1. Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


Marriage - Still Relevant?

Discussion in 'Relationships, Discrimination, and Jealousy' started by Fotographer001, Oct 21, 2019.

  1. Fotographer001

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    254
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    272
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St. Catharines (ON, CA)
    Verified:
    Photo
    With rates of cheating and divorce, you wonder if marriage is s valid today compared to centuries ago. When we were in medieval times and only lived to 25, things were different. Then a few decades ago marriages were husband-centric and the man sort of 'ran' things, and whatever he 'wanted', he got. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying for back to that. Progress in progress and those were dark times. The question is, "is marriage still a valid social construct?"
     
    dreamer20 likes this.
  2. marriedasian

    marriedasian Legendary Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Posts:
    1,402
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wisconsin (US)
    i personally think so. there are still a lot of people out there with hard-traditional upbringings that still want to be married and monogamous. it's just harder now to find those people plus the fact that people do and can change over time so even if you find someone like i mentioned, they could still be a ticking time bomb waiting to go off at any any moment.

    a big contributor would be technology (for good and for bad). technology has allowed humanity to be more connected now than ever and growing. for the first time in the history of humanity, we actually have "options" at our fingertips for potential mates. technology has made it so easy to get a mate, drop a mate, trade a mate, and do all three of those at the same time even! this ability to have options has given us the audacity to feel entitled to "better" when we feel like it cause we can always go and find better when we want (cause it's so easy). obviously, it's more complex than what i just said as it gets worse the deeper you dive into the idea of what i mentioned and there's not enough time or space here to discuss all of that.

    i still believe in marriage hence why i got married. there are still good marriage-material people out there. it's just harder nowadays to find them and keep them.
     
    dummythicc and (deleted member) like this.
  3. stustu

    stustu Legendary Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Posts:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    1,405
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida (US)
    Marriage, like many other institutions, is only important to the people who cherish it.
    There are more options available to people in today's time (just living together ).
    Some areas of the world do not feel it necessary to marry to have children.
    It is a personal choice. Some factors such as tradition, religion, families etc
    would probably like them offspring to marry.
     
  4. halcyondays

    halcyondays Superior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2014
    Posts:
    5,077
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    7,252
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    US
    Marriage is a religious sacrament. It's the only religious practice still sanctioned (licensed) by secular governments. Here in the US it's a hold over from when we were English colonies with a state religion. Birth, baptism, first communion, confirmation, marriage and death--all steps the sacramental life--were documented with the government in parish records because church WAS state. With the separation of church from state all religious records were dropped by government except marriage. States began requiring birth and death certificates but nothing else outside marriage.

    Religion was never completely removed from marriage was it? (Anyone remember when Clinton signed that ridiculous Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996?) Only heterosexual marriage was legal because religious scripture says homosexual behavior is an abomination to the Abrahamic god. So much for separation of church and state.

    That religious law remained civil law until 2015 when SCOTUS handed down Obergefell v. Hodges on a 5-4 vote. Same sex marriage was finally legal everywhere here in the US.

    In my opinion the term "marriage" should have been replaced with "civil union" when the US was founded as a secular nation. It would have saved a lot of confusion in the way we think. A sharp demarcation between religious law and civil law is required.

    "Marriage law" is family law. It's licensed for two primary reasons: to control who marries whom and making married persons subject to divorce law, i.e. how do we divvy up the money and the kids when a couple splits. By law a license makes marriage a business contract. A prenup is a better contract but that's another topic.

    Now I'll answer your question. Marriage is NOT a valid social construct when it requires a lifetime vow to forsake all others.

    The reason for this is biological. Our species forms pair bonds but rarely lifetime or even long term ones.

    Proof. If we formed lifetime pair bonds instinctually no social taboos would exist to enforce the bond. We don't. So religion (again) burdens us artificially with punishments of shame and guilt all the way up to and including the death penalty for any sexual behavior outside a lifetime heteronormative pair bond.

    More proof. The rates of cheating and divorce to which you refer. Our species is not naturally faithful to one mate for long and the effort to conform to a religious/moral/social norm often makes people miserable.

    Addendum. Look up the difference between pair-bonding species and tournament species and see where our species falls in that spectrum.
     
  5. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    I think its still a necessity, as non secular civil unions aren't as ingrained into our infrastructures...I appreciate that younger and younger generations are waiting longer to get married and more fully fleshing out beforehand what it is either expects to get out of the experience....in terms of family stabilization, specifically responsibility and access marriage cant be beaten...
    I think there's something inherent to humanity about the life pairing process, as such I dont think marriage will ever become irrelevant, but I think slowly but surely, the traditional trappings of marriage(heteronormativity, monogamy, and patriarchal dogma, just to name a few) are what are being questioned as defaults.
     
    51arledge likes this.
  6. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    I would love to get married. But even now in 2019, I find the whole thing so sexist. The woman is given an engagement ring but the man isn’t. Claiming ownership? To show that the woman is taken? Then there is the marriage - the woman is given away. Really? Oh god and don’t get me started on ASKING the woman’s father for permission - what the hell does it have to do with him?

    However. Yes, I believe in marriage and my god I want to find my lobster.
     
  7. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you downplay how many women expect these things as some form of tribute, a way for men to prove their "worthiness"..It took me yrs to be comfortable with the concept of marriage to my wife, precisely because I had no such sexist expectations for how such a thing should play out, and she took said unwillingness to adhere to such traditions as evidence of my lack of love for her.
    There's no denying the sexist origins of common marriage traditions, but that hasnt stopped legions of women from coopting them to their own ends.
     
  8. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    Oh! I forgot the biggest one - the woman changing her name. Anyway, your wife is crazy heh heh.
     
  9. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    Shes not alone..just about every woman friend, associate, family member, acquaintance she came across had something crappy to say about me and my unwillingness to simply capitulate and propose after yr 2-3 of our relationship. Men who dont subscribe to at least some of the sexist trappings of relationships and marriage get a bad rap from women on a collective basis...comments about "leading on" and "unwillingness to commit" are tossed about freely and well received
     
    cherryboom66 likes this.
  10. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    That’s shitty. One of my friends was the complete opposite, she didn’t want to get married and only did it ten years down the line for legal protections and “meh, it’s been ten years. Fuck it.” She didn’t want to change her name and her hubby decided to change his. Which was pretty awesome. They get a lot of stigma tho, people see him as “weak”, people just assume it was his name, she is a doctor and gets called Mrs. Isn’t it strange how men are always Mr but it changes for women.
     
  11. 693987

    693987 Guest

    Not married yet, but I got my (male) partner his ring way before mine. Like, still budgeting for mine. :joy: Fuck societal norms. We intend to elope, too.

    For the OP...

    I think marriage is still relevant for the individuals that it means something to. It isn't important to everyone and that's ok too. It does offer certain legal benefits that a couple might not otherwise have, though. Not everywhere has common law marriage, as an example. I want my partner to have say if something happened to me, not the rest of my family. Now, I could go through giving power of attorney and all that jazz, or we can get married. Neither of us are religious, but between the legal benefits and my personal stance that marriage is the last major logical step when a monogamous couple wants to spend their life together..? I'm down for that documentation.

    Edit: I changed my name last year, completely unrelated to my relationship with my sweetie. I'm not doing all that shit again, it's a pain in the ass and neither of us cares about last names.
     
  12. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    Love it! Fuck the norms!
     
  13. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    I do think religion has contributed to the shaming of non paired sexual behaviors, but I think its origins run much deeper and closer to social realities...beyond what any sort of "God" would say about it there are specific, privilege and advantage seeking reasons, probably formed in our primate-to-hominid prehistory, why either gender would have an issue with the other engaging in sexual activity outside of their particular pairing.
     
  14. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    Lol there's a low key joke in that about how only women get stuff in marriage, we give away "r"s and our last names:D:joy:

    But my wife was on that track too...all about changing the last name..when the only last names I was concerned about was children's. I wouldn't characterize any man that changed his last name as "weak" per se, but it's not a lane I ever would consider.
     
  15. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    And herein lies the sexism which has been bred into people. The woman carries the child, feels it grow inside, goes through labour....Then the man gets the name. It’s madness.
     
    dummythicc and LaFemme like this.
  16. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the intention was that was the trade off..in that her carrying the bond was cemented to her no matter what, so the name was intended to motivate the father to be as involved. The other side of that unfair coin is the reality of "Mommas baby, poppas maybe"
     
  17. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    The foolish man shouldn’t need motivating. I haven’t heard of that phrase before.
     
  18. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    Im sorry are you purporting that a child's paternity that was concieved and born within the scope of a relationship should be of no consequence to the man that is deciding to take care of said child?
     
  19. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    What? I’m saying that he shouldn’t steal their name for ‘motivation’.
     
  20. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    I dont think it was ever stolen, I think it was more of a given from the female to assure paternity in lieu of no surety being historically available. Which is why typically there is much less empasis on step children's names being realigned.
    Im not doubting some sexist shit has gone on with it, but I dont think the practice of naming children for the father is a specifically sexist one, just one borne of necessity.
     
  21. englad

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Posts:
    2,622
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    6,664
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Verified:
    Photo
    As a side note, a positive development in German speaking countries is "Herr" and "Frau" are equal. i.e. independent of marital status. Though it's a bit weird that if you have a doctorate, you'd call yourself "Herr Doktor" or "Frau Doktor" here, don't really understand why you'd need the "Herr" or "Frau" bit, as the "Dr." bit is way more important than either.
     
    cherryboom66 likes this.
  22. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    Mothers and Fathers are registered when the baby is born. Birth records. A name doesn’t assure paternity. It’s simple sexist control. All he did was not wear a condom.
     
  23. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    But no one is registered when a baby is conceived...I dont know if you're being willfully obtuse or not to simply ignore that a long standing tendency, and relationship/mating strategy for women throughout history(and Im not even attributing malevolent intent behind it) is that the man who is best suited to impregnate them isnt always the best man suited to be in a stable relationship/ co parenting situation. So interesting you hop upon the sexist control exerted by men having their children share their last names, completely precluding the sexist control many women exploit by having a man care for and raise a child they did not create, unknowingly.
     
  24. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    All Im saying is if paternity was something that could be determined with certainty like others in the animal kingdom last names probably would be much less of an issue than say, infanticide.
     
  25. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    There isn’t a child to name upon conception?

    You were fully with me with the sexism until I mentioned something that you have done. You said it was the only thing that’s important. You also said that you wouldn’t change your name.

    I’m very confused regarding being wilfully obtuse. My whole point was the bred sexism due to history.... due to “how it’s always been”. Marriage was a transaction and women traded for cattle. Even now we have dowries and fathers paying for the wedding. Ugh I’m rambling again. I’ve got a cold and I was dumped yesterday so I’m all over the place.
     
  26. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    I wouldn't change my name, nor do I expect anyone else to, but I do think I have the right as half creator and purported caretaker of a child to have some say in their naming, whether it be some combination of mine and mothers or mine alone, I give my step daughter her choice.

    The willfully obtuse part comes from what seems to be your inability to ascribe any tenets of marriage or child rearing pairing to existent realities of the time; no centralized records keeping, no paternity tests and the like.
     
  27. cherryboom66

    Gold Member Verified

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Posts:
    2,708
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    8,152
    Location:
    Manchester
    Verified:
    Photo
    Child rearing through time... the mother stays at home with the child and raises them whilst the father works.
     
  28. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly, given that expectation how then to you motivate a man to increase his earnings or divide his resources to care for a being he may or may not be responsible for? In a time before modern medicine and records, the baby coming from her body, typically clinging to her only the first few yrs what then is his onus to have any responsibility in that child's upbringing?
     
  29. halcyondays

    halcyondays Superior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2014
    Posts:
    5,077
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    7,252
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    US
    I can't argue with the reality of what religious socialization has done to women and men. It's been entrenched worldwide for millennia. Despite the advantages it gives its influence is still sexist limiting both women and men to specific roles. It is changing slowly but unlikely to end soon.

    It's clear why a male would have an issue with a female mate having sex outside their pair bond: he doesn't want to raise another male's offspring and he doesn't want to lose his pair bond with her to another male (or female).

    It's clear why a female would have an issue with a male mate having sex outside their pair bond: she doesn't want him to have offspring with another female and she doesn't want to lose her pair bond with him to another female (or male).

    As for our prehistory as hominids what we see in human morphology today are males who are on average 30% larger and stronger than females. This reflects a time in the past where our species didn't form one-on-one pair bonds. Instead we were a tournament species where males had harems of females. Having to fight off all other males selected for the largest and strongest males making them much larger than females.

    We see this in other primates today. Gorillas are a tournament species. Males have harems of females--or many wives if you prefer. Because they have to fight for this male gorillas have much larger and stronger bodies than females. On average 5% or less of tournament species males pass their DNA along.

    On the other hand female and male chimps are the same size. While they don't form one-on-one pair bonds the males aren't forced to fight to mate. When a female chimp goes into estrus all the males in the troop mate with her. No one knows who the father is but it doesn't matter because they all live together and support each other as a troop. Everyone gets the chance to pass their DNA along.

    In evolutionary terms our species is stuck somewhere between a tournament species and a pair bond species. We still see plenty of male-on-male violence over females to get a mate and male-on-female violence to maintain a mate. But we also share pair bond adaptations with chimps like specialty sperm which recognizes and fights the sperm of other males. This suggests strongly that sometime in our hominid past males either had harems or that multiple males mated with females or both.

    What it means for us today is that humans don't instinctively form one-on-one pair bonds. Thus socialization which ostracizes anything but a lifetime heteronormative pair bond rules the vast majority of human cultures. There are polygamous exceptions of polyandry and polygyny but they are relatively rare as is the groupie phenomenon of large numbers of females selecting and bedding a few high status males.
     
    OlderGuy likes this.
  30. Sagittarius84

    Sagittarius84 Legendary Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Posts:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    1,339
    Gender:
    Male
    This is where I disagree..I think a combination of intelligence and sentience is how we seem to gravitate towards pair bonds, so much so it exists as the predominant construct of relationships of all sexualities...but I agree in that this instinct is in conflict with our other instincts that have to do with mate choice..
    I think our relationship mating strategy reflects our general attitude of life: we all want the ability to be able to roam far and wide if we so choose, but would prefer to have a home to come back to.
     
    dreamer20 likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice