Doesn't Marriage go Completely against Nature?

[NickBe]

I have not read any pop psychology books. The human mind is weak and your behaviors, thoughts, beliefs, morals are formed by how you are raised. If you are raised in America a place in which the romanticized notion of love runs rampant then you will probably believe in marriage. It does not make it natural it is just what you have been programed to think. If you take off your pink rosy glasses and look out into the real world then you might see the truth. You know the truth? it takes a real mind to see the truth not one formed by years of social culturing.

Don't come to me with that crap that if you do not believe in love and monogamy you are rejecting your own feelings and that doing so is unnatural. What is unnatural is for you to let yourself be programed by societies crap and not have a mind of your own. When you do take off those pink rosy glasses you will see that romance ends and married/monogamous life become dull and boring. Then you will do what the other heavily socially cultured men do, cheat, have a mid-life crisis or join a swingers club. The problem with you is that your notion of love is what you see in movies, my notion of love is what I see in reality. I have yet to see a happily married couple, I know 50% divorce, I know 80% cheat to me it is pretty clear cut. Humans are not meant to be monogamous. Even if we have been culturally programmed to think monogamy is the key it isn't. Those of us with strong enough minds realize this and live our lives accordingly. Married men just sit back and envy people like me. Don't say I am full of myself either, I managed by the age of 21 to become a millionaire (or very close to it) and to sleep with over 70 women a lot of which are married. I have been told many times by my married friends that they envy me. I have had literally hundreds of married men tell me to never get married which I find funny.

So you can take your mid-life crisis, your boring marriage and your socially predestined life. Me I am just the guy that will be sleeping with your wife when she gets bored of you.

 

[NickBe]

Every human civilization that pulled itself past the stone age also had the societal concept of durable pair bonds. Argue about what this does or doesn't mean all you want. Doesn't mean I like it, I'm just a neutral observer here.

PS - for an emotionless guy you sure seem to get all fired up over nothing.

PPS - I'll be happy to be proved wrong, after all I'm no history geek, I could well be off on this. Name a few, say, 5, civilizations that advanced from stone-age to let's say, pre-industrial without aid of the concept of something very like marriage. Go.

I can name a few, I will just name countries:

* Afghanistan
* Albania
* Algeria
* Azerbaijan
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Burkina Faso
* Brunei
* Chad
* Comoros
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Djibouti
* Eritrea
* Egypt
* Gambia
* Guinea
* Indonesia
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jordan
* Kuwait
* Kazakhstan
* Kyrgyzstan
* Lebanon
* Libya
* Maldives
* Malaysia
* Mali
* Mauritania
* Morocco
* Niger
* Nigeria
* Oman
* Pakistan
* Qatar
* Saudi Arabia
* Senegal
* Sierra Leone
* Somalia
* Sudan
* Syria
* Tajikistan
* Turkey
* Tunisia
* Turkmenistan
* Uzbekistan
* United Arab Emirates
* Yemen

As far a civilizations go a lot of these can be grouped together but I am sure they give you more than 5. Asians, Europeans, Arabs, Africans and Indians. These are all Muslim countries, Islam allows up to 4 wives in some cases more. Not very monogamous is it? Yet some of these countries are the richest countries on earth. Do you know why Islam allows more than one wife? get this, because God knows human nature and a mans nature whatever religion he is wants to be with more than one woman at a time. That to me is funny.

If you want to talk ancient civilizations who got passed the stone age I would be more than happy to mention a few but right now I wont bother.

 

[Mandiblard]

I think marriage goes against most men's nature, but jibes with most women's nature.

That isn't possible since nature is all about balance

 

[bigjohnson]

I can name a few, .....As far a civilizations go ....

I don't see any civilizations listed (OK, not at all, those are countries, but aside from that) that got to the level where they were ready to go into the industrial age without outside help from ... a society that had the concept of marriage or something like it. I will concede that Muslims managed to make it to the iron age almost on their own, but even then they have the idea of marriage and male female bonding for life, just not as a pair. Unless you're arguing that hardcore Muslims are into swinging?

Still looking for some that bootstrapped without marriage, unless you're sure some of those got there on their own.

EDIT:

The point is that as far as I know every major advance in human civilization has been taken by a civilization that had the concept of a stable family unit, meaning a society made up families made up of a fixed or fairly unchanging set of parents raising their children.

Conversely many civilizations crumbled when those same concepts disintegrated.

 

[NickBe]

What are you talking about? Muslims needed help from who? UAE is one of the richest and most advanced countries in the world. They are paving the road as far as architecture goes. They are more successful than America in many ways especially economically. We are talking about monogamy and Muslims do not practice monogamy I am not arguing male and female bonding I am arguing that it is not in our nature to be monogamous. So don't try to twist sh*t now, Muslims are not monogamous and they did not need help. In fact they pretty much kicked the monogamous Christians asses when the Christians started pushing them around. In fact during the Iron age Islamic civilization was probably the most influential in the world. They went through a rough patch when the Mongols invaded but it really didn't stop them.

On top of that many monogamous civilizations did not make it such as the ancient Egyptians. They died out pretty fast. Furthermore the only real reason why we are all monogamous now is because the Christians managed to win a few wars so their religion spread over Rome and the rest of Europe. It was more luck than anything. A few wrong moves and we would not be so monogamous now. I am sure at this point you will argue that God wants monogamy so he guided the army of Christians into battle and defeated the evil non-monogamous army.

Also this argument is side tracked it does not matter who is more advanced all that matters is that monogamy is not in human nature. Hence the 50% divorce rate and the 80 % infidelity rate.

EDIT: Are we arguing families? no I am saying monogamy is not in human nature. There is a big difference.

 

[bigjohnson]

What are you talking about? Muslims needed help from who? UAE is one of the richest and most advanced countries in the world.

They didn't get there without Exxon, bub. Before the west came and started harvesting oil all they had was a lot of sand, dope, good coffee and camels.

Are we arguing families? no I am saying monogamy is not in human nature.

The thread says "Marriage", not monogamy.

 

[NickBe]

Marriage and a family unit are two different things. Marriage in our culture is monogamy a family unit does not necessarily imply monogamy or marriage. You are arguing families I am arguing monogamy. Family units in a way can help a civilization develop mainly due to economical reasons. That is not the point though the point is about monogamy being in our nature and it isn't. Again I have to say we know it is not in our nature because of the 50% divorce rate and the 80% infidelity rate. That simply means that monogamy is not in human nature.

By the way I said enough on this subject. I do not want to discuss with a guy who uses history that he knows nothing of to back up his arguments. It is as if you are rewriting history to suit your argument.

 

[bigjohnson]

From a guy who lists countries as civilizations I find that comment extremely humorous.

Successful civilizations (in my limited knowledge) stem from strong families and strong families display stability for their members. Whether that stability was due to a monogamous marriage (probably most common) or some other long term institution is interesting but not in this context.

Is it in human nature to form long term bonds, usually a pair bond? I think history shows humans progress more in just that sort of society and often regress if their society is sufficiently counter this.

Whether that correlation is significant or not is pretty open to discussion I suppose, as causation is certainly not established AFAIK.

 

[NickBe]

I distinctly remember saying that I would name countries and then I mentioned since you asked for civilizations the countries can be grouped together. I never listed countries as civilizations. Now you are not only rewriting history you are rewritten my posts.

I can name a few, I will just name countries

As far a civilizations go a lot of these can be grouped together

Successful civilizations (in my limited knowledge) stem from strong families and strong families display stability for their members. Whether that stability was due to a monogamous marriage (probably most common) or some other long term institution is interesting but not in this context.

I am not arguing families I am arguing monogamy need I say it again?

Is it in human nature to form long term bonds, usually a pair bond? I think history shows humans progress more in just that sort of society and often regress if their society is sufficiently counter this.

What history? show me it monogamy became popular only recently in human history. We advanced just fin for hundreds of thousands of years without it. By the way civilizations advancing at a faster rate now than it did thousands of years ago has nothing to do with marriage. All it means is that the more we advance the easier it is to advance. For example we created computer now we can store information and we can advance faster. You are creating a link where there is none. There is no sufficient evidence to prove anything remotely near correlation. You are taking millions of years of human evolution most of which we know nothing about condensing it to a few hundred years and say you have a valid point. That is idiotic. There is no correlation between monogamy and advancement in civilization the Islamic people are doing just fine even better than America is in some cases and they are not monogamous. There is one however between forming family units and advancing. However that has no purpose in this discussion, it is a useless bit of information since this discussion centers around monogamy not family.

 

[bigjohnson]

I distinctly remember saying

I asked for civilizations and you list countries with some lame disclaimer that "I guess you can lump these together". Yay. Go you.

I am not arguing families I am arguing monogamy need I say it again?

This thread is about marriage according to the title, which is about family life. If you want to talk monogamy then that's something else, although most marriages are based on the concept of monogamy, the core is that marriage is a means to stabilize the family unit.

We advanced just fin for hundreds of thousands of years without it.

Show me a great advanced civilization from 200,000+ years ago genius. Mastering the art of making fire doesn't count. The ability to write down history would be a great indication of progress, but then I guess that's why they call everything back then prehistoric? :yawn:



EDIT:


Maybe what we have here is a problem with definitions. If by "marriage" you mean "the Western or American institution whereby both partners are entitled to each others assets and have specific contractual rights" then hell yes, that's unnatural. If instead you mean "the societal convention whereby two or more people form a lasting and durable union in order to create and raise a family" then I think that's the most natural thing in the world.

 

[NickBe]

The original poster was talking about monogamy and everyone else has been too for the last few pages. You started bring families into this. Go read his original post he is talking about it not being in a mans nature to be monogamous.

I listed countries because it was a lot easier to copy and paste. In my mind it was pretty straight forward maybe I should have idiot proofed that post though.

What you are saying makes no sense at all. I am making a point that you are concentrating on a few hundred years and. Like I said You are taking millions of years of human evolution most of which we know nothing about picking out the last few hundred years and saying you have a valid point. That is idiotic. Humans have been advancing for hundreds of thousands of years you take the last hundred and say we advanced because of monogamy. You are effectively discounting any advancement we had before that. When we advanced from cave men that doesn't count does it? all that counts is the last few centuries because those are the opens that strengthen your argument. Forget rewriting history you rewrite logic.

I am tired of this, monogamy is not in our nature end of story.

This discussion has nothing do with family groups being the catalysts for advancing civilizations. Family groupings are completely natural monogamy isn't.

Last post in this thread.

 

[bigjohnson]

Mission accomplished.

 

[Falcon]

I have not read any pop psychology books. The human mind is weak and your behaviors, thoughts, beliefs, morals are formed by how you are raised. If you are raised in America a place in which the romanticized notion of love runs rampant then you will probably believe in marriage. It does not make it natural it is just what you have been programed to think. If you take off your pink rosy glasses and look out into the real world then you might see the truth. You know the truth? it takes a real mind to see the truth not one formed by years of social culturing.

Don't come to me with that crap that if you do not believe in love and monogamy you are rejecting your own feelings and that doing so is unnatural. What is unnatural is for you to let yourself be programed by societies crap and not have a mind of your own. When you do take off those pink rosy glasses you will see that romance ends and married/monogamous life become dull and boring. Then you will do what the other heavily socially cultured men do, cheat, have a mid-life crisis or join a swingers club. The problem with you is that your notion of love is what you see in movies, my notion of love is what I see in reality. I have yet to see a happily married couple, I know 50% divorce, I know 80% cheat to me it is pretty clear cut. Humans are not meant to be monogamous. Even if we have been culturally programmed to think monogamy is the key it isn't. Those of us with strong enough minds realize this and live our lives accordingly. Married men just sit back and envy people like me. Don't say I am full of myself either, I managed by the age of 21 to become a millionaire (or very close to it) and to sleep with over 70 women a lot of which are married. I have been told many times by my married friends that they envy me. I have had literally hundreds of married men tell me to never get married which I find funny.

So you can take your mid-life crisis, your boring marriage and your socially predestined life. Me I am just the guy that will be sleeping with your wife when she gets bored of you.

Nickbe, we actually share a lot in common. I, like you, am aware of the effects of the media. You keep painting the picture that I am blinded by the media and etc., but I actually hold the opposite view. I see the media today and for the last century as corrupt. I probably can't stand the media more than you. So in this regard, there isn't really much to argue over - we both don't like the media and let's leave it at that.

Another thing we tend to agree with is the state of marriage. Apparently we both feel that marriage is failing at this time. What we are disagreeing with is WHY it is failing. My belief is that marriage has been corrupted, that is why it is failing. One good example is the law. The law right now is punishing a whole gender for marriage. And that's just where the coruption begins. So in a sense, I am saying that marriage is failing because it has been corrupted, not because it is unnatural. There are many examples of marriage working throughout human history, where rates of infidelity were low, and when people enjoyed being married. Marriage has been corrupted through the media and corporations. Just because you have a polygamous mindset today and that you see a lot of woman behaving that way today it doesn't mean it was like that in the past. You've also made some huge generalizations, such as that everyone who gets married goes through a mid-life crisis or are miserable. That may be common today, but you're going to have to back it up with a lot more facts if you want to prove it has always been like that. For instance, was it like that during the Renaissance? Furthermore, another huge generalization that you made is people living in polygamous tribes are more happier. How did you come about this conclusion? I'm willing to guess they have their own problems too.

But in the end, you believe that we can only be happy through one way, and that is through polygamy. The thing is I never went against polygamy in this discussion, I merely say that we have a choice and choosing monogamy is a legitimate natural way of mating. It's a limiting belief to only think in one way and not the other. As long as sex is involved and a child is born it is 'natural' in my book. All other requirements for it to be natural are very debatable. By the way, since you keep trying to make this more personal- I don't even intend on getting married in the future, it would make no sense with the laws in place right now. I accept both polygamy and monogamy as natural, it's the consequences we must consider. Every action has a consequence. We have to make wise decisions or perish like the ones who have in the past.

Oh yea, and here's some advice that you might find useful. It would be a good idea to stay away from accusing people of being brainwashed. That is the one thing that no one can defend against, and it usually makes the preacher of those words look foolish anyway. I could've easily said that you are brainwashed by your views and culture and you would have no way to defend against it. That's why I refrained from doing it. The thing is that anyone can be right if everyone else is brainwashed; that's why it doesn't make good discussion. It will just turn into a "You're the one who's brainwashed" "No, you're the one!" type of argument.

 

[bigjohnson]

I agree that the current state of divorce law is almost perfectly engineered to ensure failed marriages. Why is the government in the business of even regulating marriage? Why is there such a thing as a "marriage license"?

Marriage is (should be) a personal thing shared within the family, not a legal contract. That aspect of it is incredibly broken and probably not fixable. If you add in the concept of common law marriage (eeeeeek) it gets really spooky to be a man.

 

[Falcon]

I agree that the current state of divorce law is almost perfectly engineered to ensure failed marriages. Why is the government in the business of even regulating marriage? Why is there such a thing as a "marriage license"?

Marriage is (should be) a personal thing shared within the family, not a legal contract. That aspect of it is incredibly broken and probably not fixable. If you add in the concept of common law marriage (eeeeeek) it gets really spooky to be a man.

There's a theory going around, and it states that the government can gain a lot of money from the break-up of the traditional family/marriage system. When females are forced out of the house and to work, you have 100% more people paying the income tax. That's a lot of money going to the government. So it is basically driven by greed. Don't want to steer this thread off topic but that's the gist of it.

 

[bigjohnson]

There's a theory going around.....

I don't go in for conspiracy theories as a rule, but whether or not there's any truth to it (I doubt it's a master plan) the current state of law and courts is stacked to be incredibly pro-divorce. Things are set up such that if at any time one partner thinks it's advantageous to bail, then ejection is simple.

Thus it's easy for one partner (usually the woman) to eject and screw over the other one (usually the guy) at the first sign of rough times. First, there shouldn't be a contract at all - if legal ties are desired the partners can hire a damn lawyer.

Second, there should be penalties on BOTH sides for breaching a contract. What kind of brokken-azz contract allows either partner to exit without cause or penalty?

 

[Falcon]

I don't go in for conspiracy theories as a rule, but whether or not there's any truth to it (I doubt it's a master plan) the current state of law and courts is stacked to be incredibly pro-divorce. Things are set up such that if at any time one partner thinks it's advantageous to bail, then ejection is simple.

Thus it's easy for one partner (usually the woman) to eject and screw over the other one (usually the guy) at the first sign of rough times. First, there shouldn't be a contract at all - if legal ties are desired the partners can hire a damn lawyer.

Second, there should be penalties on BOTH sides for breaching a contract. What kind of brokken-azz contract allows either partner to exit without cause or penalty?

Yea, and to add on what you said, marriage seems to be entirely materialistic now. There is no spiritual aspect, it all has to do with the extravagant ceremony, the ring, the person's assets, legal contract, tax benefits, etc. Men tend to see through this stuff a bit better than women and realize that it is all superficial. Is marriage even taken seriously in a family or spiritual sense anymore?

To tie this back into the original post, I can see why people of our generation start claiming marriage is unnatural. It is unnatural in this respect because of what it has become. But I believe marriage itself is healthy and natural; that is without all this corruption.

 

[ValleyDJing]

I have been thinking about it, and to me marriage seems like a huge farce.

It is a farce...just not for the reasons you listed. Marraige is a farce because it in no way, shape, or form, ever benefits the man in the relationship. Think about it. A man gets married, and he suddenly gives up his independence, privacy, and a life of screwing chicks and partying. What does he get in return? He gets to learn how to change diapers, kiss his wife's ass, give away half his paycheck, and not complain when he's working his 9-5 and his wife is out shopping, running up the phone bill, and watching "Days of Our Lives" re-runs. Wow! What a great deal!

 

[ValleyDJing]

Well I was at the beach last weekend and saw an elderly man and woman walking into the sunset holding hands. That gave me a pleasant reminder that there ARE marriages that stand the test of time.

My Grandparents are celebrating their 50th this November!!

Props to them I guess. I get sick of the same chick after 3 months.

I think marriage goes against most men's nature, but jibes with most women's nature.

Amen Brother!

 

[bigjohnson]

It is a farce... Marraige is a farce because it in no way, shape, or form, ever benefits the man in the relationship.

Family life used to mean something. My mom stayed at home, kept it clean, cooked good meals, managed the household essentially. This freed Dad to concentrate on paying the bills and spending time with the family. Heck, when I was growing up I never had store bought bread - everything was home baked.

I blame Hollywood for making women who take on the traditional role my Mom took on feel like losers. The traditional role of housewife is an honorable and important one, and ANY women who is woman enough to be a good housewife deserves to hold her head high.

Unfortunately it's not widely seen that way, and a lot of people see the job of housewife as being just what you described. If I ever get into the LTR market I'm gonna go for a non-western woman, or else maybe corrupt and marry an Amish babe.