Being married = Being left on the shelf

24
Ever noticed that you have the tendency not to read books that you have bought and placed on your bookshelf? You know it will be there when you want it. But if it's a book that you can't buy because it's no longer in print and you borrowed it from a friend or the library, you would make an effort to read it.

Not surprisingly, this is how many people treat one another in relationships. Once they have married a person and signed the marriage contract, they no longer make an effort. They "know" that their spouse is there when you need him/her.

I have heard many stories about people ill-treating/neglecting their spouse and saying/doing bad things about their spouse in public or behind their spouse's backs. After the spouse had had enough, they leave the marriage and the one who is left behind can only cry in the rain. When people look at those who are crying and see how sad they are, people feel sorry for the them. But if they hear the spouse's side of the story, I'm sure they would change their hearts and minds about feeling sorry for them!

Even if the spouse who is left behind is remorseful (usually they're not - if given the chance they would do exactly the same thing), their spouse is unlikely going to take them back.

Here are 2 songs about "remorseful" men.

Craig David - Insomnia
(Can't sleep without me? That's your problem!)


Tinchy Stryder - Take Me Back ft. Taio Cruz
(Can't live without me? Well, you are you still alive and singing! Go prove it.)

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

And I wish to add too:

What is "marriage" except a man-made social requirement during these times? Why must there be such a thing called marriage when we all know that as soon as you have expended all that energy and resources and got the girl of your dreams...within a few short years you would have taken each other for granted. And for some who cannot control this human failing, drastic consequences!

So I say a society free of such emcumbrances like marriage and all it's unintended but obvious impacts is not such a bad thing after all!

I'm gonna be slammed by David for sure. keke

curious cat

David said...

Yu-Kym & CC,

This is not the first time Yu-Kym has questioned the need for monogamous marriage.

http://yu-kym.blogspot.com/2009/04/marriage-necessary-evil.html,

Tuesday, April 21, 2009-

Marriage: the necessary evil

I am truly saddened to read that books left on a shelf can be equated with marriage? ? ?

Ms. Loh has heard many stories regarding women married and abused, ignored, or other mis-treated.

No doubt curious cat will relate other sorry stories.

Let's blame society. Solves everything.

Great. Society has been thrown into the dustbin of history.

Now what.

Hey, let's everyone jump into bed with anyone who shares some mutual hots.

CC gets to test drive all the lovely ladies he can handle. YK perhaps a little more selective test drives an enjoyable variety of men.

6 months later. CC is living an man paradise! What's this test drives 4, 12, 16 and a few others are pregnant. Okay most of them will get an abortion. CC is in the clear...not quite.

Several of the ladies want babies, and want a father for them. Now what does CC do. TAG CC you fill in the blanks here.

Yu-kym what if after all your precautions still get pregnant?

Loving who we want, when we want sounds so great.

I am not going to the research here. Well I have but people one must learn the history of the few communities that have gone down this road.

Notice that no current society is completely polygamous. Some Islamic nations allow the man to have many wives.
However these societies are strongly male dominated.

China has many more men than women. Selective abortion, since male babies are considered more valuable in the PRC. Results in fewer girls with each passing year. Hmm, what options for the remaining girls, well look at all the men they can choose from.

Yu-Kym, comments about the PRC?

However no society allows women many husbands. Ms. Loh, is this fair...?

No, I did not think you would say such is fair, plainly this is very chauvinistic.

I agree such is very unfair.

How does one replace the family unit and raise children? Any answers?

Science fiction has some interesting worlds created that do have such societies. These wonderful worlds are just that, imaginary.

Back in the late 1960s and 1970s after birth control became widely available, more than a few pundits supporting a variety of womens movements growing during this period that the best thing about the pill is that it allowed ever the most unattractive females to get good sex.

The beer goggle effect is real:
http://www.asylum.com/2008/08/15/research-proves-beer-google-effect-is-real/

With such sexual freedom as CC and YK fantasize about, that same world will no doubt allow men 20, 30, 40 years of age, even older if that little pill works, for these men to have sex with sexy little 13,14 and other teen women.

A little over the top? A bit to far.

Without some moral absolutes society will have an even more slippery slope than we know it to have now.

I look forward to Yu-Kym's wise followers and of course Yu-Kym's fix for the above.

I am waiting to be enlightened!

David

Jesus, like any good fisherman, first catches the fish; then He cleans them.

-- Mark Potter

Anonymous said...

David,

A most hilarious reply from you. I enjoyed your "sarcastic" comments. lol You didnt use your sledgehammer on me instead you use your sledgehumour. keke

curious cat

Anonymous said...

David,

Pre-marital sex. Infidelities, broken marriages, dysfunctional families. Stigmatised babies born out of wedlock. Frowned upon single parent family not considered a nucleus. These and many more are present day ills. And I can go on and on and it gets infinitely more extensive and shocking! But I'm not judging right or wrong here.

But who is to say the societies we have now is the best form and other alternative lifestyle must necessarily be spat at? Granted, a nouveau society of my vision may also degenerate to depths of present societies, but on what basis do you presume we will be worse off than present day debauchery? What good does all your uprighteous moral values do to present societies?

Don't you think too present day (and also any) society creates its own ills and problems?
For all you know every society whatever their form will come to an end one way or another because each suffers from an inherent disease - as long as human beings are being designed so imperfectly, all societies will suffer the same pitfalls and fate.

Hey! hahaha I take offence your remark that I'm less selective of my mate than Yu-Kym! lol

curious cat

David said...

CC, you are correct in mentioning current societal ills.

For all the bad that happens, consider that the majority of people on Earth do live better now than at any time in history.

Life spans are longer. While it true that more than 3.5 billion people live in some degree of poverty, that means nearly 50% of the populace live in some degree of comfort.

As mentioned the few attempts to build free and open societies all failed.

The worlds of science fiction remain imaginary.

David

The first great gift we can bestow on others is a good example.

-- Thomas Morell

~Pink Miu Miu~ said...

Mm not really, for couples who been thru ups and downs before they tied the knot would treasure the marriage more as they understand it's not easy to attain.

Of course, years after marriage there's this 'crisis' depends after 7 year? or 10 year? where it may seem 'boring' and problems arise. However a relationship with strong foundation, i believed can withstand any temptation.

Just as we water the plants we grow, we also need to feed nutrients to the marriage we choose.

Anonymous said...

David,

The "majority" of ppl living better now gives scant consolation to the fact that hundreds of millions more live in abject poverty and sufferance. Millions more everyday live lives of moral abuse and degradation, selfishness and greed.

How can we be satisfied then with the present society, the way it is run and not be open to other alternatives!

For a start, let's do away with this artificial social misfit called "marriage and divorce"! lol

curious cat

Anonymous said...

Pink Miu Miu,

Take a boring man who has been through ups and downs in life, take a similar and compatible boring woman. Pair them together and if they fall in love, I say that makes a strong foundation for a boring life!

curious cat

David said...

CC, "...let's do away with this artificial social misfit called "marriage and divorce."

6,000 years of multiple civilization tradition is an artificial social misfit?

One of us is truly delusional.

"The "majority" of ppl living better now gives scant consolation..."

I will not count the thousands of dollars my wife and I have sent to charity. Both of us donated money for 2 yrs from every paycheck for Tsunami relief after the big Indonesia, Phuket disaster.

Millions of Americans did the same, many did the same after Katrina, and now for the floods in Pakistan.

There always have been and always will be poor.

CC, you want to replace what you all artificial societal traditions. Now be brave enough to take the next step.

What will the new social convention be build upon? ? ? ?

Pink Miu Miu, I have been married for 21 years. Through more ups than downs and after any crisis we found our love stronger. Some might call us boring.

However I have no problem with a life of happiness. Not happy and every moment, but always grateful for a loving, lifelong partner.

David

In the total expanse of human life there is not a square inch of which the Christ, who alone is sovereign, does not declare, "That is mine!"

-- Abraham Kuyper

Anonymous said...

David,

I am limited by being a mere mortal so I do not have answers to some questions.

But i do know that marriage is a misfit because thousands of years of civilisation has not made man and woman comfortable with such an
artificial arrangement. Given a choice, I dare say most would rather do away with marriages. Man and woman can co-
habit as a loving couple without marriage.

So the little I can say is that my new social convention is visioned upon doing away with some of the nonsensical rules crafted by man. Starting with doing away with marriages! lol

I salute you for your kind charitable hearts and generousity that surely must have helped many. But to many more hundreds of millions, those that do not receive help and is still suffering, it's still scant consolation.

God is perceived to be omni-potent. If so, he is certainly not all-merciful and omni-benevolent!


curious cat

David said...

CC, the world knows you have no use for marriage. To tradtional and useless.

Go with cohabitation. I am sure many contermporary SG women would agree with you that marriage is so old fashioned.

Be aware however cohabitation takes you down a slippery sloap.

"An interesting study was conducted by Hall and Zhao (Cohabitation and Divorce in Canada, Journal of Marriage and the Family, May 1995: 421-427). They write,


The popular belief that cohabitation is an effective strategy in a high-divorce society rests on the common-sense notion that getting to know one another before marrying should improve the quality and stability of marriage. However, in this instance, it is looking more and more as if common sense is a poor guide.
Their study showed that cohabitation itself was shown to account for a higher divorce rate, rather than factors that might have led to cohabitation, such as parental divorce, age at marriage, stepchildren, religion, and other factors. In other words, other factors being equal, you are much more likely to divorce if you live together first."

And from: http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report_getting-engaged-before-moving-in-can-cut-break-up-risk_1414120

It might seem outdated, but getting engaged before moving in with your partner could be the secret to staying together, according to a University of Denver research.

A study by psychologists in the US revealed that couples are almost twice as likely to end up divorcing if they cohabit before they are betrothed.

But those who had popped the question before setting up home had longer and happier marriages, even if they moved in together before walking down the aisle.
* * *

Aside from anarchy you have not presented any viable option.

Yu-Kym, how and with what would you replace marriage?


David

I have read Plato and Cicero sayings that are very wise and beautiful; but I never read in either of them: 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give thee rest.'

-- St. Augustine of Hippo

Yu-Kym said...

Pink Miu Miu, how do you know that neither of them in the marriage had affairs? I know of couples who have been through ups and downs, they have children... and affairs... they are still together. They won't tell just anyone about the affairs though. Sometimes even their partner does not know.

David, I think every couple needs a different set of rules which they must define. Some relationship operate better under strict religious guidelines or laws while other deteriorate because of the guidelines and laws.

I think it's unfair both to PRC men and women that PRC women are not supposed to have more than 1 husband. But societal and cultural beliefs are difficult to change. Even in Singapore, some Singaporean Chinese do favour male children. One friend said that his colleague chose not to abort her baby solely because it is male.

Anonymous said...

David,

All the above studies began from a different fundamental premise in the first place - a society that traditionally or usually means cohabitation leading to marriage and these days not too uncommon - divorce. Therefore its irrelevant findings do not apply or can ever explain away my vision of a nouveau society which starts with the basic tenet of "no official marriages" - therefore "no official divorces"!

I say it will be just good old plain relationships between a man and a woman, a union of two individuals, cohabitation or otherwise but no officialdom marriage. In the normal course of any relationship, these unions may break up or carry on for years..but it disintegrates or develops just like any two persons in a "best-friend" friendship would. Without the excessive and sometimes all too public, ugly complications of marriage and divorce.

And if you have not already noticed, the society we live in is already witnessing men and especially independent successful women happy to be alone rather than being married; or after having tasted the bitterness of marriage and divorce, never again; or the absurdity of same-sex marriage; or the courage of happy-to-be single unmarried parent with not necessarily their own biological child and many more that turn the age-old "wisdom" and desirability of "marriage" on its head.

Eventually, who needs "marriage" then? It's not cast in stone. Man crafted it, Man can also uncraft it! And it's already happening.

curious cat

David said...

My experience is that most married couples define some rules. Early on my wife and I agreed on a division of labour.

She is better at some task, and I can do others better.

However neither you nor Mr.CC have any idea what should replace marriage. CC points out that more women are getting married later, but they still marry.

Ultimatley we are humans and seek out other humans for comfort and growth. As I have mentioned the experimental communities that were open societies all failed miserably. The lack of a basic family unit, and any cohesive sense of communtiy could not develop.

The studies I presented can only compare cohabitation results with non-cohabiters who marry.

Late marriages, unwarranted pressures for few or no children is resulting in negative population growth in SG, Japan, Korea, and all of Europe. Over here the States are just above zero growth.

CC's "vision of a nouveau society", has no support, and no indication that type of society can ever succeed.

CC, you do not address the role of the family unit, as your plan would do away with entirely. Who raises children, how many mothers and fathers play the role of care giver. What CC proposes is close to anarchy. Perhaps as a hedonistic single CC can live out much of his fantasy life.

But one must note he is very single!

For 6,000 years marriage has survived, and many other visionary societies have come and disappeared.

David

The first great gift we can bestow on others is a good example.

-- Thomas Morell

Anonymous said...

David,

You make me laugh a million times! Ok, we both can go on and on but it has been an interesting exchange.

I'm also not "very single", I'm very much constantly in demand! keke

I'm also not a hardline "at all costs" hedonist although I'm for a joyful life as much as I can achieve it. lol

curious cat

David said...

Yu-Kym,

My last word on this most interesting discussion.

While it is easy to express ones dislike for the tradition of marriage.

The importance of marriage can be overlooked.

Unless someone comes up with what would be either a tremendous evolutionary change in marriage or society(s) as we know them collapse, then short of that marriage will continue.

Artificial communities, and dreamy ideas sound great when a group of friends agree on the topic.

One cannot simply make marriage disappear without affecting all of the societies on our little planet.

David

The 7 modern sins: politics without principles, pleasures without conscience, wealth without work, knowledge without
character, industry without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice.


-- Canon Frederic Donaldson

Yu-Kym said...

David, I don't think marriage is going to disappear anytime soon. I think it's still a necessary evil. http://yu-kym.blogspot.com/2009/04/marriage-necessary-evil.html

David said...

Yu-Kym,

Your iron will stance regarding marriage is troubling.

Infidelity has followed married couples throughout history. This is not new.

Marriage is not evil, only people can be evil and cause harm to a partner.

The collapse of society with the anarchy that would follow would be evil

David

Anonymous said...

Hi Yu-Kym & everyone

I am surprised by the view that marriage is a necessary "evil".

I suppose "evil" is an "undesirable state" rather than the negative connoctations associated with it.

Really, when you love a person deeply; what is so wrong or undesirable to make a deeply life-long commitment to stick with her/him?

All human communities need some rules in order to exist. Without rules, there would be no predictability. No predictability means no assurance that for example; your spouse will be home tonight.

Those who advocate doing away marriage may not find the situation to their liking when your partner is not around just when you need her/him.

One of the most basic and valuable needs of every human being is - the need for love. The need for love is attached to a host of other needs such as the feeling of being cared for, being trusted by and being relied upon.

Without marriage and the rules that come with it, how could two persons ever rely on the other for the most basic of human needs - love?

Yes, there are "disadvantages" being in a marriage contract. You cannot take a fancy to another pair of skirt/pants no matter; how ardent/attractive the new partner may beckon you, how irritating your present partner is, how 'put-down' your rich mother-in-law treats you, ...... etc.

It is precisely that one remains true to one's soul-mate/partner by resisting these distractions/attractions or by working out the irritations, that we humans affirm and is able to better appreciate the "sacrifices" our partner made to stay true/faithful to us.

I am speaking as a guy and will has admitted I was not always faithful in the past.

But; "One doesn't realised the value of something until it is forever lost".

The thing I lost was a basic human quality called TRUST. It would take me a long, long time to regain it.

I do not recommend losing it.

You would never ever wish to see - the bright sparkle and joy forever dimmed in her/his eyes.

Marriage and the promise to keep to the vows that comes with it - is a very valuable instrument for every human community.

It is not evil at all.

Regards, Leo

Anonymous said...

Leo,

I say.."when you love a person deeply; what is so wrong or undesirable to make a deeply life-long commitment to stick with her/him"...without having to be "married" off?

Marriage is not evil, but it is an unnecessary social norm.

Rules are necessary but how rules are crafted and implemented can also make or break things. When one is close friends or courting, there are also implicit rules that makes for a good relationship. When the express rules of marriage are forced into their lives, all sorts of potential, real and never-before encountered complications comes to the fore for them.

I say cohabitation and marriage also share many commonalities like love, care, trust, infidelity, distractions, complications, sacrifices and compromises, etc. But I can live a less complex union and I dare say a happier of a life with someone in the context of cohabitation than a formal marriage.

What marriage attracts, provides, cohabitation can too. What marriage detracts, cohabitation has less of.

David, I know I've said my last words to you on this subject, but Leo is my next worthy "opponent" on this subject. lol

curious cat

David said...

CEC, what is it about marriage that you and Ms. Loh simply do not understand?

Marriage is not and never will be evil.
Men and women can be evil within a marriage.

Marriage is one of all societies foundations. I have detailed in other post the failures of communities that have attempted other non-marriage lifestyles.

The lets cohabitate, or sign the 3 year marriage contract ideas are not workable. Neither of you have given any reason beyond fiction, and personal want why your Utopian world has a chance of working?

Short of collapsing society world-wide, with the real evil of anarchy that would follow, marriage will and must endure.

The ideas that one can build a society without marriage, also means one can build a society without a family. How do you and Yu-Kym propose replacing the family unit.

Who will raise children?

You might suggest that everyone share in childrearing. This has been tried, and with few exceptions, has failed miserably.

Children simply need the bond and security of the parents. Without the real love a mother and father have for their children, the young simply do not prosper and grow properly. The stories are numerous with how serial killers, rapist and other sociopaths grow in dysfunctional or other unusual family unit, and grow into the monsters of society.

CEC, and Ms. Loh, your approach to replacing marriage is to simplistic and cannot work!

David

The art of love... is largely the art of persistence.

-- Albert Ellis

Anonymous said...

David,

I repeat "Marriage" is not evil. I differ from Yu-Kym in this although I suspect she does not intend it to be so extreme. The evil is in man himself, not marriage per se!

Therefore if you believe man is the sauce, why do you need "marriage" to bind two persons in love together? Why do you need "marriage" to raise children? What is it in that piece of "marriage certificate" that gives marriage the monopoly to be the one and only effective and acceptable form of children raiser? You mean dsyfunctional families with wayward children do not occur in "marriages"?

Just as there are lasting marriages with love, there are bad marriages with the lack of it. Just as there are complete nucleus-families with care and love for their children, there are also successful single-parent families who are equal to the task. So why is there no room for cohabitation to be just as successful as "marriage" and raising children with love, nurture and care....if not more so? After all what separates the two except just a piece of paper, fabricated by man! And man is integral to it's outcome, not marriage nor cohabitation or other forms of union!

And if marriage is so "ordained" by God or religion, why must it be binding upon non-believers?

curioius cat

David said...

CEC,

Again you are back questioning the reason for a structured and somewhat sane society.

Bring on anarchy if you desire to live a free and mostly hedonistic life style.

Repeated studies have shown that children from co-habiting parents have more problems than children from married parents.

While there are many good single parent homes. The problems that children have from single parent homes are far greater than children raised with a mother and father.

Some examples from: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

Lone mothers

Are poorer

Are more likely to suffer from stress, depression, and other emotional and psychological problems

Have more health problems

May have more problems interacting with their children

Children living without their biological father

Are more likely to have health problems and engage in high-risk behaviour

Are more likely to live in poverty and deprivation

Have more trouble in school

Tend to have more trouble getting along with others

Have higher risk of health problems

Are at greater risk of suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.

Are more likely to run away from home

You are right about the marriage certificate. That piece of paper is only as good as the people signing it.

What makes marriage work is the love of the man & women.

Most marriages do succeed. Are all great, well more are successful than fail.

The stats tell one that children are better off in a cohesive family!

Notice that no where do I mention Religion. The marriage certificate legalizes a civil union. In many nations couples write their own vows, as here in the States that is very common.

The odds appear stacked against the success of long term, large scale cohabitation.

Of course you can try world wide anarchy accompanied by a sci-fi style disaster.

Let me know how that turns out.

David

If ever I reach heaven I expect to find three wonders there:
first, to meet some I had not thought to see there; second, to miss some I had expected to see there; and third -- the greatest wonder of all -- to find myself there.


-- John Newton

Yu-Kym said...

David, I meant "necessary evil" as a figure of speech.