Tell me if I'm just a jerk

[flyingfish]

In fact, it is a very American thing. Europeans rarely marry at all anymore and most of the rest of the world marriages are contracts with a business transaction or are a marriage of necessity.

And as I understand marriage-as-business-transaction was common in the Western world as well in the past. I wouldn’t call it a good thing. And romantic love is definitely a better basis for marriage than that.

This is why the marriages that succeed have one clear leader that makes the decisions and the rest follow the leader. The happiest marriages are like this as well. Isnt it like this in all parts of life? Look at Congress! Unless there is an unquestioned leader in the White House or as leader of the majority party, nothing ever gets done! It happens so rarely that we remember the name of such Presidents and forget the majority that were not like this.

I definitely don’t agree with this analogy, because it would lead to the conclusion that a dictatorship is the best form of government. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I think it’s a very militaristic approach to life, it’s definitely not what I encounter. Consider the way scientists work together, it tends to be a collaborative process where ideas are shared and followed in so far as they are good ideas, not in so far as they are thought of by “the leader.”

I don’t know much about the business world, but I remember reading some articles about how a collaborative brainstorming type of approach is more effective than a top down hierarchy.

It’s certainly more pleasant, unless you’re into shutting up and doing as you’re told.

Maybe our different perspective is because you’re male and I’m female? I have never had relationships where one person was “the leader” and the other followed. It was always a team effort and a collaboration. This is how women organize ourselves, and the only kind of relationships I’d be willing to have with men. Maybe men organize themselves according to a strict hierarchy, I mean you definitely see it clearly in other species? I don’t know enough about this to comment to be honest, but I think I’d prefer to be single than in the kind of marriage you describe. It just doesn’t seem very fun, unless of course I happened by some stroke of luck to find a man who was infinitely intelligent, infinitely selfless, and infinitely interested in making me happy (i.e. marriage to a god )

 

[mjs1987]

And as I understand marriage-as-business-transaction was common in the Western world as well in the past. I wouldn’t call it a good thing. And romantic love is definitely a better basis for marriage than that.

I definitely don’t agree with this analogy, because it would lead to the conclusion that a dictatorship is the best form of government. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I think it’s a very militaristic approach to life, it’s definitely not what I encounter. Consider the way scientists work together, it tends to be a collaborative process where ideas are shared and followed in so far as they are good ideas, not in so far as they are thought of by “the leader.”

I don’t know much about the business world, but I remember reading some articles about how a collaborative brainstorming type of approach is more effective than a top down hierarchy.

It’s certainly more pleasant, unless you’re into shutting up and doing as you’re told.

If romantic love is good for marriage, why do we have a 50% divorce rate while India has a 1% divorce rate with arranged marriages? Even accounting for cultural reasons, romantic love has a very high failure rate. Thats why agape love is used in the bible and why before the 20th century marriages for love were rare and would be mocked.

Scientists may collaborate but it doesnt produce consensus. They have trouble getting all scientists to agree on just how much global warming is happening and even if it happening. With the amount science has changed both in knowledge and in approaching science, the collaborative approach is not as good as individual scientists that make it happen. Werner Von Braun, Elbert Einstein, Tesla, Edison, and Graham Bell were all major scientists in history and achieved quite a bit individually to lead their fields. Even in the scientific world, consensus is driven by leaders. One major scientist will use the work of other scientists and put it out as his own and lead the way. This is what Darwin did. Scientists do lab work in groups but the results are normally attributed to one or two scientists or the organization that funded the research.

Dictatorship IS the best form of government IF you want to get things done as a nation. China gets things done. If you do not like big government that gets things done, then the American system is perfect with checks and balances. But even in the American system, things get done with a leader. People remember Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan while they tend to forget other leaders. These leaders got things done. Otherwise, there is legislative gridlock and individuals and leaders are free to get things done. That is the whole free market argument. Take the government out and businesses will get things done more efficiently.

The UN for example tries to balance all the world leaders but in doing so it becomes basically irrelevant. It has no real power other than when a nation wants to use it to score political points with their allies or at home. NATO and EU are examples of alliances where people stay together because they have no other choice to do so even if they are not too happy with their neighbors. Even in the EU and NATO, there is a major leader: USA and Germany. Without those 2, both organizations would either fail or be very weak.

Marriage in a Christian sense is to get things done. Namely to pro-create and raise children. Note that the Catholic Church before Vatican II did not teach conjugal love as a purpose for marriage, it was simply procreation and raising children.

The problem with romantic love are emotions. They fade away. Without pressures like religion or even kids to stay together or without the will to compromise, it normally leads to failure. This is why the Romans and many more married not for love but for status and then took many lovers. The Christian idea of staying together exclusively in such a situation is what made Christianity such a difficult faith to follow and many had problems doing so. The idea of marrying for love first appeared really in the romanticist period and gained traction in the 20th century and really took off after WWII. Romantic love in a sense does work when backed up by a faith in God or something to tie down the two long term. But these days, God doesnt matter to most people and even kids are not enough to keep people together normally so marriages fail. That is the biggest reason why divorce rates are so high. Without fear of God, people have very few things to hold them back from being selfish. Thats why abortion rates are so high and why studies show such a large percentage of young people cant see themselves living to age 35. It is terrible what divorce does to kids. Sometimes I wonder if sham marriages where people stay together are better than divorce and re-marriages because of how messed up all my cousins that have parents that have divorced several times are now. I myself am a very different person than before my parents split up. There is a certain stability to marriage for the kids. Divorce may very well be what is best for parents but it can seriously mess the kids up because they can feel some sort of rejection or resentment for the way one of the two parents acted in the divorce. Marriage was not meant for pure emotions and romance. It has to be backed up by other things to keep it together otherwise you are better off doing what they do in Europe: domestic partnerships. Domestic partnerships are replacing marriages in Europe. It allows freedom for partners and for leaving if things go sour.

 

[flyingfish]

If romantic love is good for marriage, why do we have a 50% divorce rate while India has a 1% divorce rate with arranged marriages? Even accounting for cultural reasons, romantic love has a very high failure rate. Thats why agape love is used in the bible and why before the 20th century marriages for love were rare and would be mocked.

It depends on what you consider a good marriage. I would consider a happy and enjoyable marriage a good marriage, if a marriage that is not enjoyable, boring, or even unpleasant is long lasting I would think it is a bad thing rather than a good thing.

This is obviously a matter of personal opinion. I would want to be married to a man I’m crazy about even if that marriage doesn’t last, than to be married for life to a man I’m not particularly attracted to and am expected to sacrifice for.

You could imagine a situation with a 0% divorce rate and plenty of unhappy, unsatisfying marriages. (Maybe some oppressive Muslim country that stones you to death for divorce could achieve this.)

With the amount science has changed both in knowledge and in approaching science, the collaborative approach is not as good as individual scientists that make it happen. Werner Von Braun, Elbert Einstein, Tesla, Edison, and Graham Bell were all major scientists in history and achieved quite a bit individually to lead their fields. Even in the scientific world, consensus is driven by leaders.

Actually Einstein’s/Newton’s etc. situations are quite rare. As an alternative, take a look at the development of quantum mechanics. Many physicists contributed, and there wasn’t a one single person who did the work. Similar is true in biochemistry/genetics. Even people who seem to make great/independent discoveries rely on work of others that paved the way for them to do so, to use Newton’s words, they stand on the shoulders of giants.

But either way, this is still not the kind of thing that is generally meant by leadership you spoke about. People didn’t accept Einstein’s ideas because he was their leader, they accepted them because they were proved to be great models for the world.

The leadership model you’re talking about seems to be that one person is the leader (I am guessing you’d say this is the male), and the others (the female and the children) follow his lead unless he demands something blatantly immoral? I personally don’t see how that would be a fun situation to find oneself in (unless perhaps you’re the male and enjoy power).

Dictatorship IS the best form of government IF you want to get things done as a nation. China gets things done

The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany etc. also got things done, kings also got things done. However, I personally would prefer to live in a democracy, and democratic countries seem to have the highest happiness scores in studies about happiness.

The problem with romantic love are emotions. They fade away. Without pressures like religion or even kids to stay together or without the will to compromise, it normally leads to failure.

I wouldn’t say it normally leads to failure, 50% of marriages don’t end in divorce after all. But maybe I would agree with you, if you’re not forced to stay in a marriage and the marriage ceases to be beneficial it certainly makes sense to leave it. I don’t think that is a bad thing.

I definitely would not want to remain in an unhappy marriage, I don’t see how that’s any kind of an ideal to work towards. Children seem to grow up well enough when raised by single parents, or cooperating divorced parents. The goal of my life certainly wouldn’t be to throw away my happiness for the sake of someone else, if that’s selfish I have no problem with that.

 

[chevalier]

Vive le roi!

Now for some seriousness.

Also, girls that are close with even one ex-boyfriend are a cause for concern to me. This is because at some point there was attraction and mutual interest between the two and at any point they can re-discover this, leaving you on the outs with her. Some girls keep ex-boyfriends close either because they dated and genuinely didnt have a long term connection or she wants them close so that in the future she can have a chance with them again. Ex-boyfriends still in the picture just cries out DRAMA to me.

Short: I gotta agree.

Long: Often the people immediately concerned (in these cases, girls keeping exes around) do not notice the way in which they are bonded with someone, not to mention how things look from the outside. A habit of keeping exes around may suggest a problem making the past past.

And even a girl who stays friends with old boyfriends… well, that could be a good thing… a measure of someone who knows when something isn’t permanent but respected the people enough to be their friend in the first place and didn’t see the need to trash them just because it won’t lead to marriage. It can actually be a very good sign of mental health that someone can have a friendship with an ex. Especially at a young age… they recognize they’re not completely compatible, but she didn’t have to burn him to the ground on her way out.

Short: I gotta agree…

Long: If a normal friendship can be handled (and it can’t always), dropping a friend like a hot potato because romance didn’t work out would indeed be kinda stupid. Also, picking boyfriends or girlfriends that someone wouldn’t like to have as friends suggests, perhaps, that those boyfriends/girlfriends might be seen as merely men/women, but not as whole persons (as in friendship). People *need *to be seen integrally and not merely as people of the opposite gender, let alone as sex objects. The ability to stay friends suggests the initial choices might not have been as immature as with people who act on attraction alone, losing interest in any form of acquaintance when romance isn’t an option. So, how can one possibly even imagine to marry and live with someone who is not a friend? Can’t live off butterflies/chemistry. For this reason I agree, but I still agree with what Mjs said.

Your bigger issue is really the diminishing attraction. What first attracted you… now repels you. That is sometimes the way it goes.

Yup. In fact, I have this effect on women pretty often. Same stuff that attracted them either repels them later or causes what repels them later.

As someone who’s friends with ex boyfriends, it doesn’t have to be a red flag. My relationships are purely platonic, there is no interest at all in resuming the relationship. They reason I’m friends with them is that once you know a decent person for many years and are friends with them, it’s pretty silly to destroy that friendship.

Personally I would never date a man who expected me to dump friends I’ve known for years.

Not all break ups are ugly.

Well, I too wouldn’t imagine to be with a woman who expected me to dump my friends. Cries issues, doesn’t it? On the other hand, I’ve seen many people thinking their relationships were just friends until they weren’t (I’ve been in a couple of such friendships too). Not to pick on you, but “platonic” strictly means some form of spiritual romance that doesn’t find sexual expression but engages the “romantic” faculties to some extent. And this is precisely what some people don’t like about friendships with exes. Even if there’s no actual relationship, there are some transformed mechanics that can make some form of exclusive male-and-female partnership and mutual complementing extant, somewhat in a “my man” or “my woman” way, even if without sexual relations, plans to marry etc.

For example, let’s imagine I have a girlfriend and she has that friend who for some reason doesn’t seem to be her husband material (things didn’t work out, whatever), she keeps me as a boyfriend but goes hiking with that guy for two weeks and nothing sexual happens, but still. And then they meet up every week to talk about life, dreams, philosophy etc. They talk to each other affectionately, hug a lot and obviously care for each other and no, nothing sexual happens. Even if they go dancing or whatever, it doesn’t lead to more etc. Then just why am I white on my face thinking about this? This is how those friendships with exes or could-have-beens turn out sometimes. There is a problematic emotional engagement and there might well be latent sexual tension that simply isn’t overtly expressed or even noticed but well, that doesn’t prevent it from existing, either.

 

[sanctamaria17]

China gets things done? Maybe in their larger cities, they get things done! There are VAST regions where people are still struggling with poverty. Not to mention serious human rights abuses and environmental degradation!

One could argue that Hitler saved Germany’s economy. Too bad my Jewish ancestors didn’t benefit from that!

Top down approaches to governance have proven to be a mixed bag in the field of IR. Even the ones who managed to save their economies, was it worth the serious abuses of human rights that ensued? As for the increase in GDP or whatever, who’s benefiting, how was the income distributed? Are you really sure dictatorship is the best form of governance?

As for arranged marriages…well, if the choice was between staying married or being cut off from your family, especially if you’re a woman with little means to support herself, yeah, I’d imagine there would be a low divorce rate.

I agree that love is a choice and sacrifice but I’m definitely not taking exactly that approach to life.

 

[Musician]

I edited that post after you responded, but I don’t know if I agree with that. I guess it depends on how you view marriage. I don’t understand what it means for two to become one. Two don’t become one, marriage still consists of 2 people with their own dreams, goals, needs, and desires. Even if you call it 1, in practice it’s still 2 individuals living together.

What does it mean in practice for 2 to become 1? What if you have a conflict, how will you resolve it? If one partner wants to travel to Beijing and the other to stay in the US, what happens? Do you compromise and travel to Greece, that wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

In Holy Matrimony, two become one flesh. Man and woman join together to have a life together. The longer you are married, the more you grow into basically one person: two halves of a whole. It is almost mystical. After so many years, my husband and I are like one now: same goals, interests, etc.
However, and this is big: I believe that each “half” does everything in his/her power to make the other one happy. This creates happiness and contentment.
If a person starts out marriage knowing that it is indissoluble, s/he will tend to make a very good choice in a mate, evaluating common interests, goals, intentions, and many other factors. This way, you will understand what to expect from your prospective spouse.

 

[flyingfish]

For example, let’s imagine I have a girlfriend and she has that friend who for some reason doesn’t seem to be her husband material (things didn’t work out, whatever), she keeps me as a boyfriend but goes hiking with that guy for two weeks and nothing sexual happens, but still. And then they meet up every week to talk about life, dreams, philosophy etc. They talk to each other affectionately, hug a lot and obviously care for each other and no, nothing sexual happens. Even if they go dancing or whatever, it doesn’t lead to more etc. Then just why am I white on my face thinking about this? This is how those friendships with exes or could-have-beens turn out sometimes. There is a problematic emotional engagement and there might well be latent sexual tension that simply isn’t overtly expressed or even noticed but well, that doesn’t prevent it from existing, either.

This kind of thing could happen with any male friend though, it doesn’t matter if he’s an ex or not. Would it be more or less likely to happen with a male friend who’s not an ex? For me personally, it would be more likely to happen with a non-ex than an ex. An ex wouldn’t generate the same kind of excitement that a new male friend might.

If you really wanted to guard against this, you’d have to demand your girlfriend have no male friends, which of course is an unreasonable demand that I don’t think most women would tolerate.

You just have to accept in my opinion that it’s possible your partner will leave you for someone else and apart from locking your partner in the basement and hiding them from the world there isn’t much you can do about it.

 

[chevalier]

This kind of thing could happen with any male friend though, it doesn’t matter if he’s an ex or not. Would it be more or less likely to happen with a male friend who’s not an ex? For me personally, it would be more likely to happen with a non-ex than an ex. An ex wouldn’t generate the same kind of excitement that a new male friend might.

Not sure on that one.

If you really wanted to guard against this, you’d have to demand your girlfriend have no male friends, which of course is an unreasonable demand that I don’t think most women would tolerate.

I absolutely cannot agree. What I described in my example is not normal friendly interaction and expecting a woman not to go hiking and star-gazing and out dancing with a male friend on a one-on-one basis is absolutely not tantamount to asking her to have no male friends. It is merely tantamount to asking her that there be one romance in her life.

What is more, I am perfectly confident that most women would not tolerate me going out dancing with a female friend or going hiking with her for two weeks. Let’s keep an even standard.

You just have to accept in my opinion that it’s possible your partner will leave you for someone else and apart from locking your partner in the basement and hiding them from the world there isn’t much you can do about it.

Of course that’s a possibility. However, it’s not that I want to prevent opportunities for that to happen. Contrary, I would prefer the relationship to be tested. Preferably before marriage. However, finding a friend to go hiking for weeks with one on one (star-gazing? same tent? hugging by the fire? reading poetry? what else?) and behave like romantic partners in all but using the boyfriend/girlfriend title (and the most overt physical gesture) would be like leaving me already. A weekend out in the mountains with a male friend by a hypothetical girlfriend of mine would mean the end of the relationship with me. I wouldn’t think to do that with a friend, either.

I apologise if this sounds unkind of me, I have no desire to offend you and I would avoid that if possible. I’m just very tired from the last two days and not the master of wordcraft right now.

 

[flyingfish]

I absolutely cannot agree. What I described in my example is not normal friendly interaction and expecting a woman not to go hiking and star-gazing and out dancing with a male friend on a one-on-one basis is absolutely not tantamount to asking her to have no male friends. It is merely tantamount to asking her that there be one romance in her life.

Well, maybe that particular 2 week hike is not normal, but what about a few hour hike with a male friend? Or going skiing or fishing with a male friend? All things I could see myself doing. Also, in a busy life most of my interaction with my friends are online conversations. What is your opinion about that? You can definitely fall for someone because of conversations even if you don’t go on the hike with them, and see them mostly in a work setting.

What is more, I am perfectly confident that most women would not tolerate me going out dancing with a female friend or going hiking with her for two weeks. Let’s keep an even standard.

Emotionally I think I have a jealous streak, but I don’t act on it. I don’t attempt to control what my partner does, and wouldn’t want him to attempt to control me either. My outlook on life is not to expect commitment but view relationships as enjoying the present. In my opinion commitment is meaningless anyway, it’s an expression of a person’s current feelings, and once that changes commitment won’t mean much.

I personally think it’s pointless anyway, even if you forbid hikes in the mountains your girlfriend is still going to be interacting with men in her daily life (say at work), she will friend them on her facebook or messenger and they will have conversations. They can become attracted to each other that way, and affairs can happen.

I apologise if this sounds unkind of me, I have no desire to offend you and I would avoid that if possible. I’m just very tired from the last two days and not the master of wordcraft right now.

I’m not offended at all

 

[chevalier]

You see, it’s not about a particular activity but about the attitude. You could always find examples of some group of people doing some things innocently or habitually without problem. It’s not about exposing oneself to the risk of falling for someone else, either. The problem is basically when there are no sexual relations, no overt romantic gesture like kissing, no declarations that would contradict the relationship with someone else, but still the persons’ behaviour and emotional attachments contradict the idea of being in a relationship with someone else. That is when the friend is a boyfriend or girlfriend in all but name. I have a big problem with such relationships because monogamy is not just physically sexual exclusivity, it’s exclusivity of a certain partnership in life. Granted, in some ways we do share our lives with our friends, but there are some lines that shouldn’t be crossed and they cover some ground already before sex or overt romance.

 

[Argh]

Alright, this is very intimidating - a what, four page thread now?

We talked it over and we agreed that we will put everything on hold until the end of the school year to give ourselves time and space to think everything out. We both care about each other, a lot, but we can’t find a way to resolve the big issue.

I’m going to break my fast of alcohol and have a beer before I go to sleep, get up in the morning, and not be stressed out anymore. I’m very worried that my ambition to serve my country to the extent that I’m able (before possibly returning to academia) will prevent me from marrying. I’m certainly not cut out for either contemplative or active priesthood, so I’m just going to see if I get a Boren Fellowship or another opportunity that clarifies my future appears soon.