Labels, Relationships and Marriage
 

If you don't want to use these terms, then don't.

If you fall in love with a girl, and spend the rest of your life with her etc. then people will say you're in a relationship. You don't like that term? Want to use another one? Fine! That's totally not the point. It's just a word, as are all of these evil "labels," that people use to communicate ideas. You seem so afraid that everyone is going to make all kinds of nasty assumptions about you the second you start letting them use "labels" on you. You're making these words mean something more than they do by talking about them, and acting like they do. Most people couldn't care less.

If I enjoy Valentines day, for instance, with my girlfriend it doesn't mean that I wouldn't have enjoyed it without the name attached, or that I'm getting scammed, or any of that. It's a fun, trivial little holiday. You make it out to be a symptom of some horrible disease. It can help people remember how much they love the other person. You think they shouldn't need a day to do that? I agree, but then Valentines day isn't even the problem is it?

You're human just like anyone else, and we all (pretty much) experience love just as you do. I don't think you should care how others describe it or what they chose to do with it, and if someone tries to force their views onto you (which I think happens less than you think), then don't let them.

Well said. Although I do disagree with the second paragraph. For a few reasons.

For the idea behind Valentines day- I wasn't arguing a point of it's label. I was arguing it's point in general. Forgive the false idea that was given across. But on the note- If you don't believe you're getting scammed- This is why Valentines day is such an effective business time.

It is not fun from my point of view. It's agonising, although somewhat pleasing to watch other humans put all of their money in the sink for an over-rated day.

I do not think a day is needed, and I'm aware you agree, so that's that.

And- One point from the first paragraph;


Well, I disagree. If I hug, and kiss someone who I love- The question "Is she your girlfriend?" instantly arises. It seems to me that, in this race, any sign of affection constitutes a very defined relation. Then again- I'm only speaking from the UKs point of view. I'm sure in countries like Italy- Hugs and kisses among friends are very much common.

I agree with this. I have been with my gf for 10 years and not doing the marriage thing. Nowadays it seems like "Marriage" is just a contract that can be torn up and discarded just like a piece of paper on a desk and is too often used for scamming money or monetary gains.

Well, Mune, I could have said exactly the same things myself - I agree with everything you said to 100%. ;)

I've spent a long time thinking about this... the need for a lifemate is something extremely important to almost every person, and people are biologically programmed to seek it out.
I honestly do need someone... but I can understand the idea of wanting someone but not having a name for it. Really though, having a part of yourself as being with another is an important thing, it's a deep emotional connection.
I completely agree about the difficulties of finding someone though... I've tried every way really - from waiting and hoping, to honestly looking, but the truth is, many people are not at the same stage, not looking for the same thing, or are already with someone. Finding someone like-minded seems impossible :( , and even the ways I've tried end up badly. People didn't evolve to be alone, and too many people have this idea that being with anyone is preferable, of love as something it is not, and that just makes looking for a true lifemate even harder.

Things like marriage, I don't like the concept that much - if people want to choose to have one, then they can and should, but there becomes this sort of expectation, as if to say 'you don't love each other unless you have some piece of paper' - it implies that people do not really trust each other, and need to be coerced and held to each other, when if there was honestly trust, they wouldn't need that. While I'm certainly not opposed to the concept, the only way I would ever consider it is purely for financial reasons, and then just quietly, minimally, because it isn't a big deal and shouldn't be required. Sometimes people want whatever approval, often simple social pressure, which is a very bad thing, but it's the reason for many. People who genuinely care about each other can be happy with trust.

If people want to enjoy valentines day as it should be - of appreciation for each other, then they can and should - but the fact remains that is is hugely commercialised and companies try to create an expectation - that you 'must' buy them something if you love them. IT's the same as marriage, that it becomes expected and many people do it for acceptance, when if the love is there, it isn't necessary.

Icu is right about 'labels' (actually a term I despise in that context, because all they are is a description) - it doesn't matter what you call it, or even if you want to, it still remains the same thing. Equally, terms can apply to something that is not the same thing, but the need for someone is a deep biological and psychological need.

Heh, I was expecting Mune to post something like this...

I agree; marriage and valentine's day are foolish, contrived things that people have invented to make marriages legally official and to make a profit, respectively. Some people enjoy it, but if I gave a damn and had someone else, I would be reluctant to engage in such events.

Although I tend to despise love in general, these are one of the main reasons why; it has gone from an amazing complex of psychological bonding to a corrupted miasma of price tags and legal papers.

Happily married though I am, it is rather impossible to argue with that. Sadly. :'(

Whoa there guys..... hold on.

I think love has nothing to do with any of what you just said inherently. What some people chose to DO with love might, but that has nothing to do with what love actually IS.

No body is holding a gun to your head and forcing these legal papers and price tags down your throat. If you find someone who you love and you both don't want any part of those things, then avoid them! Some people may not avoid them, but you are not "some people". Do what you want with love, there's nothing in the definition that makes any of these things necessary.

This is why I don't buy much into the "labels" hate. Because no matter what anyway says you can always chose to act however you want. Then who cares what "they" try to call you. It has no direct bearing on your actions or beliefs, and thus it only matters if you chose to let it matter to you.

And besides, not too long ago, in what apparently were the good ole days of love, people were basically told who to love/marry (and to some extent today), as determined by social status, wealth, education, etc. I don't think you can look at love throughout history and say that it's collapsing or anything.

No, it isn't collapsing, but that was the start of what we have now, and I doubt it will get better.

Although I agree with what you said, I can't help but feel that nearly all of it has been tainted by what I mentioned. I would have to get very far away from modern societies to find what I'm thinking of.

There's still an expectation by many people, which certainly does NOT help.

Personally I think it's better for a woman to only get involved in procreation with a man with whom she is married to or is about to marry. For me I think marriage would be a security thing, it seems a lot harder/ or at least less excused by society for a man to run from his wife than his girlfriend and a woman would be able to have a small safety net of the legal implications of marriage ie, child support if she is left with a baby by herself. Not to generalize men but this stuff does happen and getting into a physical relationship is a lot more risky for a woman, not including the risk of STDs.

Largely Mune, I agree with what you're saying here... However, the concept of marriage (which seems to be the big sticking point here for a lot of people) I disagree with.

Aside from all the standard legal, monetary, childcare and all those kinds of issues... My argument would be that, if you love someone enough, enough to know that you want to be with them for a lifetime, then why not? In that case, it wouldn't be 'the signatures' holding you together, it would actually be the love that you do and will continue to share. And if you do love each other that much, you both would know that you're not bound together just legally but lovingly as well.

I don't see it as almost 'handcuffing' two people together, I see it as just another ritual of love and dedication.

I don't think there is anything wrong with marriage but rather, the extreme formalization of the process has gone off in the wrong direction. If two people are truly unified, they might as well be considered married.

As far as labels go, its a form of arguing with semantics. Labels are often put in place to make things sound better or sound worse. In the poltical sphere, a lot of political wrangling happens over how to "word" or "name" laws, conditions, or processes because it changes the way people think (in a scary manner). Humans tend to seek patterns in things and often times, association becomes confused with cause and effect.

Those risks are exactly the same as for men, and if you think that there are no women who use men for money, then you are deluding yourself. The only way it is 'more risky' is pregnancy, and that is easily mitigated with proper use of contraception.
There is nothing wrong with someone (of either gender) having a child by themselves, either directly by choice or by leaving a partner who turns out to be unsuitable, to say otherwise is an insult to everyone and their family whose parents were not married.

Only if they want to, then yes. Having some piece of paper means nothing though. There's no way that saying magical words makes you suddenly love someone when you didn't before, and not doing it doesn't make love inferior - if anything, people who stay together without that are more comfortable with each other, because they don't feel a need for coercion.

If that love is truly there, then you don't need a contract to show it. On the other hand, if someone doesn't trust the other, than something like that makes a lot of sense from their point of view.
Too many people do it because they are expected to, and that is the attitude that needs to change.

This is the other problem; in a world full of love defined largely by western standards, there is little room for other ways of thinking.

In my opinion, physical relations are fine as long as mutual and undistorted consent is present, since any biological complications can be managed before they occur.

However, I think you have a lot of thinking to do if you're really that afraid of desertion, or you think it's common.

It isn't, and if you really love someone enough to engage in such behavior, you should do it; it's a part of being a sentient biological entity, and there's nothing wrong with partaking in it for the purpose of pleasure; humans have been doing that for hundreds of centuries, and nothing wrong has come of it.

Furthermore, at the risk of offending you, I should point out that such...paranoia of desertion or other problems are signs of underlying psychological issues......

That is a much better way of putting it really. People shouldn't do it because they feel obliged to, just because they should want to.

Mune I agree with everything you wrote.

As for finding a mate and all of the things that goes along with it I believe people should leave their expectations at the door.

We see these relationships on television and in the movies and it gives us this idea of how it should be.

Placing a label on a relationship not only makes it seem as though you’re placing ownership on someone, but that label brings a certain level of expectations along with it too. Somehow these labels actually change how we view our significant other. Maybe not consciously, but it changes how we believe things should be subconsciously.

“We’re married now and (this) is how a husband or wife should be.”

The fact that the expectations may not be met places an unnecessary burden on the couple and can contribute to the relationship ending. Having unrealistically high expectations can be the primary cause of relationships gone wrong one after another. Men and women can’t be expected to do it all and when one does expect the other to perform to a set standard based on what the label suggests they should be doing it makes the relationship fall apart. I mean, you’ve heard these stories of married couples who divorced because they were always fighting and now that the expectation of one another is gone they get along great. I’ve seen couples who were together forever, but after they got married the marriage only lasted a year or two.

When I was in my early twenties I really wanted to get married, but not anymore. I thought about it one day and I honestly don’t understand what marriage is other than a title you give to two people who were already happily together in the first place. You know the saying; “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” I believe that applies to relationships as well. I don’t understand this need to “take it to the next level.” I say if things are great as they are then it should be left alone.

Valentines’ day is something I just don’t get either. If you’re in love with someone you shouldn’t wait for one day out of the year to express that love to them. Why should I buy my woman roses, chocolates, and jewelry to show my love and appreciation on just Valentines’ day? I’m the type of guy who would rather surprise my girl on a day when she’s not expecting it. How can you do something on Valentines’ day and expect it to be a surprise? Like she’s not going to know you planned something. If you don’t do something on that day you get in trouble. For me it’s just a day not nearly as important as others. There are other days you could start celebrating to show appreciation towards women in general. There’s women’s health awareness and heart health month. There’s gender equality day and many other things you could actively participate in like the Susan G. Komen race for the cure.

You don’t have to buy her a new diamond ring each year…

I would much rather show her how I feel about her everyday without all the gimmicks.

There's investigation about that. It seems that sexual relation increases the release of the hormone oxytocin. Oxytocin, apparently, changes the brain behavior to allow more attachment to the partner... so, I think we are evolving towards monogamy. (At least I like to think so).

Anyway, marriage usually grants more safety to the couple. I'm not going to say that it is necessary, but in my experience, there's a point in the relationship when the marriage issue emerges and both partners agree to it, to demonstrate each other the commitment or the path each partner wants to take. It's like each other telling "I will be with you always" and it's something that emerges everyday. Marriage is not for everyone, it takes a lot of commitment.

Excuse me..I'm pretty insulted actually plus this is a debate thread so there is no need for any implied insults. I'm not saying that either single female parents are really common HNM and Raiden or telling you my personal beliefs but I am just concerned for those affected as I'm going to have to help them as a social worker in a few years, especially children who are being brought up without a mother or a father..
My main question is this: Why is this happening at all?? Does society persuade people through media to do these things?

Human no more: Please don't speak on behalf of me..Assuming you completely know what I am saying is wrong. I do not think that there aren't women who use men for money. :facepalm:

That's what I was trying to point out before. ;) But marriage has flaws too.

Fine, sorry if I assumed you thought that, that just seemed to be the implication. The part about 'risky' still stands though.
I've never understood this ridiculous opposition to single parents - if they are capable of looking after the child, and they choose to raise them themselves, then where's the issue? If you don't like them, don't have a child yourself. Remember that whenever you criticise single parents, you are criticising my family, who worked almost impossibly hard to make sure me and my sister had everything we wanted and were happy, and we were.
If you are interested in social work, then you'll soon realise that there are just as many married/together parents who don't look after their children as single parents. It's completely unrelated, and dependent on far too many factors to judge anyone like that. It's a good thing to do, wanting to help people, but with an attitude like 'x category of people are in the wrong', it's 'helping' for the wrong reason.

As for society, I'd say there is far too much pressure the opposite way - that is, to be together even if people are not right for each other, and to be married even if it isn't what they wanted, which is completely pointless if they honestly have feeling for each other - it should always be a matter of choice.

misstammie - that's really sad :'(, and I hope one day you do find someone, you are such a great person, I know you deserve it. I can understand that once trust is gone, it doesn't come back though :(
I agree with your view about valentine's day - if people want to do something slightly special on the day, than that's good, that's as it should be, but I dislike the expectation, the way companies have commercialised it so they try to create the expectation that someone has to, to 'prove' their love - real love doesn't need proof. Making a small gesture is a good thing, but there's no need for a specific day, and it's not something that should be thought less of if not done.

Sorry to hear about what he did to you. :(

As Lord Elrond of Rivendell said: "Men are weak" Really sorry to hear that happened to you. If I feel jealous from time to time, to be betrayed must feel like a kick in the throat, at least.
I think this whole thing about marriage is based 99% on the education of the couple. In my case, I was educated to commit to a single person, that a compromise of that kind is the most serious thing in life and that betrayal mostly ends in a lot of pain. My wife and I clearly put things before even dating, so we knew what to expect of each other, mostly. But that's my case, it's not entitled to be applied somewhere else. It seems to me that men are much more prone to look for adventures outside marriage and, if that happens, they try to hide it, expecting it to be magically solved instead acting like men and assuming responsibility of it.

Human No More, thank you. I do think that a lot of single parent do a great job of parenting, I never said that single parenting is wrong. The only problem is that they have a harder time bringing up children than those who are together, for example both financially and they would have less time to bring them up with work ect. I would like to see the gap between single parents and parents closed so that the children have the same opportunities in life and the parent can have less pressure on them. It's the complete opposite to what you have said. The only "wrong" here is what made the single parent single that is it.
My best friend was raised by her father because her mother died from cancer when she was 8, I have nothing but admiration for single parents so please don't think otherwise. :)
Misstammie: I feel so sorry for you, that must be so horrible. :S

A very powerful and true statement Raiden, in my opinion!

At the root of our being, all of us long for deep intimate (not just or limited to being defined physically) emotional relationships with others. None of us can survive without these connections. And the world, the universe, histories, have provided us with an infinite ways of possibility that we as beings can find, make, have, express those relationships to meet that need. All of us know how 'lost' and 'lonely' we feel without those connections.

And yes it would seem that the vast majority of humanity, as they mature and move towards adulthood, also long for a particularly strong connection, a singularity of relationship that is percieved as a 'life-long mutuality' of 'two' being together as 'one'. The global consistent 'label' that is usually attached being defined as the union known as 'Marriage'.

In some ways the philosophical aspect of this union of two as one is the belief that this is the perfect or perfection of this human condition of longing for connection. But is it? And if it is, why does it appear that it is 'failing' or 'flailing' round the globe in today's *cough* 'modern' societies?

Unquestionably part of the answer is that from the moment we arrive here in physical form on this earth we are showered or bombarded with experiences and messages that shape and define our perceptions and expectationis of love and relationships. As Raiden notes, that are largely influenced and limited by our cultural and world orientation ... the society scripts and labels, where we live.

Even Avatar presents the ideal .. within the confines of a particular perspective.

I will not argue with the generality of mankinds longing and observable inclination towards this union with the 'one other'. But I will observe that it is equally been proven and evident, that it is impossible for any singularity of relationship to be able to provide or meet all the needs of any individual, within the confines of that relationship. In other words ... how I see the problem is that 'expectation' is the inheritent flaw within the constructs and definition of the 'label'!

And it is those 'expectations' that become the burgeoning (burden) weighing down of our expressions of this longing.

At least wise the above is the 'Intelectualized' way of looking at it? :P

So 'what is love'? And what is this longing for a 'Beloved' .. a 'Soul Mate', .. a 'Kindred Spirit', .. a 'Spiritual Helpmeet', .. 'A Soul Companion' and why do we feel so empty, half not whole, without it? And is that connection the one and same or only limited to the union with the one whom we seek and usually join for 'life long mutuality'. Considering presently many of the global sociatal scripts seem to focus primarily on this union (aka) 'marital' relationship model as within mostly the physical/emotional/mental perspectives. Is the 'union' with the 'one other' meant to be the 'life long mutuality' relationship as well?

Confused .. so is probably each and every one of us!

Particularily, in my opinion, because the reality is that almost none, if any, of those cultural/sociatal scripts, necessairly have any strong negative messages or reprucussions regarding the sharing of ones emotional, mental, or even spirit aspects with others outside the percieved singular relationship. Where it boils down ... is that what is labeled as and upheld with strong conventions, laws, ordiances, scripts and seen as 'Taboo' is primarily focused on the 'physical' sharing element of the union relationship! Here it seems is where 'love' is not supposed to transcend a society's perception of the 'union' with a life long partner!

Yet, back to the awakening, the question, are we meant to, is it possible to have this complete 'completeness' of heart/mind/body/spirit with only one other? Or is the life-long mutuality relationship meant to be mostly for the 'physical' connection with some degree of affinity bonds to sustain it in the emotional, mental, and even possibly the spiritual realms, but the probability of it also being the 'Soul Mate' Connection not likely? At least wise that seems to be the apparent scenario emerging out of today's 'marital' breakdown statistics.

Maybe these breakdowns, flailings, are because so many historically and presently, have married under their percieved expectations - because they had too, or were limited within ones own thinking by those socital/cultural/religious/etc. scripts. It seems clear that a large proponent of individuals whose first (or more) marriage breaks down .. seem to focus the second time around more on the 'Soul Mate' Connection, the primary longing, within the new relationship.

So is humanity ready, is it possible to find from the outset the perfect union ... one that will consist of the life-long mutuality (particulairly of the emotional/mental/spiritual realms and needs), as well as the 'One', the longed for Soul Mate.

More in particular is it possible to acutally be able to make this sustained connection while still quite 'young', relatively speaking, in maturity and age? Considering most of those whom do eventually find their perfect uinon with their 'Beloved' ... have not done so till much later in life (aka --- the second time around).

Just a thought to consider .. are any of you so certain .. you can beat the odds?





(ok ... this is a parital thought .. and I'll hve to come back and finish later.)

To each his own I guess.

Although I must add that the point of marriage originally was not to be coerced but rather the exact opposite, to enter into freely (which, unfortunately is not the case sometimes). And its done for the sake of trust, not necessarily love. I could fully love someone but that doesn't necessarily mean that I fully trust that person. Just speaking personally (not arguing that marriage is better or anything), I would find it very hard to place trust in another party if they weren't willing to put something at stake or willing to show some form of commitment. However, with great trust comes the potential for great betrayal (very sorry about what happened MissTammie :'().

I can sympathize with this personally in my life. Working at a local food pantry occasionally, I see a lot of single parents with children. There is nothing wrong with them, in fact they are even quite heroic. Looking at the amount of food we have available to give them sometimes, I wonder how they can even manage to get by (especially when its like a 50 or 60 year old mother with 4 or 5 kids). It takes a lot to have the strength to take care of them. It can be depressing at times to see it happen.

I honestly think the idea is good (although I'm not so interested myself, primarily due to it still having religious links) in terms of staying with someone - but as you said, it was originally a choice to. In many countries, having a child when not married would lead to a massive social stigma and reduced rights even for the child themselves - thankfully, most of the world has moved away from that though. Trusting isn't an exchange, a negotiation or a transaction - it is putting yourself at a risk in some way, and hoping the other person won't take advantage of it (and they should do the same in that context).

Mika and Raiden, kudos for opening up the thinking on this.

Right now it usually takes more than one person at a time to raise our little one. I literally cannot fathom how a single mother can operate. Without help she could not even take a shower. I had no real comprehension of this before I, uh, procreated. For the first three months she basically has to be within arm's length of the baby at every moment; even getting something to eat or going to the toilet pose major challenges without assistance. I suppose there might be ways around that but like I said, outside my comprehension at the moment.

:)

Sempu I so can relate, when our granddaughter was born our daughter and son-in-law were living with us and it took All six of us (mom/dad grandma/grandpa aunti/uncle) living here at the time, it seemed and felt like to just meet the needs of one small baby. How nuclear parents, let alone single parents do it is beyond me, or why they would do it without supports :P

Which brings us back to the whole issue of outside 'western' thinking .. most places around the world DO NOT operate within a 'nuclear' context of only the couple by themselves with or without child. The majority of the world populations operates at least within the context of extended family, and those most traditional and in my opinion fortunated also have a whole community network involved in the child-rearing process .. (not to mention- probably the couple relationship as well).

Right. I don't think that the western setup was deliberately created as a way of increasing consumption through the sheer amount of extra products needed by nuclear families (let alone single parents) compared to extended families, communes, or tribes, but it sure is convenient for the corporations.

I would personally allow any type of marriages or romantic relationships, as long as those people involved actually love each other. I mean, that was the whole purpose of marriage and romance was it not?

And regarding children, while I have my own personal opinions, I believe they should be able to live with as many relatives as they want, be it 1, 2, or a dozen. However, only if they could live in relative comfort and safety, and have their most important needs fulfilled. No matter what beliefs are involved, the continued survival of the child is the largest issue.

No more in any other time in history than today.

And what do you mean by "allow"? How could you not "allow" relationships? And how would you even be able to tell if people were in "actually in love" or not?

Sorry, used an improper word. :P

What I meant to say is that, as long as they actually love each other, I've got no problem whatsoever. I support it, in fact. :)

To be honest, I'm not sure. But what's the point of a intimate relationship if they cant stand each other?
A child? Relationships aren't necessarily needed to care for a child.
Financial support? A horrible excuse. In fact, the other partner is likely to lose money.
Care? Many ways to care for people aside from that.

Ect.

My point is, an intimate relationship should be built on love, not on the lines of survival we have, as a species, conquered.

I disagree. I think the Chinese have the right idea. One child per family. If families have 5-10 children, then we're going to overpopulate in no time.

Battery farming is already becoming mandatory because of our overpopulation problem.

http://www.cosmosmith.com/images/graph.gif

http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/worldfer.gif

Map Key
Color . . . Fertility rate . . . Long-term impact
Red . . . . less than 2 . . . . declining population
Yellow . . about 2 . . . . . . stable population
Green . . . 3 to 4 . . . . . . . growing population
Blue . . . . 4 or more . . . . . rapidly growing population
Gray . . . data not available

Most of the population growth occurs in undeveloped countries. In industrialized countries including the US and many European nations, the only reason that population decline isn't visible is due to immigration.

The biggest factor in determining is the general attitude towards children. In an impoverished country, large amounts of children are seen as a source of security. In a place where there are hardly any social programs (or sometimes barely any functioning government) you need a large amount of children to take care of you in old age. In developed countries children are see as a source of expenditure and likewise, childbearing is much less common.

Limiting the number of children you can have in the West isn't the solution as it would barely have a noticeable impact. You could say that developing nations should limit their citizen's childbearing but who are we to tell them that?

No no no, I was regarding on the issue of single or multiple parents. As long as the child survives, doesn't matter.

One child per family is a good idea, but in a few generations, we'll have a very small population.

Exactly.
One system I've said would be a good medium is to allow people to sell/give their rights to have a child to another - since there are some people who don't have children and don't intend to, they can use this, either to gain for themselves or just to help someone who wants more, while people can gain the rights to more, while ensuring that the population remains balanced (or, more ideally, in a gradual decline to perhaps 4 billion).

As for a small population within a few generations - the point is that if necessary, it might only become implemented when needed, if population begins to reach an unsustainable level.

As for families being involved in children and parents' lives: Only if the parent wants them to be. People do have some need for privacy and space, as well as independence.