Down with Divorce

[Trailblazer]

Or the ideal of monogamous, stable, romantic commitments was always an illusion, propagated by religious dogma, not based in biological reality?

I don't think it is an illusion as I think that these kinds of relationships were more the norm in the late 19th century and early 20th century.
I think these relationships reflect Christian values, at a time when Christians lived according to their religion.

There are enough examples of successful long term relationships that indicate that we can make it happen but there are also enough counterexamples to indicate that we shouldn't expect that to be a norm or "hardwired into our instinctual human psyches".

I do not think that successful long term relationships are "hardwired into our instinctual human psyches." I believe they have to be learned, and they are learned from religion, parents and society.

I do not think that we should expect that to be a norm until society changes, placing less emphasis on self and passion, and more emphasis on what religion teaches.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is "modern". The ideal of monogamy goes back into the bronze age but wasn't practised everywhere. The Qur'an allows four wives and Mohamed (rules for thee but not for me) had eight.
Mormons revived "Biblical" marriage rules exactly in the time frame of your preferred shows.
In human history (and pre-history) monogamy is the exception, not the rule. (We even have an example of polyandry in a matriarchal society in Asia.)

Okay, but are you suggesting that we should revert to living the way people lived in the ancient past?
Can you tell me why you think that a man needs more than one wife, or a woman needs more than one husband? (if that is what you think).

No, I'm just saying that monogamy is neither "natural" nor (universally) "sacred".

It does not matter to me if monogamy is natural. I for one do not want to do what is "natural." I want to live according to my higher spiritual nature.
I also do not care if monogamy is universally sacred. A monogamous marriage is sacred to me.

 

[flowerpower]

Or the ideal of monogamous, stable, romantic commitments was always an illusion, propagated by religious dogma, not based in biological reality?

Or both?

Like, maybe it hasn't been so much an illusion as it has been an ideal that has withstood many millennia.

Many millennia of enforced "religious dogma" or social tradition in practically every society on earth = a biological shift towards hardwired instinctual human psyches that you refer to below (or maybe I was the first to bring that up in this thread?) -

There are enough examples of successful long term relationships that indicate that we can make it happen but there are also enough counterexamples to indicate that we shouldn't expect that to be a norm or "hardwired into our instinctual human psyches".

Fair enough.

I'm pro-pursuing the ideal of successful monogamous long term relationships.

Prior experiments with polyamory, solitude or an abandonment of any sort of sexual morality in favor of a kind of sexual nihilistic, hedonistic anarchy has been really destructive for both myself and others that I've seen engage in it.

I know modern psychology pushes the idea of "self-worth" a lot these days but I suspect that it's a consequence of the relatively sudden dissipation of people assuming that successful monogamous long term relationships are the way to go and the path to fulfillment.

Ultimately, the sexual revolution that took place several decades ago was an enormous force for good but it's also proven to have had incredibly dark sides to it with a lot of serious problems that haven't been properly figured out in the way that our society operates - those things are really rearing their ugly heads in the 2010s/2020s.

Maybe I'm too sensitive a soul, but I struggle to have the heart to keep up with the modern world. I feel really damaged by my youthful exuberance, folly and hijinks lol.

Oh well - better to grab the cat by the tail than die wondering or whatever.

Man - really mashing together idioms this morning.

My internal thesaurus is working overdrive too - "youthful exuberance, folly and hijinks" wtf? lol

Probably all this relationship, romance and sexuality talk - I need a cold shower or some something.

 

[Heyo]

Okay, but are you suggesting that we should revert to living the way people lived in the ancient past?
Can you tell me why you think that a man needs more than one wife, or a woman needs more than one husband? (if that is what you think).

I don't think people need polygamous relationships. For some it may work out and be the preferred way to live for others not so much.
I'm just saying that there is no "right" and certainly no "wrong" way. It should be a personal choice.

 

[Heyo]

Many millennia of enforced "religious dogma" or social tradition in practically every society on earth = a biological shift towards hardwired instinctual human psyches that you refer to below

I don't think natural (or in this case, artificial) selection works that fast.

(or maybe I was the first to bring that up in this thread?) -

That's why I put it in quotes:

Maybe that makes me brainwashed by fairy tales, Disney tropes or (dare I say) "The Patriarchy" - or maybe I've just had enough experience and maturity in this life to know that commitment to a companion is something that is so hardwired into our instinctual human psyches that it feels vital.

Fair enough.

I'm pro-pursuing the ideal of successful monogamous long term relationships.

Prior experiments with polyamory, solitude or an abandonment of any sort of sexual morality in favor of a kind of sexual nihilistic, hedonistic anarchy has been really destructive for both myself and others that I've seen engage in it.

I won't argue with someone who has more experience than me, at least not about their life choices.
It's only if you you want to generalise your experience into a common law or rule.

Man - really mashing together idioms this morning.

My internal thesaurus is working overdrive too - "youthful exuberance, folly and hijinks" wtf? lol

Probably all this relationship, romance and sexuality talk - I need a cold shower or some something.

It's called adaptation or empathy. You react to your environment.

 

[flowerpower]

I don't think natural (or in this case, artificial) selection works that fast.

That's why I put it in quotes:




I won't argue with someone who has more experience than me, at least not about their life choices.
It's only if you you want to generalise your experience into a common law or rule.


It's called adaptation or empathy. You react to your environment.

Yeah I'm absolutely not in favor of governing human relationships by common law or rule - that idea is archaic and totally incompatible with post-sexual revolution western society; it actually comes across as beyond creepy to me to even suggest such a thing would be applicable to the west today in any form whatsoever (reminds me of incel cultures *shudders* and extremist 21st Century reactionaries).

I just accept that the sexual revolution had a lot of very serious psycho-social repercussions that we still haven't even come close to figuring out yet. And it's resulted in a lot of extremely dark incidents and movements either directly or indirectly.

That's why, at my age and level of experience interacting with the world, I've drawn the conclusion that good old fashioned passionate monogamy with an appropriate person is absolutely worth striving for and that it's at least forgivable if I decide to allow a portion of my self-worth to depend upon it.

I think guidelines might be a good idea.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I guess you don't watch any of the TV programs that I watch, Little House on the Prairie, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, and The Waltons,
These do not take place on 'modern' western society, they take place in the late 1880s and early part of the 1900s.
There was a time when monogamous, stable, romantic commitments were the norm, nobody ever has sex until they get married, and divorce was a rarity.
One reason I like these programs so much is because I like to imagine what it would be like to live in a moral society.

Maybe that is true, but so what? Are you suggesting that it is better than monogamy?

All those TV programs...and many more...are fiction, specifically modern fiction written to create a certain view of relationships in the modern historical era...

And having spent a bit of time researching the family trees of myself and relatives, let me assure you there was plenty of premarital sex, unstable families, and unromantic relationships (rape, incest, etc.) Divorce was a rarity, but it was hardly unheard of...as was the sudden disappearance of usually the male in the relationship, with a legal declaration of death several years later, so that the woman could remarry. Records often show that said gentlemen often reestablished themselves elsewhere under slightly different names and proceeded to raise families of their own...in a number of cases with women to whom they were not legally wed...

Life was never as romantic and pure as you make it sound...

 

[Trailblazer]

Life was never as romantic and pure as you make it sound...

Probably not, but it is still nice to dream about what life could be like.

 

[stvdv]

Marriages should have term limits (3-5 years) where the participants must actively choose to extend the commitment. They should constantly evaluate and reevaluate the legal, financials and personal entanglement, and decide whether the partnership is working to support their needs as an individual, as a parent, as a partner, and whatever else the persons involved deem important. Get rid of divorce. Give us re-enlistments!

The solution is simple:

Take a decision and do it

Improve Will Power, not swayed by your desires
That's what's meant by "Free Will" (capitalized)