Marriage

As an individualist and a free-thinker how do you feel about the institution of marriage and family? Do you think it's possible that the concept of marriage is outdated in a modern world?

A very important subject.

HELLO! Is there no one to continue this discussion?

I've researched the subject a lot, but I can't get my head around it in a definitive way. It would be nice if some folks would be bold enough to openly discuss this subject, at length, for the sake of the greater good.

It is a shame that Deist seldom converse about such matters that are more relevant, and have a greater impact in our daily lives, than politics or the existence of God.

Politics, less relevant????

In any case (sorry I've been busy today), I think the family and marriage will always be necessary as long as we continue to reproduce. It is the best support system for passing on one's genes to the next generation. Cold, perhaps, but think about it. It wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have children.

The problem with marriage is fidelity. How can we be so casual about breaking a vow or solemn promise? Infidelity risks the breakup of the family as well as being a hurtful behavior. Men and women have different reproductive strategies, so perhaps and open marriage (fidelity in reproduction but not sexual liaisons) might be better, at least for those who can handle it.

But for those that can't, either don't get married or keep your word. Our social ambivalence to being dishonorable in marriage through infidelity and unwarranted divorce, I believe is the wellspring for being so fast and loose with honor and the Truth in all other aspects of our lives (e.g. Bill Clinton).

I've been married for 26 years and we still get along. There must be something to it.

I can only attest for myself, but marrying my wife is probably one of the 2 or 3 best decisions I've made in my life. Probably number 1.

Left to my own devices I am much to ADHD to get anything accomplished, I truly feel that my wife keeps me grounded and focused.

There are times when it is hard, there are times when I am unhappy, but all things considered I am better off now than when I was single.

After reading all the accolades, I hesitate to admit that I am happily divorced!

I believe I gave it a fair trial - 17 years.

When the average life expectancy was 30 to 40, marriage "til death do us part" probably made sense. It provided a stable environment in which to raise one's children, hopefully before death arrived. It also worked better in an agrarian society, where the participants had little outside stimulus - physical or mental. Today, in addition to the physical temptations that might make fidelity difficult, there is the very real possibility that the two might grow apart intellectually.

That, too, was less of a problem when the man went out into the world but the woman stayed home. Only one was likely to experience any change in philosophy. And even as recently as 50 years ago, it was rare to find a person who changed his political affiliation, let alone his church membership during his lifetime!

Now we are in the "information age", which allows so much more personal growth for those who are interested in seeking knowledge. The odds are stacked against two people making such drastic life changes and doing it in tandem.

After 17 years (actually, long before that) we had grown apart. Staying together would have been a marriage of convenience rather than a partnership, so we went our separate ways. We are both still parents to our son, however, and are on amicable speaking terms - we just don't live together.

For those who find it comforting, marriage may still be viable. But for many, it is not.

Aaron wrote:

As an individualist and a free-thinker how do you feel about the institution of marriage and family? Do you think it's possible that the concept of marriage is outdated in a modern world?

Like everything else in this world, marriage must evolve to adapt to the changing environment. When ancient rules of marriage are rigidly applied to modern situations, extinction is nigh.

Paineful Truth wrote:

But for those that can't, either don't get married or keep your word. Our social ambivalence to being dishonorable in marriage through infidelity and unwarranted divorce, I believe is the wellspring for being so fast and loose with honor and the Truth in all other aspects of our lives (e.g. Bill Clinton).

You mean like Giuliani?

Following is an email text that I sent to an Indian friend who lives in New York; it starts off in the middle, but the context was her disputation with my assertion that all promiscuous sex is same as prostitution, and so the real problem for the society (if it is a problem, of which I'm not sure) is the prevalence of promiscuity:

Quote :

On the issue of sex, I meant to differentiate between sexual relationships on the one hand, and promiscuous behavior: such as having sex with someone on the first date, when one doesn't even know them properly, and without the intention of having a relationship with them. It doesn't matter whether the sex part occurs at the end of a 5 hour date; if sex is engaged with a stranger (whom one barely knows) and without the intention of cultivating a relationship, then that sex is no different than prostitution. The key to it is "promiscuity." Promiscuity is defined as: "indiscriminate and frequent intermingling or association, especially for sexual gratification, with multiple partners on a causal basis."
This is exactly what protitutes do; the fact that they make a profession out of it does not make it wrong at all; what is wrong (if it is wrong) is sexual promiscuity, and prostitution is merely a byproduct of a promiscuous society. Of course, it goes without saying that I'm not a believer in chastity or wait until marriage mantra; I believe in modesty: having meaningful and steady relationships that do not objectify human beings are mere sex objects; and keeping human sexuality in proper perspective: That is, the primary reason for the year round human sexual desire (unlike every other animal species who only desire sex for a brief period in spring) is to create an attachment between a couple such that it leads towards the social institution of "family." Marriage (unlike what the conservatives and progressives would have us believe) is not a social institution but a legal remedy--an extra protection to safeguard the rights, and to enforce the obligations, of spouses on each other for the sake of their children. After all, unlike all other animal species, a human child is unable to walk for atleast a year, unable to even protect itself before the age of twelve; and in todays society, it typically takes between twenty to tenty five years for young adults to fully standup on their own feet; not to mention that the most important reason for the attachment between spouses (created as a result of love making in human beings) is to socially enculture the child--who, inspite of their cute outlooks, are born narcissists. Is it a wonder that inspite of all the wealth and prosperity of the Western and westernized societies, there is still a prevalence of crime and (emotional) misery; that even with a closing of distance via telecommunication and transportation technologies, we feel so detached from each other, from the rest of humanity? The reason is that we are not in tune with our rational emotive self. The outwardly rational order of an industrialized society is deisgned to cater to fulfill our drives, which is clearly a good thing; but what we should not have surrendered, what we must not surrender, is our rational control over our emotive self; and frankly, all justifications for promiscuity, for drinking and all other forms of intoxication etc. etc. are mere rationalizations--not rational selfcontrol.

On the issue of polygamy and incest, you have to differentiate between politics and ethics. Politics is the system of control over other human beings; as such, the genius of Western civilization has been that it is the only civilization whose philosophers have persistently focused upon the idea of 'rights of man;' and the respective limitation on state authority. As such, it is perfectly clear (atleast from an individualist and liberal/libertarian point of view) that all forms of sexual contracts/marriages that are contracted voluntarily between fully informed and consenting adults, including prostitution, cannot be outlawed by the state. You have the inalienable right to your life, liberty, and property, and in this Lockean trilogy, the term "liberty" stands for the freedom of association (including all forms of marriages), communication, transportation, consumption (including heroine, cocaine, LSD, you name it), and production; the only restriction allowed are where such activity has a demonstratable harm on another human being, such as DUI. I'm not sure how many people would marry their own siblings or parents, the point is that they have the right to do so; and if a perverted couple shows up at the courthouse, the law must abide by their wishes to legally engage them in a sexual contract.

On the other hand, ethics is the study of proper norms and behavior within society. This is the scheme of voluntary restraint that we all must exercise voluntarily. It is what we expect of the various members of a society, or what the parents teach their children at home--for instance the mother telling her daughter not to dress up like a slut, if she does not want boys to treat her like one; or a father teaching his son to respect all women, and not to look at them as mere sex objects. Under a proper humanist ethics (methodoloically consistent) such activities as polygamy or incest may be frowned upon even as one has the right to engage in them; like all drug use, including the consumptin of alcohol, ought to be frowned upon, even as one retains the right to consumption. However, with regards to polygamy no criticism can be launched unless and until one criticizes promiscuity; but even then, polygamy is not synonymous with permiscous sex, and it can lead (in some cases) towards the establishment of functional families--so long as the underlying premise of the spouses is not sexual gratification but creation of a natural extended family.
NOTE: Polygamy includes both polygny (one man with several women) or polyandry (one woman with several man), and on the issue of polyamory my opinion is biased against such marriages (although, they ought not be restricted by law) since they do not necessarily create a viable family institution to the extent that such a marriage is primarily about multiple sex partners, and not about family as an institution to raise the future generation--and I don't consider it as a bisexual form of polygamy, to the extent that in my opinion a bisexual ought to simply choose a gender and stay with it. Divorcing all legal restrictions from the institution of marriage, it is paramount not to segregate marriage, gender, and welfare of children, from an overall discussion on the ethics of human sexuality.

On the issue of homosexual parentage, I have no problem with it at all; strictly speaking, there are no rational ethical reasons to discouage homosexuals from having children of their own and raising them in a paired family. It is actually very important that we encourage homosexuals to pair bond and create steady long term relationships for the greater good of the society; and of course, any such bonding is only good because it is the natural and most effective way of raising a child. Promiscuity is a social vice because it is a threat to the proper enculturation of human children, for it leads towards the breakdown of families; otherwise, there would've been no problem with it in the first place; after all, in the animal kingdom, parents and their offspring, and siblings, do have sex with each other quite casually and without much ado. But then all animal species enter their adolescence merely within a couple of years--all animal species, save humans.

Averroes, I believe promiscuity isn't inherently wrong or equivalent with prostitution. I don't believe it is harmful in and of itself, but may be an indication of shallow character if none of one's relationships go any deeper.

Quote :

You mean like Giuliani?

Yes, Giuliani, Limbaugh and Gingrich too, if their actions caused the divorce. If one cheats on one's spouse, they'll cheat on others as well. I do make a distinction between divorce and infidelity.

PA, I don't judge you and your individual situation, but I only point out the damage caused by divorce to the children--THE reason for marriage. I don't see a real problem if divorce occurs before children, but after, it is usually devastating, and increases the likelihood of divorce on to the next generation.

My wife and I were oceans apart philosophically when we married, and that gulf has widened since. But we were physically attracted, and we believed very strongly in our commitment to our children through the family. That was enough to get us to accentuate the things we do have in common which helps to allow for our differences which always exist in any relationship if we aren't stamped out by a cookie cutter.

As I've said, family and the raising of children is the primary reason for marriage, but there's an added benefit that's almost as important. It was a line from a movie that I don't remember, but another reason for the marriage bond is that we have someone who is an intimate witness to our life. That has stuck with me over the years since I heard it, and I believe it to be true now more than ever--but it is probably negated by living a hidden life of infidelity or remaining otherwise remote.

This, like so many other problems, goes back to not guiding our heart with our heads. Love is not an emotion, it is a commitment supported by emotions. Encourage those you have influence with to forget about star crossed, meant to be, "love" at first sight and to wait at least a couple of years together so you can really know the person you're about to promise to spend the rest of your life with; and that you're marrying them for who they are, not what you plan to change them into.

I hereby conclude this sermon.
Amen.

Very interesting, AVerroes, again I must reserve my right to reflect.

Quick point, like paineful, is to suggest that the equation of prostitution as a form of promiscuity is not quite correct.

Certainly I suppose one could argue that prostitutes are promiscuous.

But where it breaks down is when you analyze the partnership.

I think there is a world of difference between, say, a man who engages a prostitute, and, for instance, two consenting, promiscuous adults who end up (in best case scenario) of fulfilling each other's sexual needs.

I would argue that pornography and prostitution often, but not always, is the product of one consenting adult unable to find another consenting adult. Fortunes have been made through pornography and prostitution to address the case of consenting adults who seem unable to find another consenting adult to fulfill sexual desires.

So it's a very different scenario of having, for instance, a man resport to prostitution or pornography; then having, as it were, two promiscious partners who are actually successful at securing consentual (and hopefully wonderful) sex.

I just wanted clarify this. I think there will be a point to it when I'm finished mulling over the subject.

In my opinion, prostitution is just another form of casual sex, and promiscuity (defined, par excellance, by Samantha and the other three in Sex and the City) is not much different. The fact that prostitution/pornography is a profession is semantics. One has to only ask, what type of women (and men) engange in prostitution? And it is either those that've been sexually molested as children (or went through intense psychological and/or physiological abuse) or those who are sexually promiscuous (who may become that way either due to a lack of self esteem--due to the fore mentioned abuses--or lack of social/ethical considerations). Rarely does anyone who believes in stable relationships engage in prostitution.

Furthermore, money too is not a factor, otherwise all marriages with dowries would be similar to prostitution. But they are not. Money is non issue. It is the behavior that defines promiscuity and relates it to prostitution.

By that definition, I'd say that almost all of the modern western population is composed of sluts and pimps. And so the real issue is not whether prostitution is just another form of promiscuity, but whether promiscuity, in it of itself, is against the greatest good for the greater number?

NOTE: There is a difference between modesty and chastity, and I do not consider steady relationships as promiscuous.

I also recognize that prostitution does indeed play a, small, useful role within society; however, it can easily be substituted by polygamy.

Ultimately, the answer has to start from why are we sexual beings, and end with whether or not in today's society the institution of fatherhood has become redundant--that is, whether or not we need marriage as an adhesive to ensure that fathers stick around for the welfare of the children, and whether a single parent (either sex) can successfully raise a child on their own without?

When I say that I'm in doubt about whether or not promiscuity is a social vice, it is because I see circumstantial evidence that so long as a woman is not young, poor, and abused, that she can probably raise a child healthy child; which leads to the question, by what standards do we measure the normalcy of a childhood; what manifestations, or ethical and moral criteria, would define a (psycho-socially) healthy individual? It is based upon this that we'll ultimately decide whether or not promiscuity is a vice and whether or not marriage is obsolete?
Either way, marriage would never go away, if only because nature has selected us to pair bond, and subconsciously the sexual, emotional, and economic advantages of marriage do not elude us.

Paul Anthony wrote:

After reading all the accolades, I hesitate to admit that I am happily divorced!

Nothing wrong with that!

Interesting points by everyone.

One thing just occurred and that is the need for a family (particularly a large family) in traditional agrarian cultures compared to modern culture. To a certain degree, a large family was necessary for personal survival in an agrarian setting. That's not the case in a modern setting however. In fact, in many cases having children can make life more difficult.

So it seems that a lot of the need for procreation stems from the more basic need of self preservation. If procreation is no longer needed for self preservation, then perhaps the need to procreate will begin to wane as we continue to evolve.

Well, the need may not be there, but I don't think that's enough to keep people from having sex. Let's face it, the threat of horrible disease, or even death, isn't enough.
If anything, the lessening of a need for large families will change our culture's attitudes about the very purpose of sexual activity. In fact, I think it has already, just look at the "sexual revolution" of the last century.
Sex as a culturizing force is arguably more powerful than sex as, merely, a means to survival. Sex has always been a huge part of mythology, but it was always from the standpoint of fertility and rebirth. Those mythological archetypes will begin to lose their power as sex becomes more of an accepted form of social expression. Sex, in this new age, becomes less of a spiritual thing, and more of a material thing. Less religious and more directly cultural.

Aaron wrote:

If procreation is no longer needed for self preservation, then perhaps the need to procreate will begin to wane as we continue to evolve.

Yes, I don't have statistics at hand but I can safely say the number of children per family is (on average) lower in industrial societies than in third world countries - except where religion influences the decision (Mormons, for instance).

Uriah wrote:

Sex, in this new age, becomes less of a spiritual thing, and more of a material thing. Less religious and more directly cultural.

I would argue that perhaps the opposite is true. Rather then having sex for the express purpose of procreation as in traditional society, in this new-age/post-modern society, sex between life partners becomes more of a way to share intimacy and love (on top of filling the need for carnal lust from time to time).

I guess one can make the same argument about procreation as well. Rather then having children out of material need, one has children out of want and love.

Quote :

I meant to differentiate between sexual relationships on the one hand, and promiscuous behavior: such as having sex with someone on the first date, when one doesn't even know them properly, and without the intention of having a relationship with them. It doesn't matter whether the sex part occurs at the end of a 5 hour date; if sex is engaged with a stranger (whom one barely knows) and without the intention of cultivating a relationship, then that sex is no different than prostitution.

So let's just say, a widow and a widower, both in their 60s, were at, let's say a deist retreat, and myself, having been put in charge of entertainment, had hired Peter, Paul and Mary, and they were holding hands, and grooving to the beat, and then deside to go back to the cabin for a nightcap, and gosh, by golly, after years in the desert, suddenly they find INdian summer in the desolate winter of their sex lives.
Mr. Averroes. Again, please reiterate, what is so morally repugnant about this act. First date 'n all!

Helium wrote:

So let's just say, a widow and a widower, both in their 60s, were at, let's say a deist retreat, and myself, having been put in charge of entertainment, had hired Peter, Paul and Mary, and they were holding hands, and grooving to the beat, and then deside to go back to the cabin for a nightcap, and gosh, by golly, after years in the desert, suddenly they find INdian summer in the desolate winter of their sex lives.
Mr. Averroes. Again, please reiterate, what is so morally repugnant about this act. First date 'n all!

There is nothing wrong with it in of itself. However, the behavior is much like prostitution where two parties voluntarily engange in sex momentarily. And as I've said: the real question is whether or not promiscuity is wrong due to its consequences? If we look at the state of the Western societies, can we say that we are better off with a prevalence of casual sex; that it hasn't had a detrimental effect?

These are not rhetorical questions; I'm genuinely conflicted about it. Part of the reason is that my superego (based upon my cultural upbringing) reminds me of why sex is a taboo, but then my libido is sex crazed and, well.... So, please don't take my initial diatribe as a definitive statement--it was mostly an elaboration of what I think are the relevant points to discuss. And I think it is paramount that we start off on the right foot by identifying that the real problem, if any, is promiscuity, of which prostitution is a symptom.

In otherwords: Don't blame McDonalds for the obesity epidemic; blame the people who are not making healthy choices. If we decide to eat healthy, the fast food menu will change to meet the demand.
And on that I'd like to reiterate that lets just leave the government out of the discussion (just in case you or anyone else may think that the state in its infinite wisdom has the right to legislate healthy cusines served from drive thrus).

Quote :

If we look at the state of the Western societies, can we say that we are better off with a prevalence of casual sex; that it hasn't had a detrimental effect?

I believe you are still under the influence of anti-Western morality bias to a degree. I'll take Western society over any other available, particularly the US. Freedom, after all, is defined as the right to be stupid on your own dime.

Which brings up the one criticism of casual sex that hasn't been touched on and that we do tend to downplay here: that sex can cause children no matter how careful you are, and that children suffer from the lack of a family with a mother and a father. This isn't to say that a single parent, or even a same sex couple shouldn't have children, only that it is less desirable--even if the child is inherently homosexual (if we could know that in advance). And of course there are hetero couples that shouldn't be let anywhere near children.

For an excellent, and light-hearted, example of how an unplanned pregnancy should be handled, take in the movie Juno.

So the point averroes is making is that sexual appetite can be likened to food appetite, to some degree.

There is no doubt that sexual appetite is best controled like that other appetite.

What tends to happen if sexual appetite is not controled in some way, in the animal kingdom, is that focus is more and more on weapons needed to secure sex, i.e. big antlers; or even colourful feathers on peacocks or whatever.

So I do agree with AVerroes, in principle, that sexual appetite needs control.

And I agree with him that it's individual control.

So I totally agree that McDonalds is not to blame for obesity, it's the individual.

And that it is also up to the individual to control sexual appetite.

So what is then left to define, I think as AVerroes stated, is what is appropriate sexual conduct in regards to both the individual and the society.

And that is the point I continue to mull.

MIND - BODY - SPIRIT

Like it or not, we are composed of the above trilogy!

Many people ignore their spiritual side, and the life that results is perhaps less satisfying than it could have been.

It seems many people today pay less attention to the health of their bodies, and the result is obesity and disease.

And, of course, " A mind is a terrible thing to waste".

Christianity and Islam have created a sense of shame surrounding sex. While I'm sure it is intended for procreation, it also can provide an almost spiritual bond between participants. But whether we are seeking oneness with another human being or merely seeking physical satisfaction, it is a natural part of who/what we are.

Ignoring the needs of the body, the mind or the spirit will cause physical, emotional and psychological discomfort. All three are important. All three are a part of what it is to be human.

Paineful wrote:

I believe you are still under the influence of anti-Western morality bias to a degree. I'll take Western society over any other available, particularly the US. Freedom, after all, is defined as the right to be stupid on your own dime.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

Painegful wrote:

Which brings up the one criticism of casual sex that hasn't been touched on and that we do tend to downplay here: that sex can cause children no matter how careful you are, and that children suffer from the lack of a family with a mother and a father

This what I'm saying and wondering out loud.

Paul wrote:

Christianity and Islam have created a sense of shame surrounding sex. While I'm sure it is intended for procreation, it also can provide an almost spiritual bond between participants. But whether we are seeking oneness with another human being or merely seeking physical satisfaction, it is a natural part of who/what we are.

I can agree with the above with certain qualifications. I loath to make it personal, but I think it could better illustrate the dilemma we're facing.
If your son became a plumber or a mechanics, or a janitor, I'm sure you'll not object to that profession in itself. You may wish him to do better in his life, but you'd find no qualms with the profession of plumbing or construction etc. etc. However, say you had a daughter who decides to become a prostitute (and lets step aside the obvious dangers of that profession, such as violence and disease, and focus on the behavior itself), would you feel the same kind of apathy towards her profession?
NOTE: If you're going to say that it is not your place to tell a grownup women what to do with her life, then let me ask, would you encourage a young girl to adopt prostitution as a profession just as you may encourage her to become an actor, singer, or a lawyer?

My question is why are we uncomfortable with our daughers and sons making a living as prostitutes?
And, if prostitution is a vice then so is promiscuity (for they are virutally identical); after all, not only due we frown up drug dealers but also those that engage in drugs--so why should it be any different for sex?
In my opinion the distinction between prostitution and promiscuity is arbitrary. Thats like saying that a pornstar is not a prostitute?

Quote :

Ignoring the needs of the body, the mind or the spirit will cause physical, emotional and psychological discomfort. All three are important. All three are a part of what it is to be human.

Yes, and that is why I'm not sure whether promiscuity is wrong--and if it is not then neither is prostitution. Conversely, if prostitution is ethically wrong, then so is promiscuity.

Also, I'll reiterate the fact that I do not necessarily equate non marital sexual relationships with promiscuity; so long as the focus is on mutual respect and dependibility until one is ready to marry and start a family.

In my opinion, the divorce of sex and family is the reason for the breakdown of family. I'll elaborate that momentarily

Quote :

Christianity and Islam have created a sense of shame surrounding sex.

Yes, and the list probably longer than those two.

I mean to keep using my example. If you lose control over your physical appetite, well you just get fat in some stern islamic societies.

If you lose control over your sexual appetite, you can get stoned.

And it's especially worse for women.

I mean, like AVerrroes said the problem with obesity is not McDonalds, it's the people who go into McDonalds eat (i.e. me and my son).

But with islam and other religions it basically doesn't use the same logic.

I guess the logic is that if a women's sexuality is not strictly conceiled, it could impair a man's ability to be chaste.

Yet, of course, like a man must have control over his appetite or he'll get fat, a man must also have control over his sexual appetite.

On the other hand, if you analyze what people are eating it can definitely be an indicator whether optimum health is being maintained in a society, which it isn't in ours, obviously with obesity being a huge problem in Canada and I guess in the U.S.

And so, I think as Averroes is suggesting, if you look at sexuality in our society it can also reflect whether optimum health is being maintained. And I agree with Averroes that optimum sexuality is definitely not being maintained in our society, when you look at the video games and music videos out there, and the fact that hard core porn is now easily accessible through your cable.

And so not to get off topic, but I'm still mulling over a healthy sexuality. Certainly, I think PA's last post is obviousy succinct that a healthy sexuality is not just good for a healthy body, mind and spirt, but indeed ESSENTIAL.