Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-28-2010, 06:45 PM
 
11,865 posts, read 16,972,596 times
Reputation: 20084

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette View Post
they cheapin it for the rest of us who do mean it.
You shouldn't let anyone else cheapen your vows. If you mean what you said when you got married then that should be all that matters, right? Don't pay more attention to what everyone else says and does than you do to your marriage and what you do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2010, 06:47 PM
 
5,143 posts, read 5,392,386 times
Reputation: 2865
Each people's definition of marriage is up to them. Far be it for me to judge it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Troy, Il
764 posts, read 1,555,100 times
Reputation: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
I don't claim to know everything, but I know enough to reject claims that are specious on their face. To define status through money is erroneous, and not justified simply because it's too hard to define it otherwise. There are coops right here in New York City that you can't buy for any amount of money because you don't have the right kind of status. There are clubs that you can't join even with money, and you can't buy your way into, say, a professorship at a respectable university. No amount of money will make you a Knight of the Order of the Garter. The list is endless. So the automatic identification of status with money is a fallacy, and I will not let it slide simply because jeez louise, those evo psych people can't prove their so-called hypothesis otherwise.
Where does evolutionary psych come from? I never said that. You did. All i said was instinct, which doesnt neccessarily mean evolution. We all have instincts. And if you dont think that men are attracted physically attractive women or think that wealth attracts women then you are naive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Troy, Il
764 posts, read 1,555,100 times
Reputation: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinx View Post
You shouldn't let anyone else cheapen your vows. If you mean what you said when you got married then that should be all that matters, right? Don't pay more attention to what everyone else says and does than you do to your marriage and what you do.
I aggree, and i stated that awhile ago, in truth i dont know how this argument got where it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Northern Virginia
4,489 posts, read 10,922,714 times
Reputation: 3698
I think the problem with marriage is that people go into it with the mentality of "marriage is for me". The goal is to make them happy. When their spouse or their marriage no longer benefits them, they see no point to it any longer.

We see that mentality on this board all the time. "My wife won't have sex with me" (solution: get a divorce). "My husband refuses to help with anything" (solution: get a divorce). "I no longer love my spouse." (Solution: Divorce your spouse, so you both have a chance at finding love again) As soon as a spouse is unhappy in the marriage, people pipe up with the "life is too short to be miserable" argument, and suggest finding a new partner who can make you happy.

The thing is, marriage isn't for ME. In my view, marriage is for God (to a non religious person, I guess it would be "marriage is for us"?). Our goal in our marriage is to glorify God. When you take the selfishness out of it, and make your marriage a servant-like relationship where you always put your spouse (and God, if you believe) first, the rewards are endless.

We went into our marriage with a basic agreement of values, and a really high level plan. No, we never talked about what would happen if we had an autistic child or a parent with dementia, but we did talk about what we'd do in the face of tragedy. We discussed the importance of communication, of a willingness to constantly work on our marriage, and agreed that divorce is never an option. It just isn't. From day one, we've worked to strengthen our marriage before it got to a point where it needed help. We did premarital counseling, joined a couple's Bible study, and have mentor couples who have been married 30 and 50 years who can help us work through issues when we come to them.

I don't think we're better than people who have divorced. I'm sure that by the time we reach 20 or 30 years, there will have been several breaking points where divorce will look like a better alternative than staying. I do feel sad for people who chose to divorce though. I've seen my parents and grandparents go through horrible tragedies (death of a sibling, addiction, bankruptcy, stressers up the wazoo) and come out stronger for it. I feel bad that some people didn't think they could have that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 06:58 PM
 
3,486 posts, read 5,675,718 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette View Post
Where does evolutionary psych come from? I never said that. You did. All i said was instinct, which doesnt neccessarily mean evolution. We all have instincts. And if you dont think that men are attracted physically attractive women or think that wealth attracts women then you are naive.
You are naive if you think that women aren't attracted to physically attractive men or that wealth does not attract men. We all have instincts, true -- but each of us has more than one, you know. Plus, we all have brains, and many people use their (big) heads for more than just wearing hats and ingesting food. Human sexuality and human behavior are complex and multi-faceted. Evo psych -- and what you are describing is evo psych -- is wrong because it takes as its departing point something that's patently untrue. And to perpetuate the untruth, it throws the scientific method out of the window. In science, you are supposed to make careful observations without preconceived ideas, formulate a hypothesis which accounts for all of those observations (scientific observations, mind you, not casual ones), and then test the hypothesis rigorously. The kind of "experiment" that you are describing does something else. It starts out with a hypothesis -- a commonly held bias -- and then sets out to perform selective observation with an a priori goal of proving it, rather than ascertaining the truth. Of course, if you stop a bunch of women on the street and ask them whether they would marry a rich man or a pauper, the answers are a foregone conclusion; same if you just ask a bunch of men whether they care about attractiveness in a mate. However, obviously, this is not a scientific way to gather information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 07:09 PM
 
4,253 posts, read 9,436,305 times
Reputation: 5140
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
most of which you'll never be able to anticipate or fully prepare for. But that's what makes some marriages worth admiring. The bond becomes stronger.
Just a side remark about this --- when two people do weather bad times, emotional upheavals, illnesses and all kinds of struggles, --- when they finally reach a point of feeling completely whole, having finally worked out their jagged puzzle pieces, and becoming one finished puzzle, --- this is the time when you see people driving in a car for 100 miles without talking, or people going about their routine in the morning or afternoon, without passion and drama that you would expect from a couple , ----

and the conclusion could be drawn that they have settled, that they have lost their love, that their marriage is lacking something, that they have become roommates etc, --

while in fact they have finally started feeling that complete and utter bond.

Just another example of how fickle and illusionary the outside judgement could be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Troy, Il
764 posts, read 1,555,100 times
Reputation: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
You are naive if you think that women aren't attracted to physically attractive men or that wealth does not attract men. We all have instincts, true -- but each of us has more than one, you know. Plus, we all have brains, and many people use their (big) heads for more than just wearing hats and ingesting food. Human sexuality and human behavior are complex and multi-faceted. Evo psych -- and what you are describing is evo psych -- is wrong because it takes as its departing point something that's patently untrue. And to perpetuate the untruth, it throws the scientific method out of the window. In science, you are supposed to make careful observations without preconceived ideas, formulate a hypothesis which accounts for all of those observations (scientific observations, mind you, not casual ones), and then test the hypothesis rigorously. The kind of "experiment" that you are describing does something else. It starts out with a hypothesis -- a commonly held bias -- and then sets out to perform selective observation with an a priori goal of proving it, rather than ascertaining the truth. Of course, if you stop a bunch of women on the street and ask them whether they would marry a rich man or a pauper, the answers are a foregone conclusion; same if you just ask a bunch of men whether they care about attractiveness in a mate. However, obviously, this is not a scientific way to gather information.

Again, you assume too much, your entire point is unfounded, you are the only one who is biased. You have not seen the show, you dont know the hypothesis, you dont know how they tested it, you dont know anything except what you feel. You assume over and over again.....and it is exausting to argue with someone who makes one unfounded point after another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Houston, Texas
10,447 posts, read 49,587,025 times
Reputation: 10614
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovesMountains View Post
[mod cut]

You have obviously chosen poorly every time you have married (3, right?). But it's not fair to blame ALL women for your troubles with a few of them. Take some responsibility for your own happiness, your own sex life and learn from your mistakes. I'm betting if you did some things differently you too could find a woman who would actually stay married and have sex with you for the rest of your life
Ah come on Mountiangirl. I wonder what you said that was so bad that it had to be deleted. You always agree with me and like what I have to say, and likewise here. Sorry if I touched some sore spot. I made mistakes, they made mistakes. But I was not refereeing to mistakes by any gender. I was referring to when the sex stops. Usually there is little hope to get that desire back after years of the same ol same ol. I guess I came on too strong in my attempt to make a sarcastic joke.

No harm to you my friend. Hugs your way from me!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2010, 07:12 PM
 
3,486 posts, read 5,675,718 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette View Post
Again, you assume too much, your entire point is unfounded, you are the only one who is biased. You have not seen the show, you dont know the hypothesis, you dont know how they tested it, you dont know anything except what you feel. You assume over and over again.....and it is exausting to argue with someone who makes one unfounded point after another.
But you do know all these things, right? So why don't you explain it to us? It will be edifying. After all, you brought up this Discovery Channel program -- why don't you summarize it, and demonstrate in what way the researchers' methodology is consistent with the principles of science. You should begin by telling us what observations were made, and how they were made, before the hypothesis was formulated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top