expensive. Justifying homosexual physical intimacy outside wedlock was a non-starter with the public, generally. Marriage was not going to help relieve the condemnation of that component of a relationship; married gay sex wasn't going to be respected a lick more than gay fornication by those inclined to judge.
The romantic vision of growing old together didn't come up much in the gay marriage discussion, either, to my recollection. Growing old together was something you could do while unmarried.
How would marriage be viewed if heterosexuals explained their drive to jump the broom in this same sterile, innocuous manner?
"Hey, you two, when are you going to ensure all your belongings go to each other if one of you dies?"
"Oh, we've already set a date to be allowed hospital visitation, by default."
"Congratulations! I hadn't heard!"
Shotgun weddings are out of vogue these days with paternity testing and child support fulfilling the function of burdening young rakes with the consequences of their seductions. (as uncertain as enforcement of such decrees can be) Rabbit-hole research nerd note: I could not find any resource saying whether marriage made child support after divorce more reliable than that from former cohabitating partners.
According to uncorroborated internet posts (it's always a good idea to quote those) 5% of divorcing marriages have pre-nups and about half of pre-nups are honored in court.
15% of U.S. adults surveyed signed a prenup, which is up from just 3% in 2010.
It also found that 35% of unmarried people say they're likely to sign a prenup in the future.
There's a lot more bet hedging out there.
So, much can be observed about that when it comes to the romantic view of marriage.
It is a rejection of most of the vows. In sickness? For worse? For poorer? Check, please! I gots me a pre-nup!
Pre-nup enthusiasts likely see themselves as inevitably cresting the mountain and fearing the tether to their partner that would end their mountaineering adventure.
They don't see themselves as the future weak link.
The pre-nup is an agreement to stay in a sufficiently beneficial marriage only. Detrimental marriages can be retained up to the point tolerated by the unencumbered spouse, at least as far as the State is concerned (always noting the dicey 50% enforcement level of those pre-nups by the courts.)
Is hospital visitation and avoiding inheritance probate reason enough to tie the knot?
Are those the best reasons to marry? To have your best friend with you everywhere and hand off all your stuff when you die?
Why is sex in there at all?
That question gets wrapped up in morality, but the morality, like so much of the other reasons to marry, was based upon maintaining order in primitive societies. God or gods dislike infighting. If your people are "the chosen" (and let's be real, aren't we all?), hurting each other, engaging in unproductive bickering, and internal struggle is bad, long term. Rules will help diminish the struggles.
You don't steal food, tools, or clothing, you don't hurt each other, and you don't lag about expecting everyone to give ya stuff (out of pity or concern you'll just steal what you need.)
Out of these come the dictums against sloth (if you don't work, you'll need to beg or steal, dragging society down).
Worse still is the creation of even greater need than your own, need that is unavoidably more needy and slothful than your own. Specifically, babies.
Making babies produces four or five years of unproductive humanity as well as incapacity for another citizen (the mother) for several months, tied down with the offspring.
As a father, you better be ready to step up or have proven your worth, Mister.
That parasite on society, the baby, will pay great dividends in due time, but no small part of it will benefit the parents who are expected to direct the actions of the child. Children used to be the retirement plan of the elderly. Having a quiverful of children was more reasonable when birth control was as difficult to come by as it was and the "rhythm method" was sometimes all that was on hand.
Should the father not wish to participate in the upbringing (skip out), it fell on the mother or society to attend to those four or five years of low utility. There was little guarantee that you would come to enjoy the larger benefits later, any bond less than parental being less strong or imposed by society. Unaccountable children were to be avoided and the expectation of having means before children were born was paramount. Men who would casually impregnate their neighbor could scarcely be expected to provide for a multitude all by themselves. The behavior that resulted in such an unmanageable brood was to be condemned. Unguarded innuendo was a conversation that led to financial ruin for the flattered maiden and society at large.
Therefore, if you wished to engage in adult activity, you were expected to either be a productive citizen, or to pair up with one. Parents of the aspiring lovers had a stake in these matters, neither seeking to raise the child themselves from a promiscuous dauhghter, or an impoverished man who could not see to their needs in their golden years, nor afford resources to feed and raise their grandchildren. It took time to sift wheat from chaff as well as determine if censure and pressure could identify a diamond in the rough. Choices were limited in days when sexual morality was developed. Taking it slow made for better decisions by the lovers-to-be, the parents, and the inner circles of all parties.
Ah, that was nice. History lesson over.
Birth control is inexpensive and readily available now. Babies are born on purpose, or through inattention.
A secular society allows most reluctant mothers to cancel the pregnancy in the middle, if they choose, even if it may mean a road trip across state lines. (just the facts on the ground, not pursuing the issue here)
The burden of sex on society is largely addressed; the bonding of marriage to protect society from rakes not as urgent. The recent angst about low birth rates may erode the concerns about single mothers someday to teh point of encouraging what was seen as reckless behavior previously.
Society has reflected this, and it should surprise no one who is not basing their whole lives around pious adherence to scripture. We have sex when we want it, like any other biological drive and just as we might temper out appetites for food out of caution against health problems, we'll need to attend to our libido with some level of cerebral engagement.
New Relationship Energy (NRE) is an intoxicant that can drive people to do very foolish things they later regret, just like alcohol or cocaine.
Unlike drugs, food is a pleasurable thing that absolutely must be partaken.
Sex is not necessary for survival, but abstinence, for healthy adults, can produce psychological obsession and distraction that is uncomfortable and potentially damaging to mental health, our employment, our social interactions and maybe out physical health as well.
So why is the condemnation of "free love" still there? Inertia, I'd assume.
