# The devils



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm new to this site and I'm amazed at the high quality posts, over and over again. 

The site is obviously biased toward making successful relationships and marriages. 

But I'm curious whether there are characters here or websites like this one that take the opposite view, that is, espouse things like:

-All relationships eventually go downhill and typically can't be fixed. 

-Marriage is an outdated institution and should be avoided.

-We need to learn to live alone and be happy individually.

You know, the really negative perspectives.

I would like to know not out of a deire to play such a role here but to discover a different model for relationships which reduces dramatically the incidences of all the problems people describe here. I mean after all, this forum itself portrays a very negative current situation which people have been working at for many years... fixing marriages and relationships. 

Isn't it time for a totally new model?


----------



## AlexNY (Dec 10, 2009)

publicme said:


> ...
> -We need to learn to live alone and be happy individually.


Western civilization is usually presumed to be the most individualistic of all successful human cultures. The equation is:

Me >>> you > us

While it would be possible to stress "me" even more strongly than we already do, marriage probably would not survive.

The model you are proposing may be workable, but marriage would not be a part of it.


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

Could be that most of the REALLY HAPPY people don't feel the need to come and "vent" their happiness on the internet. This site is not a reasonable representation of society as a whole.


----------



## Momof3kids (Nov 24, 2009)

publicme said:


> I'm new to this site and I'm amazed at the high quality posts, over and over again.
> 
> The site is obviously biased toward making successful relationships and marriages.
> 
> ...


IMHO, most people come here to vent like niceguy said and talk about potential solutions to what they're dealing with. They may not always like what they hear from others, but it provides them with information, advice, and input. You'll certainly find those who have very strong opinions about many things, but I have yet to hear anyone say anything really, truly negative about marriage as an institution. 

I'm curious what your suggestion is for a totally new model...


----------



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

nice777guy said:


> This site is not a reasonable representation of society as a whole.


So, people go online and talk when there's problems. People don't general go there to say how happy they are about this or that, or how they love life. Or, maybe they are just enjoying life online doing projects. Misery loves company so people with problem join together talk about it and try to find solutions. 

But seems the ratio of failed-to-successful relationships / marriages exceeds 50%. Need data on whether or not the vast majority of relationships are failures. If so, this would be the norm, so we should plan on the norm happening to us. This would suggest more closely negotiated relationships where the price of exit remains very defined and controlled... (just thinking what an alternative model might be... And ah, I've read the best books on polyamory and I don't think it's a real good option.)


----------



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

Momof3kids said:


> I'm curious what your suggestion is for a totally new model...


I don't know. I'm just exploring this idea. 

Maybe marriage and relationships aren't as systematically problematic as I imagine. In this case, work with the traditional approaches.

But an alternative might involved something where couples are more defined with what they're getting into and how to get out with the minimal pain and suffering if failure occurs. In other words, divorce because so commonplace, it's the norm so society is much better at dealing with it. New methods from before marriage to failure become more commonplace.


----------



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

AlexNY said:


> The model you are proposing may be workable, but marriage would not be a part of it.


I don't have much of an idea of alternative model but defined "marriages" would likely still be a part of it. If traditional approaches work for some, retain those approaches for those who chose them. Maybe if some good practices are followed before and during marriage, the success rate can be much higher. But we have thousands of therapists working on this and the problem still seems to be growing over the past 40-50 years. 

The new model would not attempt to fight the current trends. It would try to work within this fragmented model and suggest new ways to build new structures, though likely they'd be more fluid, changing structures.


----------



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

I believe the root causes of all these problem point in two directions.

First, people fail in marriages and relationships for the same exact reasons businesses, organizations, any groups fail: They don't have the basic skills required for effective relationships. This is on what I will call the "functional skills" side.

The other side is what we might call "abnormal psychology"... This is where no matter whether the partners have the skills of being effective in any type of group, their relationships / marriages are bound for failure because one of the two, or both, partners have some psychological "issues". I'm pretty sure that many relationships are continued not because the partners are going a good job at it, but because their sick psychologies compliment each other. Call it relations of dependence. Oh, they can last a long time, but are they healthy? It's essentially one of the partners being so needy that they manipulate the other... and the other goes along because they derive some other positive benefits that make it worth it. 

Not sure where my point goes from here.


----------



## Momof3kids (Nov 24, 2009)

I think it all goes back to definitions of marriage and commitment. Societal expectations have changes so dramatically over the past century or so that I don't think we've found a good way to reconcile these expectations with the "traditional" ideals. 

Of course, you need also consider that marriage in Western culture is a different creature than in other cultures as well as something that has markedly changed in the last 250-300 years in terms of purpose, intent, etc.


----------



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

Momof3kids said:


> ...marriage in Western culture is a different creature than in other cultures.


Are they so different, or maybe those cultures are simply less modern. 

Is the west's "traditional" model very different from the east's? 

For me, they are the same, or at very similar. Different dogmas, same basic structures.


----------



## 63Vino (Dec 23, 2009)

As far as cultures go, there are two different thing or dynamics as i see them anyway.. There is the openly stated idea than you get married til death blablabla, have kids and be like your neighbors... all good. Then there is the collective intelligence or progressivness of a society which brings or fosters acceptance and tolerance for other ways. Based on my life experiences I would reject the idea that north america, us in particular is "more modern", JUST the opposite. I thnk we are stuck to these ideas to the point we torture ourseves and torture our neighbors to hold that line and we are willing to go to great pains to keep to these ideas, feel ourselves failures if we dont live up to the "standard"..

You may have guessed already but i think thats all crap.

I do strongly believe in relationship and love, but i dont think that either one is measured by our adherence to this process (marriage blabla) outlined in my opening paragraph.

A functioning relationship is where two people are together, 100% open to love, honest with each other, not afraid to expose who they realy are, accepting, tolerant and forgiving.
That has NOTHING to do with marriage, its pure togetherness and love. Marriage after or if one attains that, is inconsequential.


----------



## Momof3kids (Nov 24, 2009)

publicme said:


> Are they so different, or maybe those cultures are simply less modern.
> 
> Is the west's "traditional" model very different from the east's?
> 
> For me, they are the same, or at very similar. Different dogmas, same basic structures.


Ironically, the western "traditional" model really isn't traditional, but more a development of the last 250 years. Marriage based on love is a relatively new phenomenon. Only since about 1750 was love the basis for marriage - prior to that, marriage was a social and familial contract designed to improve your social and financial standings as well and ensure inheritance rights. Love might develop over time, but it was not the reason that people got married. In addition, marriages for a lifetime had a very different meaning. With the average life expectancy around 40 years of age for much of history, "till death do us part" was much more of an imminent reality. The possibility of being married to the same person for 50, 60, or 70 years was very remote. Most people could expect to have 2 or 3 marriages during their lifetime, largely out of necessity. 

With the development of love-based matrimony, the social and familial contracts were not diminished until the advent of the women's rights movement in the 20th century. As the movement developed and individual rights exceeded social and familial responsibilities in importance, marriage as an institution took a significant hit. I think we're still trying to deal with the "fallout" if you will. Longer life spans, balancing individual and family responsibilities in a modern culture, etc. 

In many eastern cultures, those social and familial responsibilities have been maintained over individual rights. Divorce is not acceptable in many cases. I don't see that as less modern - I see it as a cultural difference...

Did I ever mention that I'm a historian by profession?


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Hm, I'm pretty sure I once wrote here that I was thinking of writing a book called "The End of Marriage," but maybe I deleted it before posting. 

MO3K, I'm an historian too. Yes, most people are not aware how "non-traditional" our concept of marriage is. Also, the nuclear family is not all that old, either--when you consider how many people have had relatives, step-family, servants, etc., living in their household, even in American history. And our concept of privacy? Very "new." 

OP, I think it would be fun to have a discussion of alternative models. I love your analysis on functional skills and abnormal psychology, and after being on this site for over one year, I agree it is probably spot on. 

Two of the most common assumptions reached here are, first, that the person who leaves (or has an affair) is dysfunctional and, second, is always considered "more" at fault than the person who wants to maintain the marriage. I'm surprised at the number of people who want to be with someone who clearly does not want to be with them, who cannot seem to accept that while it is sad to realize we are not loved by someone we love, it is not a tragedy--death of a loved one is a tragedy; people growing and changing is normal and often quite healthy. When two people grow and change in different directions, or one grows and the other doesn't, separation is the obvious solution. Kids are not hurt by happy, mutually respectful parents living in 2 separate households--the evidence of that is now totally incontrovertible. so it is not divorce that is damaging--it's how you HANDLE or respond to divorce that is damaging. 

Yet it is very clear from this site that a lot of people remain locked in the understanding of marriage as the only acceptable model for sexual relationships and child-rearing. They continue to believe outdated theories about the supposed biological foundations of marriage/attraction--like the idea that a woman looks for characteristics that demonstrate a man is a "good provider" because she needs to be "taken care of." The idea of a prehistoric woman being "taken care of" by a single spouse cracks me up, really. Most people seem to have no idea of the economic significance of women's work in pre-industrialized societies! 

Anyway, I suspect there are discussions of this topic and we just need to find them--or make our own. I'd be willing to start a blog if no one can find something already out there. Let me know what you want to do--we can at least keep this thread open for discussion.


----------



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

Momof3kids said:


> In many eastern cultures, those social and familial responsibilities have been maintained over individual rights. Divorce is not acceptable in many cases. I don't see that as less modern - I see it as a cultural difference...


Nor was it acceptable in Western history prior to "love" marriages. I still see it as cross-cultural, traditional vs. modern issue. While easterners do see themselves far more as members of group, or families, like it's genetic, let's admit: They are still very far behind the developed western nations in so many ways. In general, they STILL don't have basic human rights freedoms. Come on, look at China. Much industry and many features of modern society, but hey, they are still living in a very long past, dying world. Exceptions of course, soom Asian nations are far more modern, yet I can't name one.


----------



## publicme (Mar 4, 2010)

It seems that we have a new, modern tradition of marriage, and I'd put it more in the past 50 years. It's called widespread divorce. It's a growing recognition that marriage represents a highly problematic institution that goes wrong at least as much as it works, causing loads of pain and suffering for many along the way, for a lack of knowing how else to approach our lives, for lack of a viable alternative model.

I have one possible approach which I may throw out there for discussion but first I'll wait for feedback from others in a different forum. Yet, I probably won't because I expect I'd be judged by sharing a possibility, where people think it's what I want when it's merely an idea for discussion.

I did read "The Ethical ****" and at first "polyamory" seemed interesting but I feel that if we can't manage one relationship, how can we manage multiple relationships at once. I think it's a rare person who can do this, so let them have their try. But for most, it seems that it needs to be worked out at the individual to individual leavel, in a "traditional" family context, mother, father, kids, extended family.


----------



## 63Vino (Dec 23, 2009)

publicme said:


> It seems that we have a new, modern tradition of marriage, and I'd put it more in the past 50 years. It's called widespread divorce. It's a growing recognition that marriage represents a highly problematic institution that goes wrong at least as much as it works, causing loads of pain and suffering for many along the way, for a lack of knowing how else to approach our lives, for lack of a viable alternative model.
> 
> Well that's well said
> 
> ...


We'll see


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

I've started a blog for anyone interested in continuing the discussion of marriage as an institution--endofmarriagetrad.blogspot.com

For some of us, the essential question seems to be: SHOULD marriage be saved? If the question bothers you, you probably won't enjoy the blog--but you are welcome, nonetheless. It is not intended to be a knee-jerk, reductive feminist attack on marriage, but rather a thoughtful discussion of the topic.

Hope to see some of you there.


----------



## lastinline (Jul 21, 2009)

*Kids are not hurt by happy, mutually respectful parents living in 2 separate households--the evidence of that is now totally incontrovertible. so it is not divorce that is damaging--it's how you HANDLE or respond to divorce that is damaging.*

That's an incredibly big if sisters359. What my experience has shown me is that your premise is the exception and not the norm. Mixed families in my observation generally seem to be more chaotic. Notice the increase divorce rate amongst subsequent marriages. Surely this increased risk factor for divorce is at least partly related to what I termed "chaos". Metaphorically, it is always hard to fit the pieces together from two separate puzzles.

Furthermore, to ague it is "not the divorce that is damaging, but how you HANDLE or respond to divorce that is damaging", this is also a tad misleading. I'm not suggesting intentionally, but you're still off nonetheless. 

It is sort of like stating that it is not the bullet that is primarily damaging, but where you are shot that truly matters. Yes, this is partly true, but it is also partly false. Yes, I would rather be shot in the leg than in the head, but friggin ouch either way. Furthermore, all bullets are not equal. I would rather be shot by a BB gun in the back of my head than a 50 cal in my leg.

What I'm trying to say is divorce is damaging. Read any number of random posts on TAM, and you'll find that is a pretty much a universal conclusion. Yes sisters359 there are ways in which it can be properly handled that minimize damage. The problem is that even when these "better ways" are chosen the whole process still hurts. 

I also understand that when the person eventually heals, they may even find that they are even better off than they were before in terms of happiness and satisfaction with their new relationship. However, they still have scars as do their children.

It is just my opinion sisters359, but unless their is abuse, adultery, or addiction, divorce is never the better choice. So does my post make me a hypocrite? Perhaps, but mostly just sad.

LIL


----------



## 63Vino (Dec 23, 2009)

sisters359 said:


> I've started a blog for anyone interested in continuing the discussion of marriage as an institution--endofmarriagetrad.blogspot.com
> 
> For some of us, the essential question seems to be: SHOULD marriage be saved? If the question bothers you, you probably won't enjoy the blog--but you are welcome, nonetheless. It is not intended to be a knee-jerk, reductive feminist attack on marriage, but rather a thoughtful discussion of the topic.
> 
> Hope to see some of you there.



Thanks for the invite sisters (if i was invited haha) Honestly.
But honestly i just started out giving my personal opinion that true commitment can exist with or without the legal or religious documentation of such. That commitment is way deeper.

[End reply to sisters]


I dont really care to engage in a big long discussion about the institution of marriage.. I dont really care about "IT". Again. i care about what it takes to have an honest open loving man woman relationship. Thats just me. There are other versions that i accept willingly as peoples right to choose.

And in that all of our blabbing for lack of a better word wont really mean anything in the end.. I dont see the point.

Also Im not saying marriage is bad.. JUST that it comes much after the relationship is established NOT before. FOR ME personally.
Cant make everyone happy.. but i can make me happy and of course I decide what that means.

When i say "I" I really mean one. I think everyone has that right to decide whats best for them.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

LIL: I never said there was not hurt--sadness hurts. But damage is a different thing--and your bullet analogy is not, IMO, useful b/c physical pain, inflicted with an intent to harm, is a different entity. I also think that your bullet analogy is very telling, b/c I think an accidentally broken leg is a more accurate analogy. And perhaps therein lies the difference--some people see the marriage as broken. Others see the marriage being broken as an intentional action by their spouse's to inflict harm. When one or both parties believes that the other is intentionally trying to inflict harm, things tend to go badly--especially for the kids.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

> And in that all of our blabbing for lack of a better word wont really mean anything in the end.. I dont see the point.


I tend to learn what's best for me in part through my discussions with others--I'm not trying to change the world, just trying to find a way for myself. And, frankly, I just enjoy the exchange of ideas, even if they don't change anything!


----------



## Momof3kids (Nov 24, 2009)

sisters359 said:


> Two of the most common assumptions reached here are, first, that the person who leaves (or has an affair) is dysfunctional and, second, is always considered "more" at fault than the person who wants to maintain the marriage. I'm surprised at the number of people who want to be with someone who clearly does not want to be with them, who cannot seem to accept that while it is sad to realize we are not loved by someone we love, it is not a tragedy--death of a loved one is a tragedy; people growing and changing is normal and often quite healthy. When two people grow and change in different directions, or one grows and the other doesn't, separation is the obvious solution. Kids are not hurt by happy, mutually respectful parents living in 2 separate households--the evidence of that is now totally incontrovertible. so it is not divorce that is damaging--it's how you HANDLE or respond to divorce that is damaging.


Sisters - I agree with this for the most part. I will respectfully disagree with your statement on incontrovertible evidence that divorce is not damaging, however. There are many statistics about how divorce affects the emotional health, physical health, academic achievement, future relationships, etc. Statistics are not my favorite source, however, because they can be twisted to fit any point of view. I do agree that how you handle your relationship (whether within a marriage/long term commitment or in a divorce) is what makes all the difference in the world. 



sisters359 said:


> Yet it is very clear from this site that a lot of people remain locked in the understanding of marriage as the only acceptable model for sexual relationships and child-rearing. They continue to believe outdated theories about the supposed biological foundations of marriage/attraction--like the idea that a woman looks for characteristics that demonstrate a man is a "good provider" because she needs to be "taken care of." The idea of a prehistoric woman being "taken care of" by a single spouse cracks me up, really. Most people seem to have no idea of the economic significance of women's work in pre-industrialized societies!


I wonder what the response would be if the reality that female contributions to pre-industrial societies (and industrial and modern and post-modern, etc.) have often outweighed male contributions was accepted by more people.... I think that many people remain tied to "traditional" models of sex and child-rearing within marriage for a variety of reasons - religion, social and familial pressure, but also for lack of a better ACCEPTED model...



publicme said:


> Nor was it acceptable in Western history prior to "love" marriages. I still see it as cross-cultural, traditional vs. modern issue. While easterners do see themselves far more as members of group, or families, like it's genetic, let's admit: They are still very far behind the developed western nations in so many ways. In general, they STILL don't have basic human rights freedoms. Come on, look at China. Much industry and many features of modern society, but hey, they are still living in a very long past, dying world. Exceptions of course, soom Asian nations are far more modern, yet I can't name one.


How about Japan? That might be a good example.



publicme said:


> It seems that we have a new, modern tradition of marriage, and I'd put it more in the past 50 years. It's called widespread divorce. It's a growing recognition that marriage represents a highly problematic institution that goes wrong at least as much as it works, causing loads of pain and suffering for many along the way, for a lack of knowing how else to approach our lives, for lack of a viable alternative model.
> 
> I have one possible approach which I may throw out there for discussion but first I'll wait for feedback from others in a different forum. Yet, I probably won't because I expect I'd be judged by sharing a possibility, where people think it's what I want when it's merely an idea for discussion.
> 
> I did read "The Ethical ****" and at first "polyamory" seemed interesting but I feel that if we can't manage one relationship, how can we manage multiple relationships at once. I think it's a rare person who can do this, so let them have their try. But for most, it seems that it needs to be worked out at the individual to individual leavel, in a "traditional" family context, mother, father, kids, extended family.


Publicme - I see where you're coming from with the idea of marriage in the last 50 years, but understand that I'm saying that the root of those problems partially lies in the development of a love-based marriage. The last 50 years (actually I'd say about the last 60-75 years) have drastically changed families, marriage, divorce, etc. You'll get no argument there. However, I don't believe that marriage as an institution can be blamed for that - I'd argue that this is actually a bigger issue of "keeping up with the Joneses", closed minds, and attempts at forcing ethical/moral beliefs upon others (i.e. the growth of the religious right), among other things.

As a person in an open relationship (not really so much polyamory as we each have a single extramarital partner, but I don't think that diamory/biamory is a word  ), I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on an alternate model. You might be judged, but you might also stimulate some very significant discussion among the folks on this board. Never know until you try...


----------



## lastinline (Jul 21, 2009)

sisters359 said:


> LIL: I never said there was not hurt--sadness hurts. But damage is a different thing--and your bullet analogy is not, IMO, useful b/c physical pain, inflicted with an intent to harm, is a different entity. I also think that your bullet analogy is very telling, b/c I think an accidentally broken leg is a more accurate analogy. And perhaps therein lies the difference--some people see the marriage as broken. Others see the marriage being broken as an intentional action by their spouse's to inflict harm. When one or both parties believes that the other is intentionally trying to inflict harm, things tend to go badly--especially for the kids.


Interesting and intelligent response as always sisters359. However, I choose "C". Personally, I see my marriage as broken. Choice "A". I also register the fact that my spouse is currently quite intentional and deliberate in her actions and desire to inflict harm. Choice "B". So, in the Venn diagram that is my life, both of these circles readily overlap, and it is not a simple choice between one column or the other. Therefore, I choose "C". All of the above. 

You are right though, it is hard on the children, because the primary relationship, that between the husband and the wife has been mortally compromised. Ultimately, that is the relationship that serves as the cornerstone for the stability of a family.

LIL


----------

