Why marriages fail today

[testerman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KUGP...ayer_embedded#!

[Full Frontal]

TL;DW

[King of the world]

Polygamy/polyamory is the best logical biological choice for heterosexuals.

[King of the world]

btw I didn't watch the vid, but if it has little to do with a lack of people being with multiple partners/wives knowingly then I doubt I'll agree with it. I'll watch it a bit later. Gimme a run through of the vids content 1st if you want.

[StepUp]

because they marry before they taste their freedom, and when they want to do something by themselves, their wifes\couples stop them to do that.


jealousy also plays an important role, but it is not like jealousing your partner from opposite sex, people need a free space. at least i need something like that if i marry. and if it is hard to talk that kind of things with your partner, it leads to miscommunication and ends up with divorce...

[testerman]

Originally Posted by Dr Josef Mengele

btw I didn't watch the vid, but if it has little to do with a lack of people being with multiple partners/wives knowingly then I doubt I'll agree with it. I'll watch it a bit later. Gimme a run through of the vids content 1st if you want.

It's a pretty fascinating treatise on society as a whole.

[Nero]

So basically he's saying that marriages started because of necessity, and now that they're no longer needed, it's a "problem" that we're not still getting married for no reason?

Monogamy isn't natural. Human beings were never meant to have one partner and stay with them for life. The idea of two people getting together and staying that way for life, with neither of them cheating on eachother, or "living happily ever after" isn't real. It's something from stories and films and television. It's a cultural archetype in western society. But that's all it is. An idea. An entertaining, idealistic fantasy.

A person no longer needs to stay in a marriage to survive economically, nor is it still a social taboo to get a divorce. The fact that, when given the choice, most people choose to end their marriage only shows that it's not natural. It's just something we had to do for a while at a certain point in history, which eventually became a staple of our cultural ideal.

[plorntstar]

watched the first 30 seconds or so

the guy in the video is a fucking idiot and has no idea what he is talking about

marriages fail because most people are irresponsible and stupid.

[LiquidIce]

Originally Posted by Chi

So basically he's saying that marriages started because of necessity, and now that they're no longer needed, it's a "problem" that we're not still getting married for no reason?

Monogamy isn't natural. Human beings were never meant to have one partner and stay with them for life. The idea of two people getting together and staying that way for life, with neither of them cheating on eachother, or "living happily ever after" isn't real. It's something from stories and films and television. It's a cultural archetype in western society. But that's all it is. An idea. An entertaining, idealistic fantasy.

A person no longer needs to stay in a marriage to survive economically, nor is it still a social taboo to get a divorce. The fact that, when given the choice, most people choose to end their marriage only shows that it's not natural. It's just something we had to do for a while at a certain point in history, which eventually became a staple of our cultural ideal.

You could argue that the institution of marriage came in handy way back in the days. That way a single couple could produce much more offspring and give care to much more offspring than a couple who splits up. Also, for an example, take a look at the life of medieval peasants - high infant mortality death rate and children were very helpful around the house, so having huge families with like 10-15 kids was a pretty damn good thing to have. A women can only give birth to 1-2 kids per year at most, thus reaching that 8 children count required a couple to stay together for at least 10 years and that's not counting the time required to rear the kids.

But things have changed. I think what happened is actually the other way around than how you described it - our societal environment has changed so much that a 'natural' thing like monogamy, which has served our species for thousands of years, just doesn't fit in anymore and that's why people are choosing polygamy. Same could be said about obese people - because it happens in much larger numbers today than yesterday doesn't mean it's natural, it means our environment changed so much and so quickly we're not able to cope with the rate of changes.

[ratfrink]

Read 'The Naked Ape' by Desmond Morris. In it he explains that humans do indeed form lifelong pair bonds naturally. I don't think polygamy is natural at all. I certainly don't want to be polygamous, at least.

The book's from the 1950s though, so it's unsurprising that it's quite conservative.

Also inb4 'its wimmens fault' and 'men arent men any more'

[Bruce "fuck jews" Willis]

Another important factor in determining the direction of evolution, and perhaps ultimately the only factor that needs to be considered, is reproductive success. In order to pass on its genes to the next generation an animal has to do more than just survive the environment; he or she has to mate successfully with a member of the opposite sex and raise offspring who themselves will be reproductively successful. Individuals who do not breed are doomed to genetic extinction.

Now in this domain it is clear that the optimal strategies for males and females are quite different. At least this is so for mammals, in which the burden of child production falls on the female. In mammals, the offspring grow inside the body of the female and are dependent on her for succour for some time thereafter. Later on in life the protection of two parents may be better than one, but that is usually much less essential. Generally speaking, mothers invest more in their offspring than do fathers.

For the male, multiple partnerships may be profitable. Theoretically he has the capacity to impregnate several females at the same time, or at least in quick succession, so that their periods of pregnancy overlap. He invests little time and energy in the act of fatherhood and it is therefore to his genetic advantage to distribute his sexual attentions widely. If there is any chance at all that some of the offspring he has sired will survive to sexual maturity themselves, then he maximizes his breeding potential by sequestering several mates or even behaving promiscuously, moving quickly from one female to the next. Impregnating the 'wrong' female at one time (one that is not ideally 'fit', genetically speaking) does not preclude getting the 'right' one pregnant on another occasion. Millions of male sperm are generated for every one egg produced by the female, so wastage is relatively unimportant. Whereas a woman produces only a few hundred eggs in her entire lifetime, a man could theoretically fertilize every woman in Britain with a single ejaculation. This capacity is inevitably associated with the evolution of polygamous urges in men.

Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 20-21. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992.

Some food for thought there. Glenn Wilson has a lot of interesting theories concerning sex and sexuality worth having a few thoughts and discussions over.

As for the video, it was unimpressive. Not one of Dr W.P's better ones.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Because people are ignorant of this type of marriage.

Please stop descending to biology for answers and start ascending higher. We haven't been animals in a long, long time and evolution is about improvement.

[Nero]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Because people are ignorant of this type of marriage.

Stopped reading at the title.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Chi

Stopped reading at the title.

Your loss.

Where did you get the idea that humans aren't meant to be monogamous when we have been for pretty much all of recorded history, and successfully too?

EDIT: Here is a writing by a writer that should have much, much more credibility in your eyes than the aforementioned one but basically says the same thing.

[The Better Version]

This makes sense and its something I've been arguing for a long time. Social changes for women is directly correlated to industrialization. However, this doesn't mean anything bad or good. It's merely a natural response to the changes in our life styles. That's why I think its funny when Conservatives scream and complain about it. Even if you got rid of feminism and rolled back legislation on women's rights, you'd still have to contend with the fact that the traditional male and female role is no longer needed. If conservatives really wanted to change this, they would have to destroy the post industrial society, in its entirety. They're merely attacking the symptoms of what they call "a problem". But like I said, its neither good or bad. It's just a change in society.

[Jeff Gatherer]

if people are in a relationship long enough to qualify for common-law, what's the point of tying the knot? Marriage turns a relationship into a legal/emotional/financial liability.

[Bakayar]

Marriages have been failing for as long as the tradition has been around, only differences nowadays is that divorce is more of an option than it used to be and so you also hear about it more.

[Ebola]

People take too much for granted and don´t know the work and commitment required for maintaining a steady relationship.

[Nero]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Your loss.

Your opinion.

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Where did you get the idea that humans aren't meant to be monogamous when we have been for pretty much all of recorded history, and successfully too?

I'm talking pre-civilization. Pre-culture. The bodies and minds that we are in now were made to fuck multiple partners. That's what cavemen did.

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

EDIT: Here is a writing by a writer that should have much, much more credibility in your eyes than the aforementioned one but basically says the same thing.

Jung is absolutely useless for psychological development. After giving him a read I can see why he's been so heavily criticized for letting his western values and biases greatly compromise his research.

[nutsack]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Where did you get the idea that humans aren't meant to be monogamous when we have been for pretty much all of recorded history, and successfully too?

After a few years together it becomes far less natural and far more work. I believe there is a biological drive to move on nearly as strong as the drive to stay together in the first place. It makes evolutionary sense for people to stay together long enough to have a child and raise it through it's first years, then start to become interested in other partners again

[The Better Version]

Originally Posted by nutsack

After a few years together it becomes far less natural and far more work. I believe there is a biological drive to move on nearly as strong as the drive to stay together in the first place. It makes evolutionary sense for people to stay together long enough to have a child and raise it through it's first years, then start to become interested in other partners again

I would have to agree. You can't underplay the psychological effects of society and I totally believe society played a role in the promotion of monogamy. From a survivalist standpoint, this makes more sense. I don't think its natural to marry, let alone only one person because our society is proof enough that this is not natural. If its in our genes, then the evolutionary change of marital relationships wouldn't be nearly as fast paced as it is today. If you really think about it, changes in marital relationships only began to occur around the 1800's, which co-incidently began to occur during the industrial revolution. So if it had to do solely with biology, the changes would have taken longer than a period of a hundred years or so.

[reject]

Because some dickhead decided it'd be a good idea to give women rights.

[The Better Version]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Your loss.

Where did you get the idea that humans aren't meant to be monogamous when we have been for pretty much all of recorded history, and successfully too?

EDIT: Here is a writing by a writer that should have much, much more credibility in your eyes than the aforementioned one but basically says the same thing.

You're looking at this from a personal standpoint rather than a scientific. Biologically, it makes more sense to practice polygamy, since it only increases the chances of human survival and since every other mammal does this, is it that hard to believe that perhaps, we were also meant to do this? Now, the counter argument could be "Well, we have complex emotions and thought, too and yet, no other mammal in the World has what we have." This is true but perhaps the combination of nature and our complex thinking is what caused us to believe that monogamy was the right thing to do. Perhaps we shaped our own psychological understanding of relationships to accommodate monogamy simply because it is seen to be "moralistically" better?

This can also be backed by History. If you look at ancient studies and to archeology, you'll notice that relationships were very different than they are today and over time they tended to evolve with the circumstances of the time period. The fact that our values in marriage can change over time and the fact that they did with the introduction of industrialization suggests that nature doesn't provide us with a valuation system for our relationships, such as the idea of monogamy. Otherwise, our understanding of relationships would be uniform across time.

The key to figuring out whether or not something is effected more so by nature over nurture is to look at the uniformity of a particular concept across time and to see how often it changes.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by The Better Version

You're looking at this from a personal standpoint rather than a scientific.

Oh, you're right. I forgot about the math equations and biological processes that make for a happy relationship...

This thread is full of people who are proud to consider themselves monkeys, and are justifying it with science. You people who use purely biological cues for your relationship decisions are the reason marriages fail today.

LOVE ISN'T SCIENTIFIC. FACT.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Chi

Your opinion.
I'm talking pre-civilization. Pre-culture. The bodies and minds that we are in now were made to fuck multiple partners. That's what cavemen did.

Marriage = Love =/= Biological drive to fuck. Go live in a cave if that's where you get your cues for how to live your life. How self-deprecating can someone be?

Jung is absolutely useless for psychological development. After giving him a read I can see why he's been so heavily criticized for letting his western values and biases greatly compromise his research.

"As is well known, one understands nothing psychological unless one has experienced it oneself."
-Jung

Some people will just never get it...

[The Better Version]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Oh, you're right. I forgot about the math equations and biological processes that make for a happy relationship...

This thread is full of people who are proud to consider themselves monkeys, and are justifying it with science. You people who use purely biological cues for your relationship decisions are the reason marriages fail today.

LOVE ISN'T SCIENTIFIC. FACT.

First off, I'm not proud to to be a mammal...If anything, it saddens me to know that all of my emotions and interactions with the World are a result of things that I have very little control over. Society and nature shaped my persona as well as my perception of reality. Now, I have to work diligently to de-construct them....Quite a life long journey.

Secondly, love is a part of science just as everything is a part of everything. One of the most beautiful things about life is how everything is interconnected with each other. You can't explain why you love monogamy but science as well as other disciplines, can and this drive towards the ultimate truth should be cherished not shunned upon.

Wouldn't you love to know whether or not your desire for monogamy is a result of society or your own conjuration? Don't you want to know why you are the way you are?

By the way, I'm not in disagreement with you. I like monogamy because it can accommodate the desires that most women have. Most women want a meaning out of a relationship. Most women want only one guy and because of my deep respect for women, I'm ok with practicing monogamy. For me, I consider it to be a fair compromise. I promise not to have multiple partners and she promises to have sex with me. We both win because at the end of the day, I get sex and she gets a faithful and loving boyfriend/husband.

[DJ Meaty Cheeks]

I watched the first three or four seconds and stopped because I detected massive faggotry ahead.

"As time goes on its getting harder and harder..."

[thatsMYdog]

Humans are wired to be monogamous to an extent. Women KNOW a child is theirs. Men don't. Men not only need to have sex with many women. If the children he thinks his partner is having aren't indeed his then there's really no point to any of it right? That's where monogamy comes in and that's why men tend to be moreprotective/jealous/unforgiving as women. Because they don't know and they really need to in order to continue his family line. Hope this makes sense

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by The Better Version

it saddens me to know that all of my emotions and interactions with the World are a result of things that I have very little control over. Society and nature shaped my persona as well as my perception of reality.

You'll never deprogram yourself if you continue taking your 'truth' from authority figures and not personal experience.

Secondly, love is a part of science just as everything is a part of everything. One of the most beautiful things about life is how everything is interconnected with each other. You can't explain why you love monogamy but science as well as other disciplines, can and this drive towards the ultimate truth should be cherished not shunned upon.

I don't shun science, I love science for all the progress it has brought into the world. Love, however, is a completely subjective experience and that is something science has no jurisdiction in. Ever heard of the humanities? They are what is used to try and convey, express, explain Love.

Wouldn't you love to know whether or not your desire for monogamy is a result of society or your own conjuration? Don't you want to know why you are the way you are?

I can explain why I love monogamy because I know what Love is and it makes me want to stay with one person. In fact, this spiritual drive supersedes my biological drive quite easily. Perhaps it's an issue of psychological (spiritual) maturity that many people lack until they are much older?

By the way, I'm not in disagreement with you. I like monogamy because it can accommodate the desires that most women have. Most women want a meaning out of a relationship. Most women want only one guy and because of my deep respect for women, I'm ok with practicing monogamy. For me, I consider it to be a fair compromise. I promise not to have multiple partners and she promises to have sex with me. We both win because at the end of the day, I get sex and she gets a faithful and loving boyfriend/husband.

The thought never crossed your mind to put a faithful and loving girlfriend/wife as a more important priority in life than a vagina you can have sex with?

[mr.poopypants]

What about love? Haha.

[The Better Version]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

You'll never deprogram yourself if you continue taking your 'truth' from authority figures and not personal experience.

[I don't get my ideas from authority figures. I get it through academic study, which has a system that is supposed to express honesty and truth (In theory, at least)].

I don't shun science, I love science for all the progress it has brought into the world. Love, however, is a completely subjective experience and that is something science has no jurisdiction in. Ever heard of the humanities? They are what is used to try and convey, express, explain Love.

[I think the humanities and for that matter, other subjects that can help us understand reality is crucial. We need all disciplines in order to get a full picture of what it all means. Humanities is a good way to get a different perspective on love but, it is not the only perspective and therefore it should not be solely relied on, when trying to understand love. A combination of the two seems to be a better route, for me at least.]


I can explain why I love monogamy because I know what Love is and it makes me want to stay with one person. In fact, this spiritual drive supersedes my biological drive quite easily. Perhaps it's an issue of psychological (spiritual) maturity that many people lack until they are much older?

[I don't think it has to do with age because there are plenty of old people out there who probably believe in the same ideas as I do. Nice attempt to try and insult me. It was very subtle and muted. . Anyway, I think its great that your spiritual drive supersedes your biological drive. Whatever works in allowing you to understand reality is crucial to your development and even though I disagree with it, I can't argue against it because we don't know enough about ourselves, yet.]


The thought never crossed your mind to put a faithful and loving girlfriend/wife as a more important priority in life than a vagina you can have sex with?

[No, because I love everyone, not just one single person. My love for my family and friends as well as girlfriend is no different than my love for humanity. The only difference is, I know them at a more personal level and because I interact with them on a day to day basis, its important to consider how they feel about things. I know my girlfriend doesn't want me to hook up with other girls because she'll get hurt as will I because she was hurt. So I guess in a way, I am putting a faithful and loving girlfriend before a vagina since I've had plenty of opportunities to have sex with other women. I put her feelings first, before mine and that's my expression of love. Not ownership of a woman, in which I can call her my own. If she wants to have sex with other men, I'm perfectly happy with it because I don't expect love from her. I want it. But, I don't expect it. That's unconditional love, right there.]

[BrokeProphet]

We are moving towards a more secular society. It is not as much of a social disgrace to divorce as it once was.

And we do have more choices today than we did, with better communication, ability to meet people, and more people.

Marriage is no longer needed for our culture and society to thrive so we have made it less important.

[靠rent-a-jew輩]

Originally Posted by Dr Josef Mengele

Gimme a run through of the vids content 1st if you want.

thisYOUTUBE]I7swLLdF7ns[/YOUTUBE]

[King of the world]

Most divorce filers are women, they are natural born home-wreckers.

'These boots are made for walking': why most divorce filers are women

1. MF Brinig 1 , z and
2. DW Allen 2

1.
1College of Law, University of Iowa, Boyd Law Building, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
2.
2Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University
3.
zCorresponding author
4.
Fax: (319) 335 9098
5.
E-mail: margaret-brinig@uiowa.edu

Abstract

Because of the financial and social hardship faced after divorce, most people assume that generally husbands have instigated divorce since the introduction of no-fault divorce. Yet women file for divorce and are often the instigators of separation, despite a deep attachment to their children and the evidence that many divorces harm children. Furthermore, divorced women in large numbers reveal that they are happier than they were while married. They report relief and certainty that they were right in leaving their marriages. This fundamental puzzle suggests that the incentives to divorce require a reexamination, and that the forces affecting the net benefits from marriage may be quite complicated, and perhaps asymmetric between men and women. This paper considers women's filing as rational behavior, based on spouses' relative power in the marriage, their opportunities following divorce, and their anticipation of custody.

* Oxford University Press

http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/126.abstract