gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (01/26/85)
> From: ronbe@tekred.UUCP (Ron Bemis ) > Don't you think there are some bad marriages that wouldn't > happen if the couple had lived together first? I've heard from > divorced people who DID live together before marriage that that > little piece of paper makes a big difference. I don't know, I've > never been through it. It just seems to me that marriage is a > BIG change for anybody, and anything to make that change > smoother/slower/easier might help. > What does everybody think? I think that the reason that there are bad marriages are becuase the people didn't get married because they really loved each other and were willing to commit themselves to each other "for better and for worse", "in sickness and in health", "till death do they part". I mean, face it, those are the marr- iage vows if you were married by a priest or minister, and if you really be- lieve marriage to be the sacred bond that it is you will work to make those vows work. (Now, I know I'm probably going to get flamed by everyone who has been divorced, but I feel I've got to say this.) Too many marriages these days are failing because the couple didn't marry out of love and a desire to share their lives together *forever*, but because they were infatuated with each other, or one or both was lonely and needed someone, or one was dependent on the other, or the only way one would be able to have sex with the other would be through marriage, or some other reason(s) that don't add up to the promises stated in the marriage vows. You folks who got divorces ... I'm not trying to flame you or anything, but think about it! Those vows, they ought to be taken seriously, otherwise they are just idle statements. Some Christian friends that I know went through months of marriage counseling before they married -- they discovered, even though they were very much in love that they were not yet ready for marriage. Marriage should be entered thoughtfully, reverently, etc. (I don't remember that part of the ceremony.) Otherwise, what is it but just some random mumblings? Empty words. Anyhow, I feel a real flame coming on, but I think I'll quit now. But before I go let me say that no matter how much time you spend living together before you're married, unless you are really ready to *commit* yourself to the marriage, and to make it work, you could live together 500 years and your marriage still wouldn't work. Perhaps people who aren't ready to commit to marriage but enjoy living togeth- er should just live together. Better not to marry at all than to marry and divorce, I think. The number of divorces is just too high these days. Again, to all of you divorcees, I'm not trying to flame you, but just to try and get a little perspective on what marriage is all about, and how the vows take on their true meaning when things aren't going as well as they used to. Comments are welcome from everybody, please post. -- Baby tie your hair back in a long white bow ... Meet me in the field, behind the dynamo ... Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (01/30/85)
Greg, you wrote (in part)... > >You folks who got divorces ... I'm not trying to flame you or anything, but >think about it! Those vows, they ought to be taken seriously, otherwise > >Again, to all of you divorcees, I'm not trying to flame you, but just to try >and get a little perspective on what marriage is all about, and how the vows >take on their true meaning when things aren't going as well as they used to. >Comments are welcome from everybody, please post. >-- I have to ask, are you married? have you co-habbed? The very hardest, most tormenting thing about most of the divorces I have been close to (my own included) was revoking the vows. Most of us do not consisder ourselves failures and therefore when we are not able to honor prior committments it affects us. There are also many people who did not choose to get divorced, but rather their mates decided for them. Greg, you would better spend your time if you urged those contemplating marriage to consider it carefully, most divorced people know these lessons well. Peter Barbee
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (01/30/85)
In article <1091@houxm.UUCP> gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >(Now, I know I'm probably going to get flamed by everyone who >has been divorced, but I feel I've got to say this.) We'll keep the heat down-- promise.... >I think that the reason that there are bad marriages are becuase the people >didn't get married because they really loved each other Well, I agree-- to a point. Many people DO get married for the wrong reasons-- myself included. These people do tend to get divorced when the real reasons aren't enough anymore (myself included, again). The only reason to get married is to spend the rest of your life with someone, and to show that committment to everyone. Being pregnant isn't a reason, sex (good, bad, or in the case of virgins, non-existant) isn't a reason, religion isn't a reason, being in love isn't a reason. But there is another strong reason why many marriages fail. Many people (myself included) grow up with a very innaccurate view of love, and marriage, and relationships. Gene Kelly never got divorced. Richard Burton never got divorced, Rhett Butler, well, never mind, but you get the idea. The media shows that the aim is not to build a relationship, but to get married, and THEN THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER. Bull. But lots of people seem to believe it. Any relationship is hard (no pun intended) work, and a marriage involves more work because there is a permanence to it. The reason a lot of marriages fail is not because people don't love each other or don't believe the vows they take, but because they weren't willing or able to put the work into the relationship to keep the love from dying after they did get married. (myself included). Leo Buscaglia points out that you can go to college to learn about anything--except love. For some reason we are considered to be instant experts in one of the most difficult subjects ever invented, and lots of times we blow it. chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA God is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs
rsk@stat-l (Wombat) (01/30/85)
In article <1091@houxm.UUCP> gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >I think that the reason that there are bad marriages are becuase the people >didn't get married because they really loved each other I'll concur more-or-less with Chuqui on this one; people change. Sometimes they change in different directions, and marriages, just like any other relationship, go sour. Marriage vows don't make the relationship (much, any) different; they change the nature of the committent to that relationship, but not its basic substance. If two folks have a poor understanding of each other, getting married will not help matters; it may make them worse. For these among other reasons, I've decided that if I ever tie the knot (gasp! shudder!), the words "...til death do you part" will not appear in the ceremony. I think it's pretty bogus to make a promise contingent on one's emotional state years later...perhaps a better phrasing would be "...til it doesn't work anymore". A bit of a radical proposal, I know, but at least it's honest (for me). -- Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue Unix Wombat Group rsk@purdue-asc.arpa (decvax,ihnp4,uiucdcs)!pur-ee!rsk.uucp (decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax)!purdue!rsk.uucp I'm not one to advocate violence, drugs, and insanity, but it's always worked for me." ---Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (01/30/85)
> I think that the reason that there are bad marriages are becuase the people > didn't get married because they really loved each other and were willing to > commit themselves to each other "for better and for worse", "in sickness and > in health", "till death do they part". I mean, face it, those are the marr- > iage vows if you were married by a priest or minister, and if you really be- > lieve marriage to be the sacred bond that it is you will work to make those > vows work. Well, like it or not we do things for reasons. it may be more useful to ask ``what circumstances cause marriages to fail'' and what we can do about it. I'd like to offer a suggestion that comes, in part, from Ouchi's ``Theory Z''. We may be asking too much of marriage. In previous times, when you married you married into a family as much as you married an individual. The parents were a couple of miles (at most) away. The smaller, less institutional workplace and the NEED to depend upon the whole extended family (on the farm) or one's contacts in the community (in the small town) made relationships different from what they are today ... and with more limited expectations for the relationship of marriage and the need to depend on others anyway caused fewer marriages to dissappoint so miserably. I'm not a sociologist, so please feel free to take me to task on this. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
abv@pucc-h (David Stevens) (01/30/85)
> For these among other reasons, I've decided that if I ever tie the > knot (gasp! shudder!), the words "...til death do you part" will not appear > in the ceremony. I think it's pretty bogus to make a promise contingent on > one's emotional state years later...perhaps a better phrasing would be > "...til it doesn't work anymore". A bit of a radical proposal, I know, but > at least it's honest (for me). > -- > Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue Unix Wombat Group rsk@purdue-asc.arpa When I was getting married, the minister offered several variations on the basic vows -- one of them was "... 'til love has ended." At the time, both myself and my (then) fiancee felt that this almost assumed that it would not work, so we opted for "...'til death do us part." Of course, "... 'til love has ended" is the reality of it all, as I find out now during our divorce... -- ---------- David L Stevens {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:abv The opinions expressed above are not necessarily my own, or anyone else's.
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/31/85)
Ahem. There seems to be a general assumption here that if a marriage or a relationship ends, then something rotten has just happened. After all, the expression that has been kicking around here is ``the failure of marriage''. I think this aint so realistic, gang. We got enough people running around with rampant insecurity without labelling them failures. Face it -- I have needs now, and I will have needs in 5 years and I will have needs in 10 years. I have no guarantee that the person who fills my needs now will fill my needs in 5 or 10 years. I have no guarantee that the person who needs I fill now I will be able to continue filling in 5 or 10 years. I can work at it. But the minute I start *expecting* it, I am not loving, I am *clinging*. And clinging is bad news. I find it incredibly unreasonable of me to expect that any other person should sacrifice himself or his needs to meet my needs or for the sake of a ``relationship'' or for the sake of a ``marriage''. How can I love an institution more than a person? 2 years ago, and to some extent last year, was divorce year for my friends. I got to watch a lot of divorces. The real spiteful and awful ones were all where one or both parties felt that they had been betrayed because the other person was supposed to keep on filling needs forever -- after all that was why they got married! In addition to this (and if this doesn't make sense, think about it) both parties felt like failures because the marriage was not working. So there was a hell of an effort spent in saying ``well, it failed but it was all NASTY ROTTEN SO-AND-SOs FAULT!!!'' (except for a few masochists who wanted it all to be ``MY FAULT''...) This is all a viscious con. Relationships end. Marriages end. Some, of course, don't end. But, for the life of me, I can't see how it is possible to plan out your psychological, emotional, social and whatever needs so that you can keep having them met by your partner, and I can't see anything so wonderful about the institution of marriage itself which makes it worth sacrificing your needs. [Don't tell me that you are doing it ``for the sake of the other person'' ... if they were decent about it they wouldn't want you to make the sacrifice. If it isn't a sacrifice then it isn't a need, just a want which you don't want as much as the relationship, which is not what I am talking about...] Recently I got told something I have believed for a long time. [but more succinctly!] Relationships only last as long as both parties are willing to see them end. Hardly the established wisdom, is it? But I do guarantee that I would have seen orders of magnitude less guilt and anger if my divorced friends had remembered this one. And I suspect that most of them would now be friends with their ex -- which now sure isn't the case. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
ag5@pucc-k (Christopher Robin) (01/31/85)
<<Quotes just underneath this line.>> >>I think that the reason that there are bad marriages are becuase the people >>didn't get married because they really loved each other >Well, I agree-- to a point. Many people DO get married for the wrong >reasons-- myself included. These people do tend to get divorced when the >real reasons aren't enough anymore (myself included, again). The only >reason to get married is to spend the rest of your life with someone, and >to show that committment to everyone. Being pregnant isn't a reason, sex >(good, bad, or in the case of virgins, non-existant) isn't a reason, >religion isn't a reason, being in love isn't a reason. Well, now I'm confused ... I can understand why some of the reasons that Chuq has listed above should *not* be reasons to get married, but then what *are* valid reasons to get married? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Shooting stars never stop; even when they reach the top."
carson@homxa.UUCP (P.CARSTENSEN) (02/01/85)
If I ever get married, I'd like to write most of the ceremony, and would include something like "Fully realizing it is utterly ridiculous, romantic, and otherwise unrealistic to believe that what I feel for you is so special that there is no chance that at some point in the future I won't be utterly embarrassed by having to admit that this marriage didn't work out, I am taking the risk of saying 'til death do us part'" (ok it needs polishing...I got time) Patty (oh, yes, I also keep threatening to get married in jeans...if nothing else, it keeps my aunts off balance :-))
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (02/01/85)
> From: rsk@stat-l (Wombat) > In article <1091@houxm.UUCP> gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >> I think that the reason that there are bad marriages are becuase the people >> didn't get married because they really loved each other > I'll concur more-or-less with Chuqui on this one; people change. > Sometimes they change in different directions, and marriages, just like > any other relationship, go sour. This seems to be the case these days. 10-20 years ago, married couples seemed to be more willing to work things out. Nowadays, I guess with the women's liberation movement and other changing attitudes there's less pressure from family, friends, and society at large to keep a marriage working. > For these among other reasons, I've decided that if I ever tie the > knot (gasp! shudder!), the words "...til death do you part" will not appear > in the ceremony. I think it's pretty bogus to make a promise contingent on > one's emotional state years later...perhaps a better phrasing would be > "...til it doesn't work anymore". A bit of a radical proposal, I know, but > at least it's honest (for me). A lot of people seem to be writing their own vows these days. I guess that's the best thing to do if you're going to get married by the state and you're not sure that you can keep the traditional marriage vows. -- If you wanna ride, don't ride the white horse. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
jcgowl@ihlpg.UUCP (r. gowland) (02/01/85)
> excerpts from an item by.... > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura > > > Face it -- I have needs now, and I will have needs in 5 years and > I will have needs in 10 years. I have no guarantee that the person > who fills my needs now will fill my needs in 5 or 10 years. I have > no guarantee that the person who needs I fill now I will be able > to continue filling in 5 or 10 years. > Sorry to select only these lines, but it was a long item. My feeling on this that of course there is no guarantee, but (in my opinion) *LOVE* is a desire to grow together with another person. > I can work at it. But the minute I start *expecting* it, I am > not loving, I am *clinging*. And clinging is bad news. > I find it incredibly unreasonable of me to expect that any other > person should sacrifice himself or his needs to meet my needs or > for the sake of a ``relationship'' or for the sake of a ``marriage''. > How can I love an institution more than a person? > LOVE is (I agree) not clinging, but a desire to want to meet the needs of another person, not just in the near future, but until death parts you. What I am trying to say is that if you LOVE someone, you *will* continue to make the effort to satisfy the needs of that someone. It seems to me that a lot of people give up on this effort too soon, and that is (in my opinion) not LOVE. It is not "incredibly unreasonable" to expect the sacrifice from someone who LOVES you, LOVE includes sacrifices. I gave up bowling three evenings a week in order to save enough to buy a nice house. I gave up smoking cigarettes in an attempt to lengthen the (life)time I could spend with my wife. For LOVE these were not really sacrifices. > > This is all a viscious con. Relationships end. Marriages end. Some, > of course, don't end. But, for the life of me, I can't see how it is > possible to plan out your psychological, emotional, social and > whatever needs so that you can keep having them met by your partner, > and I can't see anything so wonderful about the institution of > marriage itself which makes it worth sacrificing your needs. > It is not the institution which counts, it is the LOVE for your partner which makes it all worthwhile. You can't plan your development (anyone in Software knows that) but if you LOVE someone
jcgowl@ihlpg.UUCP (r. gowland) (02/01/85)
SINCE IHLPG DECIDED TO POST THE INCOMPLETE ITEM, I SHALL CONTINUE IT HERE... It is not the institution which counts, it is the LOVE for your partner which makes it all worthwhile. You can't plan your development (anyone in Software knows that) but if you LOVE someone then you will meet their needs. If they love you then they will continue to meet your needs. Maybe I am in love with love I am definitely in love with my wife and we have changed considerably since we married in 1972. We continue to communicate our changing needs and because of love we continue to meet our changing needs. Sometimes we argue when we can't agree on a point, but love helps us together again. I must end this now before all you readers puke on your keyboards. Who is this sloppy sentimentalist? Its... ihlpg!jcgowl Roger R. Gowland at Indian Hill (temporarily) longing to get back to his wife and 3.6 kids in England. (fourth due last week in April)
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/04/85)
In article <1117@houxm.UUCP> gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >This seems to be the case these days. 10-20 years ago, married couples seemed >to be more willing to work things out. Nowadays, I guess with the women's >liberation movement and other changing attitudes there's less pressure from >family, friends, and society at large to keep a marriage working. Greg, I don't know if you realize what you said, but this is an extremely insulting comment to many groups, including divorced people, 'liberated' women (whatever that is) and most other people. Ten or 20 years ago, couples stayed together more than they do today. The reason for this was that women were financially dependent upon their men. They stayed home and kept house, he went out and made money. As women join the job market, they become more independent and no longer HAVE to take the garbage men have been feeding them for years. Look at things-- back then, men cheated on their wives, lied to them, beat them (and their children), and were generally nasty. Women were definite second class citizens, little more than unpaid nannies and sexual slaves. None of this is any different than it is today, in many ways, except women are now more able to survive on their own. If the alternatives are starving and a few bruises, you learn to take the bruises. Societal and religious pressures were also strong inhibitors. There were many, many marriages out there that would have been better off if they had been dissolved but weren't. 20 years ago I'd probably still be married and miserable. Now, I'm single and working towards a better situation. There are times when you have to realize that you've made a mistake and cut your losses. The alternative in business is bankruptcy, and in life the alternative is very similar. Marriage might have been made in Heaven (depending upon your pantheon) but marriages are put together by inperfect and changing humans, and somethings they don't work out. Believing otherwise is putting on blinders. You have'nt been through either marriage or divorce, Greg. You miss a perspective on the situation. What you say may sound good to you, but to someone who's been through the whole shebang, you are saying things in a very naive and simplitic form that isn't really correct. I'd suggest being very careful with how you say things in the future, or stick to things you have a better knowledge of. >> For these among other reasons, I've decided that if I ever tie the >> knot (gasp! shudder!), the words "...til death do you part" will not appear > >A lot of people seem to be writing their own vows these days. I guess that's >the best thing to do if you're going to get married by the state and you're >not sure that you can keep the traditional marriage vows. Well, if and when I do get married again, I'm going to keep the traditional vows. You can rewrite the words, but they really DO show the real meanings of marriage, and a marriage IS supposed to last forever. Anyone who thinks they can change what marriage is about by rewording the contracts is silly or doesn't really understand the concept of marriage. You can't make marriage less of a committment by changing the words. Words are reality, just reminders. chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Life, the Universe, and lots of other stuff is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (02/06/85)
For what it is worth (probably nil, seeing as the sample size is so limited): Of the group of people with whom I have social interactions (longtime friendships, etc.), the only couple who was divorced (and had a BAD divorce, at that) was the only couple who had lived together for some years prior to getting married. They married (as far as I know, from what they said) because the female's job was such that it would cause her problems if it was discovered that she was living with her SO unmarried. Admittedly, one of the worst reasons for marriage that I can think of.... Nonetheless, the history of mutual knowledge gleaned from the multi-year period of living together didn't insure a sucessful marriage, or keep them from marrying in mistake. They had a child, conceived after the marriage, which fundamentally changes the situation, of course, so maybe the prenuptual cohabitation isn't enough by itself to prove anything or demonstrate enough to be of much value. Anyway, here's a single data-point for consideration... Regards, Will
jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) (02/06/85)
[Aren't you hungry...?] In reference to maintaining a relationship over time: > I can work at it. But the minute I start *expecting* it, I am > not loving, I am *clinging*. And clinging is bad news. > I find it incredibly unreasonable of me to expect that any other > person should sacrifice himself or his needs to meet my needs or > for the sake of a ``relationship'' or for the sake of a ``marriage''. > How can I love an institution more than a person? > > Recently I got told something I have believed for a long time. [but > more succinctly!] > > Relationships only last as long as both parties are > willing to see them end. > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura > I'll buy that - subject to some thought. I have been running into this dilemma myself. On the one hand I feel a very strong desire to support my SO when she wants that support, while at the same time wanting to be sure that my own need of support is not an imposition - that her giving of support is actively voluntary. On the other hand, people don't read minds. You have to tell them that something is wrong and that they can help. This becomes a real problem when you both have needs which conflict at the same time. At that point, any relationship becomes a test of patience and a test of being willing to back off when that is necessary. It is also terribly important *not* to sacrifice yourself to someone. Speaking for myself, I find self-sacrifice for my sake very distressing. I emphatically *DON'T WANT IT.* I have yet to find a good solution to the dilemma except for the knowledge that relationships are things of compromise, which leaves me still feeling very leery about the implications of imposing your needs on someone who may not be prepared to deal with them. I think that I am like most people, in that I want simultaneously to make no concessions to dependency, but at the same time need/want the support of others. I suppose that just means I'm human. Regarding the quote, I sincerely believe that part of loving someone is being willing to let go sincerely if that is necessary, and to do so in the least hurtful manner possible. Footnote to this: most college relationships last less than 2 months. Mine have lasted 8-9 months on average. This isn't necessarily good. There is something to be said for variety at my age. But I think that at some level being stuck in the paradox I perceive at the moment is vital to having a relationship work. Any comments? Jonathan S. Shapiro Haverford College
aeq@pucc-h (The Blackguard of the West) (02/07/85)
Greg Skinner (houxm!gregbo) quoted Rich Kulawiec (stat-l:rsk), and I have a comment applicable to both their comments. >> For these among other reasons, I've decided that if I ever tie the >> knot (gasp! shudder!), the words "...til death do you part" will not appear >> in the ceremony. I think it's pretty bogus to make a promise contingent on >> one's emotional state years later...perhaps a better phrasing would be >> "...til it doesn't work anymore". A bit of a radical proposal, I know, but >> at least it's honest (for me). [Kulawiec] > A lot of people seem to be writing their own vows these days. I guess that's > the best thing to do if you're going to get married by the state and you're > not sure that you can keep the traditional marriage vows. [Skinner] I have seen more than one church wedding which was rather non-traditional, though the spirit of the vows was traditional. (In one wedding, all the principals were in Renaissance costume, including the minister!) I applaud Rich's honesty, but I would invite him to compare his contemplated vows with those of a couple (not the Renaissance couple) whose (church) wedding I attended in September. They wrote their own vows, in which they said (among other things) the following to each other (approximate quote from memory): "I will work for your fulfillment through all the changes of your life." Being unmarried myself, I will make no further comment. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "Head him off at the pass!" (advice by a mother to her daughter)
rsk@stat-l (Wombat) (02/07/85)
Rich Kulawiec: >> For these among other reasons, I've decided that if I ever tie the >> knot (gasp! shudder!), the words "...til death do you part" will not appear >> in the ceremony. I think it's pretty bogus to make a promise contingent on >> one's emotional state years later...perhaps a better phrasing would be >> "...til it doesn't work anymore". A bit of a radical proposal, I know, but >> at least it's honest (for me). Jeff Sargent: >I applaud Rich's honesty, but I would invite him to compare his contemplated >vows with those of a couple (not the Renaissance couple) whose (church) wedding >I attended in September. They wrote their own vows, in which they said (among >other things) the following to each other (approximate quote from memory): >"I will work for your fulfillment through all the changes of your life." Damning with faint praise, eh? Well, I've compared them. First off, I noted that they're both in English. Their vows contain more polysyllabic words; mine seem to have more of a working-class feel to them. And probably most importantly, they wrote theirs for *THEIR* wedding; we'll write ours for our own too. If you don't like them, why don't you say so? But before you do... note that they aren't for YOUR wedding. As a footnote...Chuqui, I disagree with your contention (oh, somewhere off in another net.singles article) that marriage is *supposed* to be lifelong. Maybe we're arguing semantics, but I don't think that marriage is *necessarily* intended to be forever---it's nice if it works, and hell if it doesn't. I certainly would never marry anyone who would not admit the possibility that someday we might have to part company. Maybe we need a new term--"Indefinite-Length Marriage" ?! -- Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue Unix Wombat Group rsk@purdue-asc.arpa (decvax,ihnp4,uiucdcs)!pur-ee!rsk.uucp (decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax)!purdue!rsk.uucp May you live in interesting times. -- Ancient Chinese Curse
jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) (02/07/85)
[Aren't you hungry...?] > Look at things-- back then, men cheated on their wives, lied to them, > beat them (and their children), and were generally nasty. > > > You haven't been through either marriage or divorce, Greg. You miss a > perspective on the situation. What you say may sound good to you, but to > someone who's been through the whole shebang, you are saying things in a > very naive and simplitic form that isn't really correct. I'd suggest being > very careful with how you say things in the future, or stick to things you > have a better knowledge of. > > chuq Number one, things (as Chuq pointed out) haven't changed all that much. Rape, wife beating, child beating, and all sorts of things have risen dramatically in the past 10-20 years. Tragic, yes, but so. Though Greg hasn't been through marriage (nor have I), his comments are valuable to some of us because even when they show lack of perspective: 1. He learns from them because people like chuq answer him (and me) 2. We all learn from them because we evaluate them, and for some of us we find that we see things in a new light built on awareness of someone else's being right OR wrong. I won't agree with keeping Greg quiet. I think the letters about Jeff Sargeant make the problems with that all too clear. I will agree that Greg's comments might have been phrased better and better thought through. The grave difficulty with the topic of marriage/divorce/living together is that it is all too easy to step on peoples toes without realizing it, and though I don't know from personal experience, a suspect it *HURTS* when your toes get stepped on ona topic like that. On the other hand, Chuq and others need to remember that reading this stuff is reading the opinions of people who may not agree with him or have his perspective. The consideration needs to go both ways, even when it's hard. Personally, it sounded like Chuq had a lousy day... Jon Shapiro Haverford College
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (02/09/85)
> From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) > In article <1117@houxm.UUCP> gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >> This seems to be the case these days. 10-20 years ago, married couples >> seemed to be more willing to work things out. Nowadays, I guess with the >> women's liberation movement and other changing attitudes there's less pres- >> sure from family, friends, and society at large to keep a marriage working. > Greg, I don't know if you realize what you said, but this is an extremely > insulting comment to many groups, including divorced people, 'liberated' > women (whatever that is) and most other people. I don't see how this is insulting, it happens to have some truth (others in this newsgroup have said similar things, and people I have spoken to in person have also said similar things). > Societal and religious pressures were also strong inhibitors. There were > many, many marriages out there that would have been better off if they had > been dissolved but weren't. 20 years ago I'd probably still be married and > miserable. Now, I'm single and working towards a better situation. Perhaps, but there are other marriages which are dissolving nowadays that with a little extra effort on the part of the couple could be salvaged. (Again, I'm not speaking for myself -- people I've spoken with have admitted this.) > You have'nt been through either marriage or divorce, Greg. You miss a > perspective on the situation. What you say may sound good to you, but to > someone who's been through the whole shebang, you are saying things in a > very naive and simplitic form that isn't really correct. I'd suggest being > very careful with how you say things in the future, or stick to things you > have a better knowledge of. Well, I wasn't posting this to offend anyone. I was trying to get some sort of handle on why there were so many divorces these days. I admit that I don't know everything. I'm sorry if I have rubbed salt in wounds. -- If you wanna ride, don't ride the white horse. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
dlb@stcvax.UUCP (David Black) (02/12/85)
one reason for living with the person that you love rather than marrying them that hasn't been mentioned is that: you refuse to accept the idea that the state (or a religion) has anything to say about who or how you love. David @ if this is Chapter 11, what's 12 like?
rogerh@arizona.UUCP (Roger Hayes) (02/24/85)
In article <pucc-h.1761> abv@pucc-h (David Stevens) writes: >... we opted for "...'til death do us part." Of course, "... 'til love >has ended" is the reality of it all, as I find out now during our divorce... I'd even go further. I'd say that "love" is just an emotion; I've ridden out enough emotional storms to doubt the eternity of any emotion, positive or negative. But it is possible for two people to start out life together in love and comitted to making it work, and for them to fail. This is a bitter truth. I don't know why it's so. I still believe in marriage; I still wish mine hadn't ended; but it did. Facing up to that reality was not easy, and it took quite a gradual time. I think the reality was that living together became just a hurt, just a reminder of the failure and lack of trust. It's time to get out when it hurts to go home. I'm glad to hear gregbo's idealism rampant, though. Hope springs eternal. Roger Hayes Tucson, AZ