|
|
|
|
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 5:54:01 PM | ^^^ What exchec says is true .. Not to throw in even more negativity but it was quite common to hide spousal abuse, child abuse, alcoholism and a miriad of other horrors because of the stigma that divorce would attach to the family and because of the wife's dependence due to unequality.. Co-dependent dysfunction until death do they part.
Many families were the Father knows best kind.. but many were'nt. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 6:16:18 PM |
timothypaul001: For centuries pastors and priests have been warning us about the dangers of living together outside of marriage. About twenty years ago the godless athiest social scientists caught up and began warning us to. The godless athiest social sci... what? How did that loving statement pop into the conversation I wonder.
In any case, eschec mat nailed it beautifully:
Actually statistics show those in the Bible belt have a higher rate of divorce. They marry younger as one of the reasons. Atheists actually have less divorce than Christians do.
Why did the marriages last longer in the 50's, that is a no brainer, it has been on threads before. Women didn't have educations or jobs. They would have been without income and could not provide for their children. There were many more unhappy marriages and dysfunctional families back in the 50's. Of course it wasn't socially acceptable to admit that your family was anything but like Father's Knows Best. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 6:26:45 PM | Over and over again...re-tread the same old...same old...
Live before...live after....Both ways don't work obviously. The divorce rate is extreme, the courts are full of "who's daddy" are you???
Western Culture's family life is a matter of concern for developing countries who are skeptical of adopting Western principles.
So...
So, instead of trying to stay "stuck" in what worked in the 50's, maybe we should be looking at how we make things work in the current culture?
Any ideas? | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 6:31:05 PM |
Maybe we need to look back in history and look at some of the reasons that older generations didn't have the divorce rates we do today.
No brainer. Women rarely held jobs, had no income, often little education. They were completely dependent on their husbands to provide for them and their children. That's why they didn't divorce!
Back in the late 60's, I worked on a provincial study of senior citizens. It was an indepth interview by random samplings. I spoke to many women who described terrible lives - physical abuse, alcoholism, poverty. In fact some broke down in tears during the interview. If they had the opportunities that women have today, I doubt that they would have stayed in the marriage.
Also interviewed many happy seniors with great lives. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 6:51:16 PM |
Women didn't have educations or jobs. They would have been without income and could not provide for their children. There were many more unhappy marriages and dysfunctional families back in the 50's.
People had a deeper sense of commitment taught from birth - by example - for many generations, generally. Happiness had a different less 'surface' meaning back then. No marriage is 100 per cent happy at all times, but women in the fifties "generally" would not have HAD children to support unless there was a marriage. Now people have children because "it might be cool." as opposed to "planning for a child" and doing what's best for the child. (just an example of the 'trend') and I don't mean to imply EVERYONE does that, but it is a trend (ie. sperm banks are visited more often by single unattached women than by couples who want a family).
In my family, what was best for the children is what was settled into, and we were important enough to have the dedication of loving, attentive parents. Whether we met financial difficulties or not, it wasn't an option for my mom to work outside the home. They'd just spend less and find ways to save more. Neither was it an option for my dad to quit his job because he didn't like something that went on at work. No way would my parents have ever sacrificed our security and sense of well-being in order to pursue their 'individual' goals in life. They did what they set out to do and were commited to our family and to each other. She wasn't oppressed, beaten, or kept from having her own mind, opinions, education or anything else. She made a choice to be commited. They still danced together, held hands, etc. even in the hard times, because to them, failure wasn't an option. They both felt that way. They had a plan and stuck to it. So my opinions (which is all they are) aren't that of a person who saw oppression, abuse, addictions, etc. as "normal". Neither did anyone I knew - neighbors, family members, etc. Perhaps if someone close to me had had those issues, my opinions would be different, but I do believe things used to be a lot simpler and more families had commitment as the basis of their relationships.
Dad also didn't have a harley, Mom didn't go on vacations without Dad, Dad didn't have a girlfriend, Mom didn't have a boyfriend, and Mom didn't take anti-depressents. Their sense of individualism came from how they dealt with each other and us, not from some need to be 'free of being told what to do." lol
No, beg to differ, families today are MUCH more dysfunctional and much more out in the open about the things they get away with, and karma hasn't changed with the generations - actions will always have consequences.
Catching hell for doing wrong was once normal. Things have changed, drastically, in perceptions about right and wrong. It was considered 'wrong' if you slept around, had a child out of wedlock, or got divorced, and back then a tiny fraction of couples lived together but it was usually for a reason other than "hmm let's test drive our relationship, shall we?" . Now it seems like we just take those things with a grain of salt and consider it 'normal'. (all the while wondering why there are venereal diseases, kids shooting up their schools, baby mama-drama everywhere ya look, etc. ) People WITH any sense of morals seem the ones called 'stupid' 'naive' etc. rather than the other way around.
When what used to be 'wrong' is now right, and there is no clear 'right' , things get ugly (ugly meaning a 50% divorce rate in the US). What's that line in the song..."You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything." The message couldn't be any clearer. Do right. Define what ' it' is in your life, and do it. Don't water it down, don't turn something you think - in the back of your mind - is wrong right for the sake of 'getting what you want' cuz it doesn't work that way. Couples don't work that way.
There are some very good, still true today, lessons from the past -especially concerning relationships - if we're truly looking for the answers. But my experiences in life I own and what's 'right' has to be defined in every relationship.
If the OP thinks living together is wrong for his life, then it probably is. Finding a like-minded person would probably be easier than changing someone's mind who is dead set on shacking up before marriage. The sheer number of posts on this topic proves that!  | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 7:00:43 PM |
No brainer. Women rarely held jobs, had no income, often little education. They were completely dependent on their husbands to provide for them and their children. That's why they didn't divorce!
Sorry, Lil...have to say that is too broad of a judgement to be true.
They also valued life and it's joys and hardships much more than today's entitled generation does.
Ask them what kinds of Christmas presents they got. For instance, a pair of gloves was something very special to get.
Try just giving that to little Miss Entitled for Christmas nowadays and nothing else.
Studies have been done in areas where there is poverty and lack of material wealth and you will see lower divorce rates and happier dedicated families.
I volunteered for ages in an Old Folk's home and they have awesome stories of hardtimes/hardships and the joys that brought them closer. Closer socializing of families and neighbours.
I went to a Memorial service for a close relative today. It was like a family reunion.
Old folks were there, aunts, uncles and the stories. I asked a few of the ones that have lasted around the 40- 50 year mark what made their marriage work. After the one-liners were said, the consensus was dedication to the IDEA of marriage, dedication, honor and respect to their spouse, and dedication to the good of the family.
The husbands were quick to say that this malarky that the woman didn't work back then is crap. They were happy to come home from THEIR shitty workplaces to a home that their wife was proud of. None of these modern appliances and satellite TV back then. All the husbands agreed that that they thought the world of their wives and still do to this day. I watched their faces and how they were towards each other. Caring and thoughtful.
Nowhere did I see any resentful wives or husbands.
It's become a sad cliche to run the 50's down when there were so many good things from that era and the people who come from that era strongly agree that today's family life and family values have been de-valued.
Self-gratification is the value most prized. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 7:15:47 PM | It's just my opinion but as I respect statistical analysis I don't always buy into it. I also believe times change and our ability to coexist together usually goes with the times we're in. But I continue to be ole fashion and most don't give the ole ways a blink of an eye. Living together may have it's positives but as well it has it's negatives. I think what most people tend to be looking for is the easy way out of things. People have lost 2 things in our society today, respect and hard work. With no respect and no pressures to work hard at it why would anything work out. Society says if you're unhappy with anything change. Being human and as we know it we tend to throw what we don't like to the side look elsewhere for happiness only to find out it wasn't any different than where we were just a different person is in the scene. Marriage is no different than having a healthy lifestyle. When you are tired with the way you look do you put a gun to your head and say ok I'll change? Nope you work at it that's where the change comes from. Working hard to achieve a goal. Many examples can be used toward an accomplishment but, people change relationships like underwear if they wear any. You have to work at it.It's a hard road but nothing says life is easy. Isn't accomplishment more rewarding knowing you've worked out an area that was causing difficulties. Besides living with someone before marriage isn't necessaily the answer. Those problems that you see that you seem to be successful at by living together doesn't mean there that successful. With no responsiblity toward anyone or anything other than possibly sharing the rent how do you know living together is that successful? The person you living with may love you and adore you but that doesn't mean they're not silent to any causes just to make things work out. Responsiblity to a cause is where success comes from.With responsiblity toward the one you love by entering into a marriage means you more likely to succeed in making something happen and work out.Both parties have just as much as stake. To bad the legal side doesn't recognize what both parties have to lose. Better yet it's ashame people lean on the legal side to choose sides. Legal set apart, working at a task and working hard at it is what will make a marriage work out. The world of industrialzation has made everyone a robot to easy. If it's easy then people are happy. If people have to work it's to much of a challenge. It's usually after the fact that people realize if they would have worked harder at it they wouldn't have lost the one they loved. Anyone I believe that says I have to live with someone prior is afraid of committing to that someone and not wanting to work at making it work men or women. It's sort like why by the cow when you have the milk free! But then we're all entitled to our opinion. Thanks for allowing my 2 cents. :) | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 7:27:55 PM | If living together ruins a friendship then it's cheaper to do it before getting married. And if the friendship does stay good after living together....why ruin it by getting married!!!
Especially if the stats are going to make you get divorced anyway! | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 8:10:13 PM |
Would you live with someone you want to marry?
^^^I think if I decided to do this---that being to decide to live with someone I want to marry, this would be the first time that this would have been the focus for doing this, despite having lived together with 3 men.
In each of these relationships the decisions to live together was never centered on marriage but on love and commitment to each other, along with a desire to streamline the constant back and forth between homes.
The discussion of marriage only emerging and evolving in each at a much later time. Each relationship inevitably became about a decision that questioned the possibility of marriage....and only one made it to that point.
The others dissolved as their was a natural sort of end run when this question is raised and tested and then deemed a moot point. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 8:22:57 PM | http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2631_v126/ai_20077695/
Unrealistic family myths - myths distort public views of marriage, divorce, unwed mothers and sex - Brief Article
USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education) , Dec, 1997
Reality: Many problems usually blamed on the "breakdown of the traditional family" exist not because! we have changed too much, but because we haven't changed enough. The failure of men to share housework and child care with their partners, for example, is a primary source of overload for working mothers and a major cause of marital conflict.
Quite honestly there are numerous studies and articles online and in your local library too that say that women didn't have incomes and it wasn't acceptable to divorce. Keeping up appearances or keeping up with the Jones is what was important back then.
In this time, the role of women in society was to bear children, tend to her husband's every needs without questioning, cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the children. The husband was usually the only source of income in each household. by hotsauce369, Apr 1, 2009
Comparing the average family of the 21st century to the families in the 50s.
Now women have educations and jobs. Mental illness, physical abuse, etc. are things women of the past would put up with, but not today. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 8:33:41 PM | definately, do you test drive your car before you buy it., or try on your shoes before you buy them??
I married a man I never lived with and if I would have lived with hm I definately WOULDN"T have married him,, | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 8:39:23 PM | Do you believe every politically "corrected" magazine out there?
They have to have buyers and advertisers for the mags so can you imagine a slant on how wonderful things were before feminism? The hue and outcry!
Look at the forums now about it. Only the brave can venture forth and stick up for the principles that were in existance back before the 1960s.
Do you believe that journalists do not slant an article a certain way? Do you believe editors and publishers don't?
I am in the business and let me tell you it's as hokey as anything you will ever see.
There are articles that I send in for editing that are totally unbiased and when they are finished in the editing room, my articles don't even look the same as what I sent in.
So, tongue-in-cheek to that. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 9:15:46 PM | Denial isn't just a river.....
It's certainly true that there were many wonderful family dynamics in the 40's , 50's and 60's Likely more than there are today. However: It has to be acknowledged that many homes were not so peachy keen as well. Infidelities were ignored, child abuse was often swept under the rug when it was confirmed, spousal abuse, both mental and physical was the norm in many households.. Valium wasn't nick named "Mother's Little Helper" for nothing.
It could also be argued the epidemic of dysfunctional adults and mental desease is a result of growing up in such households. In otherwords, learned behaviour. Today and because of the availability of social aid and women with their own income.. they have no need to tolerate these extremes.
As much as we'd all like to believe otherwise .. the many articles can't all be fiction .. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 9:44:37 PM | | That's true Boud. I use to believe a lot of what was said on the news because you always thought that the news was accurate and no one tells lies with real news, until I realized the news stations are typically built on the side of whatever the owner is. Far Left, Right, conservative etc. Most news today is twisted to reflect the view of whatever is needed for ratings. Stats are no different than who is in control of the pen... what's the ole saying the pen is mighter than the sword... | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/7/2009 10:55:09 PM | | To stick to the topic and now in a personal view. I will live together before marriage with a very strong commitment to stay togehter. Strange to say when I look back at my life. I once stopped a living together because I had to accept the girl I loved was soo submissive, so young in this way, it wouldnot have been good to continue for her personal. And it is very dificult to split up when you love someone. I have seen 3 marriages fail. I seem to have an eye for woman who do see the advantages of having a relation with me but who do not have a commitment to the idea of marriage. My last wife is so far away from this she still is a virgin being almost 40 years old. After living together and being married with her about 5 years I cannot escape the reality there is no garden of love for her. Every individual has to decide for him or herself what the idea of marriage/living together/love is and decide about his or her commitment to that idea, and to be honest about it to a future partner. -Being honest THAT is a problem.- I am always very impressed what people often offer and ask in a dating site; relaxing, going out, laugh, fun, happines, travelling, wine (alcohol), etc. Where is real life? I would say one of the problems nowadays is that more people are living quite superficial. Material life is so much better as before, we are changing poverty of materials - outer poverty - into inner poverty. | |
|
| |
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/8/2009 1:24:47 AM | Well' I guess i will be alone for ever. The "idea" of being someones "test drive" is repulsive to me. In my 47 years of being on this earth i have never had to be test driven. As far as i am concerned it's something you either know or you don't right from the start. There has been many women in my life over the years. Not one did i have to test drive to know whether i wanted to be with her or not.
There was another post about people in the 40's 50' & 60's staying married longer. Yes' I will go so far as to say that women then didn't have the opportunities that women do now. I'm close enough to that generation to be able to say this with the utmost confidence.
Women in those years had a different moral value than a lot' and i mean a lot' of the women do now. I've known a lot of women from that time over the years. When they married they took there vows seriously. They stayed with there husbands through thick and thin.
They had good husbands that treated them right and did the best they could. Back in those days men and women both were taught that marriage is forever. Pick wisely. Now they don't seem to worry about picking wisely. We will just shack up' Test drive each other first. We have lowered our standards of marriage to the same as buying a car. Pitiful.
You don't throw away your spouse just because you think the grass is greener on the other side. Now' Don't like your spouse' Throw em away and get another one. Then' People married because they loved one another and wanted to live out there lives together. Now' I don't believe most people even know what love and commitment really is.
 | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/8/2009 1:38:09 AM | I lived with two women in 17 years.
After the first time I swore I would never do it again without being married first.
The second time I foolishly proved to myself that I was right the first time. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/8/2009 1:38:10 AM |
Quite honestly there are numerous studies and articles online and in your local library too that say that women didn't have incomes and it wasn't acceptable to divorce. Keeping up appearances or keeping up with the Jones is what was important back then.
Personally I think that logic is quite skewed. If you look at education, for example, you'll find that the need, availability, and desire for a higher education wasn't the same back then as it is now. (why does this need to be said?) There was literally NO technology and information did not come instantly on any level like it does today. Jobs were dependent on workers not machines, people had the ability to learn skills and work hard, rather than working 'smarter' which is the current philosophy. There was no reason to go to college for many, and sometimes no reason to go to high school, depending on if you lived in a rural or urban area. There weren't pell grants and sports scouts at every high school. Example: Kids who knew they would carry on a family farming operation (which were plentiful back then) saw no value in spending 16 years in school to do the same things they learned to do at age 12. Women, generally, didn't have the desire to be breadwinners, but moms - and back then being a parent wasn't a cliffnote in life for most like it is today.
So it's not like women were DENIED the right to an education and since there was nothing else, they married and were secretly abused. The RATES of abuse were a whole lot less than the fem movement of today would have you believe. Where I grew up if you knew a kid who's dad was abusive, the whole town knew and it didn't go on for long. But conversely, if you knew which kid broke the windows out in the school, everyone knew that too, and it wasn't the blind eye mentality of 'not getting involved' it is today. Spankings were 'normal' punishment for disobedient children and no one questioned the need for discipline to raise decent humans. Now, if you spank a bad kid, you spend twenty years in prison. That fact isnt mentioned in the stats, but it's defnitely a fact.
Keeping up with the Jones has nothing at all to do with the socio-economic state of the American family of the fifties or sixties on the same level it does today. It meant painting your fence to some, today it's that harley or that 25K diamond engagement ring. FACT is, even when I was in high school, if you hadn't met your future husband by the time you graduated, it was a legitimate reason to attend college (no joke). If you weren't a mother by the time you were 21, then you must have been sterile or had some sort of defect, OR you had high hopes outside the 'norm'. Again, that's not every one, that was my own experience in my own cultural environ. You cannot take stats like this completely out of the context in which they occured and expect it to ring true. IT WAS NOT NORMAL to abuse your wife, and you're making it sound like it was. IT WAS NOT NORMAL to get a divorce like it is today - that doesn't mean people didn't do it because they couldn't afford to be single (LOL). Single moms were usually assisted by their communities and people were a whole lot more willing to help their neighbors back then. Single parent families were rare. You cannot fairly shadow yesterdays values based on today's more lax thinking and have it make sense. It was a different time, with different values and ideals about what was right. Yes, there were abuses, but for most families, it wasn't the norm. Sheesh. Studies that imply it was probably were conducted by people who SOUGHT OUT those who were abused, denied things, etc. rather than the majority of American families who commited to relationships because it was considered NORMAL.
And no offense to anyone, but we're conditioned to believe today only what we 'choose' to believe, no matter how invalid it is. For anyone who decides in their own mind that the 50's and 60's were all about hidden family abuses and oppression, I'd just say, you're looking at one small corner of the picture. The stats don't take into account 'the way things were' when the telephone was 'new' technology and not every family had one...or black and white tv with one channel. I'd rather see the whole painting (in stats), rather than just the upper left corner.
But this is research for another topic. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/8/2009 1:56:06 AM | I agree with many of the prior posters (Bodacious, Reservationist, Eshec mat to name a few).
In my mother's case, she was educated and had a well--paying job, so would have fared sufficiently well to divorce. Her upbringing and religious beliefs (and I'm sure societal) didn't allow her the "cut-and-run" mentality. She stayed with my father because she firmly believed that marriage takes compromise and was willing to find that compromise, and she viewed a commitment as as a commitment to make it work, whatever form that would take.
Her issues, however, were not infidelity, just more of some incompatibilities. My mother was much more educated than my father when they married (he made sure to even that up though - haha)
Marriage isn't all about 100% rosy days or a 50/50 split of responsibility. Sometimes you give more and sometimes you take more. Over a lifetime it should all balance out. And maybe it's the romantic in me, but there's something inherently sweet about a couple that near the end of their lives is gracious about their mate that stood by them through thick and thin. I'm sure there were times that my mother had to dig deep to find respect for my father (like when he was fired for his lack of professional self-control) but I do give her huge kudos and thank heaven that she did do the deep digging.
I think what's attractive to many about the 40's and 50's era isn't that women stayed with men through some horrible circumstances (abuse, infidelity, neglect, abuse), but that they took the vows of marriage much more to heart (for better or worse) and so decided that if they found themselves in whatever "for worse" situation, they were more determined to find the "for better" in it. Sometimes it's very much about attitude and perspective. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/8/2009 5:17:00 AM | re-verity, people dont change, we just take off the rose colored glasses and see them for who they are.Denial goes on in relationships all the time.Suddenly we see them in a clearer light after some incident or when the infatuation fades.I agree with a lot of the posters here about the 50, s and 60,s I seen my grandparents relationship and heard their stories.Times were different, yes not perfect but people cared more for each other and less about the almighty pound.
Now its all about a big house, new car and flashing the cash.Society has become very materialistic.I am an old fashioned girl with old values, I admit that.I am not prudish or repressed, just sensible and try to see the value of things in life.
People need to get to know each other , leave the sex on the back burner and get to know each others character.Its character that keeps marriages together and values.Most girls in abusive situations experience it before marriage and still marry that person, hoping for change, thats madness.If abuse appears after marriage, no-one would expect anyone to stay in that situation or bring kids into it.
The signs are always there, if one wants to see them and not try to fool themselves.Physical attraction rules and common sense is ignored lots of times.A person needs to be switched on; to whats important to have a good relationship and looks come low on that list for me.High on the list would be emotional/spiritual intelligence, responsibility, character, kindness,empathy,hardworking,affectionate,resilience, able to communicate.These are the qualities that make a person not a pretty face.Yes there has to be attraction, well this is attractive to me and what I would look for in a lifetime partner.
Look less at the wrapping and more at the contents.We have become so obsessed with looks, plastic surgery is booming.If your wife gets fat after having your kids, dump her and go to Asia/the internet for a skinny girl.Even worse withdraw all physical affection and respect , make her feel like crap.After all you are "entitled" to a perfect partner.The same applies ifa man gains weight, he is still the man you married and your husband.If your wife/husband gets older, trade them in for a younger model.If your husband loses his job or money, devalue him, leave and go gold-digging.What kind of values are these.Spouses are dispensable objects.
Why say marriage prevents people leaving and its easier if you are shacked up.Its just as easy to walk out of a marriage now, common laws make the same financial agreements.Marriage is not seen as the commitment it was.Look at prenups, you are already assuming you,ll divorce,negative reinforcement at its best.The whole thing is a farce.
IMO only women who go into living together arrangements, do it mostly to keep and please men.There is no security for them in these arrangements.They are settling for less than they deserve.Ifa man loves you and wants you, well then he ought to marry you.Anything else is a cop-out for commitment phobes.I read here, oh we broke up after a few months and I lost nothing.What you really mean is you risked nothing, not even your heart.Its fear based in its entirety.
The marriage vows say sickness and health, rich or poor.I will never live with any man,unless it is legal.I deserve no less.I dont believe in divorce, so will make sure I know him well and make an informed decision.I know what kind of man I want and will not settle for less.I want a man of good character. a mature adult with a bit of longevity and grit about him.Marriage is tough, it needs work, its not all about the honeymoon.I believe both partners need to give and take and not expect perfection.
But then I am oldfashioned with outdated notions. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/8/2009 5:34:01 AM | | I would be honest and let her know why you feel the way you do. If it is a belief because of your religion, maybe you are with someone that doesnt share your beliefs and should consider something else. brutally honest but true. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/8/2009 5:45:19 AM | Diablera...so much truth in your post.
Look less at the wrapping and more at the contents.We have become so obsessed with looks, plastic surgery is booming.If your wife gets fat after having your kids, dump her and go to Asia/the internet for a skinny girl.Even worse halt all physical affection and respect , make her feel like crap.After all you are "entitled" to a perfect partner.The same applies ifa man gains weight, he is still the man you married and your husband.If your wife/husband gets older, trade them in for a younger model.If your husband loses his job or money, devalue him, leave and go gold-digging.What kind of values are these.Spouses are dispensable objects.
Why say marriage prevents people leaving and its easier if you are shacked up.Its just as easy to walk out of a marriage now, common laws make the same financial agreements.Marriage is not seen as the commitment it was.Look at prenups, you are already assuming you,ll divorce,negative reinforcement at its best.The whole thing is a farce.
This I try to explain to people almost eveyday, it is the inside of the person that counts, some people can be so perfect or artificial on the out-side and so ugly on the inside, and vise/versa
I believe we fell in love with that person, rather they gain weight age or what ever, they are still the person we fell in love with and the feelings only get stronger.
As for living with someone before marriage in all my years I have never done it, since my divorce I learnt my lesson and I havn't found a man I love enough to live with until my last BF, this I had given some thought but not the opportunity, the reason I say I would live with him first is because I feel you dont really know someone until you live with them,,,at my age it's a chance I can't take.. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/8/2009 7:01:24 AM | Diablera...
Great Post! You have hit the heart of what today's values are about.
so will make sure I know him well and make an informed decision.I know what kind of man I want and will not settle for less.I want a man of good character. a mature adult with a bit of longevity and grit about him.Marriage is tough, it needs work, its not all about the honeymoon.I believe both partners need to give and take and not expect perfection.
But then I am oldfashioned with outdated notions.
My sentiments, too. | |
|
| Would you live with someone you want to marry?
Posted: 6/8/2009 7:04:10 AM |
Why was the divorce rate much lower for our grandparents generation and beyond who did not typically live together much lower than todays divorce rate of 50% with living together being more common?
Because there was a greater religious and societal 'taboo' in being divorced 50 years ago than there is today.
Let's not also forget that the laws have significantly changed; it used to be much, much harder to divorce. In many places, you had to prove infidelity or abuse. The rate of divorce increased as the laws changed making it easier to divorce. There were huge spikes in the numbers of divorces immediately following the change in the law. This pretty clearly shows many married people were not happy.
Other factors include, there wasn't the same sort of social assistance and men were often awarded custody of children. Many careers were permanently blocked to married women (for example, you had to quit teaching when you got married) and I'm not sure they would hire a divorced woman. For men, being divorced pretty seriously curtailed their careers and income opportunities (if you can't control your married life... ) | |
|
|
| Page 8 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
