Is marriage out dated????

[AristotlesOwn]

I personally believe that the institution of marriage is becoming anachronistic or is headed in that direction. The way the divorce rate is rising, it's becoming more of a risk than an asset, especially to us men (refute if you wish). The world is moving at a faster pace than it did years ago. The invention of the internet and the rapid proliferation of dating sites provides people various options and oppotunities to meet persons of the opposite (or same) sex, thus it seems cheating is increasing and is likely inevitable. When your parents and grandparents were courting, none of this tech existed, and they were limited, more or less, to date within their cities, churches, and inner circle of friends (unless they were in the military).

I would love to meet someone both pretty and smart enough to spend my life with, but I would also be cool with having kids with someone and simply living together (or not). I also realize that I may never achieve any of that because I am a free spirit, need lots of space, and have unreasonably high standards.

If one should feel the need to get married, it really shouldn't be until you KNOW you are ready for the responsibility and are financially stable enough to handle it. That's how my parents did it and I suspect it's the main reason they are still together.


[/rant]

 

[owl]

I agree with the sentiment that marriage as it is practiced in this country has a tendency to hinder selfish pursuits, but hey, responsible actions have a way of doing that. But we do need a practice in which children are nurtured by two strong parents, in a stable environment, allowing them to benefit from an inheritance of asset wealth, as well as cultural wealth and proper socialization. I do believe that the thread should be titled,"Is monogamy out-dated?", because we deserve options when necessary. The black population needs a responsible boost in numbers coupled with an impressive conduit for stable development of our children, and the institution of marriage does have the ability to accomplish that.

 

[QueEx]

I agree with the sentiment that marriage as it is practiced in this country has a tendency to hinder selfish pursuits, but hey, responsible actions have a way of doing that. But we do need a practice in which children are nurtured by two strong parents, in a stable environment, allowing them to benefit from an inheritance of asset wealth, as well as cultural wealth and proper socialization. I do believe that the thread should be titled,"Is monogamy out-dated?", because we deserve options when necessary. The black population needs a responsible boost in numbers coupled with an impressive conduit for stable development of our children, and the institution of marriage does have the ability to accomplish that.

Do you think that fostering and pushing "a practice in which children are nurtured by two strong parents, in a stable environment, allowing them to benefit from an inheritance of asset wealth, as well as cultural wealth and proper socialization" is consistent with and can be successful with the non-monogamous, "options when necessary" ???

QueEx

 

[owl]

Do you think that fostering and pushing "a practice in which children are nurtured by two strong parents, in a stable environment, allowing them to benefit from an inheritance of asset wealth, as well as cultural wealth and proper socialization" is consistent with and can be successful with the non-monogamous, "options when necessary" ???

QueEx

I see how a person could take that last quoted statement and run with it. We need a responsible pattern of marriage that removes the limitations we seem to have a problem overcoming, namely variety when it comes to sexual desire. Even Ghandi and Dr. King, jr. had problems with this. We live in the era of AIDS and single parent households where assets are lacking and income is low. "Options when necessary" should be an agreement between both parties and an understanding established before the marriage contract is signed, with regard to situations in which one partner is unable to fulfill certain duties and help is needed.

The practice of polygamy has been successful in societies such as Saudi Arabia, and with the practice of men in our community having multiple baby mothers and multiple ex-wives, while still having sex with these "exes" and even contributing financially, "the familiar dick" theory, I like to call it, I do believe it could be successful.

 

[QueEx]

I see how a person could take that last quoted statement and run with it. We need a responsible pattern of marriage that removes the limitations we seem to have a problem overcoming, namely variety when it comes to sexual desire. Even Ghandi and Dr. King, jr. had problems with this. We live in the era of AIDS and single parent households where assets are lacking and income is low. "Options when necessary" should be an agreement between both parties and an understanding established before the marriage contract is signed, with regard to situations in which one partner is unable to fulfill certain duties and help is needed.

The practice of polygamy has been successful in societies such as Saudi Arabia, and with the practice of men in our community having multiple baby mothers and multiple ex-wives, while still having sex with these "exes" and even contributing financially, "the familiar dick" theory, I like to call it, I do believe it could be successful.

Without question, sexual variety has been the veritable "coochie jar" in which men's hands have historically been caught. Any solution, I would think, that legitmates the practice in men's favor would be welcomed by most. Hence, your contract theory (an agreement between both parties and an understanding established before the marriage contract is signed, with regard to situations in which one partner is unable to fulfill certain duties and help is needed) sounds, if not looks, attractive.

Two big problems, as I see it:

(1) Its been my experience that women, especially those in the monogamous relationship, are not so inclined to share the dick and, therefore, not inclined to be party to the agreement; and (2) when there are children (which is really the situation where all of this is important), are they really benefitted (or possibly even emotionally harmed) by the ménage à trois ???

Can one have cake, and eat it 2.

QueEx

 

[owl]

Without question, sexual variety has been the veritable "coochie jar" in which men's hands have historically been caught. Any solution, I would think, that legitmates the practice in men's favor would be welcomed by most. Hence, your contract theory (an agreement between both parties and an understanding established before the marriage contract is signed, with regard to situations in which one partner is unable to fulfill certain duties and help is needed) sounds, if not looks, attractive.

Two big problems, as I see it:

(1) Its been my experience that women, especially those in the monogamous relationship, are not so inclined to share the dick and, therefore, not inclined to be party to the agreement; and (2) when there are children (which is really the situation where all of this is important), are they really benefitted (or possibly even emotionally harmed) by the ménage à trois ???

Can one have cake, and eat it 2.

QueEx

I didn't want to bring up the term polyamory in this thread because it doesn't have a strong historical precedence, but it suggests that women would be able to have more than one husband(hold on QueEx, one of the male posters just threw a brick through my window...) as well as its reverse pattern most represented by traditional forms of polygamy. There are definite patterns of household structure that could be imitated, and this really isn't the thread for me to expound on it, but ultimately, it has to be done with respect, responsibility, and an extremely intense level of communication, like most relationships. All I am really doing here is expanding on the options of the forms of marriage, and like anything dealing with the mating process, it is a matter of choice. If a woman doesn't like that fact that a man wants to be in a polygamous relationship, then the man shouldn't force it, and vice versa...

Can the children benefit more? Great question. I think if the financial situation can be made more stable, if there is a financial contribution of three people, or even just a financial contribution of two, and the third be homemaker or what have you, then yes, there is a great potential there. The emotional aspect has to checked at the door though. And with regard to the aspect of multiple partnered households, I do think muslim nations are producing healthy individuals, many of the products of these types of homes are able to run businesses in our communities quite successfully. And they are well mannered for the most part.

Of course, my main concern here is the preservation of the institution of marriage. I'm no saint, and for the most part, I wish to be in a monogamous relationship, but I understand that most people raised in a society believing that freedom means "do what'cha like" are going to need a new pattern.

 

[QueEx]

Of course, my main concern here is the preservation of the institution of marriage. I'm no saint, and for the most part, I wish to be in a monogamous relationship, but I understand that most people raised in a society believing that freedom means "do what'cha like" are going to need a new pattern.

I don't think I belong to the genre, as you say, "raised in a society believing that freedom means "do what'cha like" but I see whatchu see. Whether its from upbringing or training, I don't believe that freedoms are without limitations and I know, mostly from experience, that conduct outside of societal limitations/expectations, have consequences. Perhaps I was hoping, half-heartedly, LOL, that you'd found a "Viable Option" to make my life less troublesome -- and so that I wouldn't have so many songs in my head with "stealin it" in the lyrics.


For the record, I believe in monogamy, whether there's a marriage or not, and above all, I wouldn't want to do anything to embarass or otherwise hurt my children -- as I'm probably as Joe-Family, as they get. On the otherhand, viable options, is an interesting subject.

QueEx

 

[Detroit's finest]

I hate to sound negative, but fuck marriage. Their are three stages to all relationships. It's all biochemical. As with any drug, it's effects will eventually wear off. Hint: Monogamy is a myth!

1: LUST
2: ATTRACTION
3: ATTACHMENT
Stage 1: LUST
Lust is driven by the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen. Testosterone is not confined only to men. It has also been shown to play a major role in the sex drive of women.

Stage 2: ATTRACTION
This is the truly love-struck phase. When people fall in love they can think of nothing else. They might even lose their appetite and need less sleep, preferring to spend hours at a time daydreaming about their new lover.

In the attraction stage, a group of neuro-transmitters called 'monoamines' play an important role:

Dopamine - Also activated by cocaine and nicotine

Norepinephrine - Otherwise known as adrenalin. Starts us sweating and gets the heart racing

Serotonin - One of love's most important chemicals and one that may actually send us temporarily insane

Stage 3: ATTACHMENT
This is what takes over after the attraction stage, if a relationship is going to last. People couldn't possibly stay in the attraction stage forever, otherwise they'd never get any work done!

Attachment is a longer lasting commitment and is the bond that keeps couples together when they go on to have children. Important in this stage are two hormones released by the nervous system, which are thought to play a role in social attachments:

Oxytocin - This is released by the hypothalamus gland during child birth and also helps the breast express milk. It helps cement the strong bond between mother and child. It is also released by both sexes during orgasm and it is thought that it promotes bonding when adults are intimate. The theory goes that the more sex a couple has, the deeper their bond becomes

Vasopressin - Another important chemical in the long-term commitment stage. It is an important controller of the kidney and its role in long-term relationships was discovered when scientists looked at the prairie vole

True but YOU FAIL AND ARE A FAILURE. BEST WORDS I EVER WROTE.


YOUR A BITTER MESS. Because Your dad was not around your bitter. I will get married one day. My parents been married for many years.

Just because U FAILED OR NEVER EVEN TIRED DON'T MEAN EVERYONE WILL.

 

[keysersoze]

good tread.

 

[QueEx]

Movie Review

<font size="5"><center>
Not Easily Broken (2009)</font size><font size="4">
Under the Microscope: A Marriage Sorely Tested</font size></center>

Morris Chestnut and Taraji P. Henson in "Not Easily Broken." Ron Phillips/Screen Gems


The New York Times
By A. O. SCOTT
January 9, 2009


“Not Easily Broken,” a melodrama of marital difficulty directed by Bill Duke, is based on a novel by T. D. Jakes, pastor of the Potter’s House megachurch in Dallas and a powerhouse of that ever-expanding zone of American life in which religion, therapy and popular culture intersect. “I don’t want to go all Oprah on you,” a character says at one point, but Mr. Jakes is doing a version of just that, advancing a more overtly Christian, and more frankly patriarchal, version of Oprah Winfrey’s message of empathy, resilience and forgiveness.

Though Mr. Jakes has a small role in “Not Easily Broken” (as well as several opening-title credits, including producer), his real on-screen surrogate is Albert Hall, who plays a serious and soft-spoken Los Angeles minister. Among his flock are Dave and Clarice Johnson, a couple whose marriage is sorely, somewhat predictably and fairly realistically tested by an assortment of internal and external stresses.

Clarice (Taraji P. Henson) sells real estate, and Dave (Morris Chestnut) is a contractor whose youthful dreams of a professional baseball career were wrecked by an injury. Their slow drift apart is accelerated by a car accident, the specter of infidelity and a host of other complications, not the least of which is the presence of Clarice’s bitter, interfering, emasculating mother (Jenifer Lewis).

In one of his intermittent bouts of voice-over narration, Dave muses that women no longer regard men as heroes, and that men don’t see themselves that way either, a situation he describes as “the world turned upside down.” Though he declines to identify the cause of that inversion, “Not Easily Broken” puts a big share of the blame for the trouble in Dave’s house on his mother-in-law and his wife.

Ms. Henson is a wonderful actress, capable of moving from tart to tender, from manic to maternal in the course of a single scene, and she gives warmth and credibility to a role that sometimes edges close to caricature. (Ms. Lewis, for her part, has a fine time embodying an archetype as old as the Flintstones.)

Clarice is ambitious, materialistic, undermining of her husband’s pride and unwilling to give him what he wants most, which is a child. He compensates by coaching Little League, which gives him a chance to hang out with his buddies, a charming, amoral ladies’ man (Eddie Cibrian) and a motor-mouth, hyper-emotional joker (Kevin Hart) who serves as an all-around comic sidekick and who provides some laughs along with the suds and the tears.

The busy story line proceeds both by random unpredictability and by clumsy foreshadowing, introducing characters whose purpose is to illuminate various aspects of Dave’s strong, quiet decency. Darnell (Wood Harris) is an ex-convict whose life of irresponsibility and dissolution is presented as a stark and pointed contrast to Dave’s. Julie (Maeve Quinlan) is a single mother and a physical therapist whose friendship with Dave causes some easily foreseen trouble.

“It’s not because she’s a white woman,” a member of the audience remarked to her companion at the screening I attended. “It’s because she’s the other woman.”

Race is hardly an afterthought or an irrelevancy in “Not Easily Broken,” but the movie’s racial themes are understated rather than emphatic. It lives neither in a post-racial, utopian America nor in the kind of Balkanized hell imagined in a movie like “Crash,” but rather in a simplified and sentimentalized version of the real world.

This does not make it a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. Mr. Duke’s filmmaking is functional at best, and the extreme shifts in emotional tone — especially a late and disastrous swerve into tragedy — are handled clumsily in Brian Bird’s script. Yet “Not Easily Broken” is not easily dismissed. For one thing, the cast is excellent, and for another, its intentions are serious and generous.

This is the kind of picture that will probably meet with critical indifference, a response the distributors either anticipated or courted with late and scarce press screenings. Still it is worth comparing “Not Easily Broken” with another, much-written-about film about a marriage in crisis, Sam Mendes’s “Revolutionary Road,” which has energetically solicited the admiration of reviewers and awards-giving organizations. That movie, it seems to me, is fatally compromised by pretension and bad faith, by its refusal to engage with the lives of its characters other than by means of a secondhand literary conceit and a set of unexamined and dubious sociological assumptions.



“Not Easily Broken” certainly has its own, fairly transparent, ideological agenda, but is nonetheless a thousand times more honest, and more humane, than Mr. Mendes’s preening work of ersatz art. Many more people are likely to see Mr. Duke’s film, and to find it moving, edifying and even useful. That’s not everything, of course. But it’s not nothing either.



“Not Easily Broken” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). It has some profanity and sexual references and situations.



NOT EASILY BROKEN



Opens on Friday, January 9, 2009, nationwide.



Directed by Bill Duke; written by Brian Bird, based on the book by T. D. Jakes; director of photography, Geary McLeod; edited by Josh Rifkin; music by Kurt Farquhar; production designer, Cecil Gentry; produced by Mr. Duke, Mr. Jakes and Curtis Wallace; released by TriStar Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 39 minutes.



WITH: Morris Chestnut (Dave Johnson), Taraji P. Henson (Clarice Johnson), Maeve Quinlan (Julie Sawyer), Kevin Hart (Tree), Wood Harris (Darnell), Albert Hall (Bishop Wilkes), Eddie Cibrian (Brock Houseman), Jenifer Lewis (Mary Clark) and T. D. Jakes (Allen).


http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/movies/09brok.html

 

[QueEx]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S8N7Xb59d_A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S8N7Xb59d_A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G60g97kGDno&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G60g97kGDno&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

 

[jedimasta]

Without question, sexual variety has been the veritable "coochie jar" in which men's hands have historically been caught. Any solution, I would think, that legitmates the practice in men's favor would be welcomed by most....

QueEx

But see that's the thing. If one man can have multiple wives it will not make all, most, or even a significant amount of men better off.

I think we will see an extreme case of the 90/10 rules stated by men who are less successful than their peers, i.e. 90% of women are fucking 10% of men.

The reason a lot of society ills are currently taking place are social stigmas. And one that was very hard on women was being a "whore."

So if women can share a rich man do you think they won't? The only thing really stopping them from doing it publicly is the stigma of being labeled a whore. Biologically speaking, there's more incentive for multiple women to share a rich man than one who is less well off.

 

[Winchesta Heat]

It's the difference between LOVE and being IN LOVE. IN LOVE doesn't last, it's primal, it's just some shit in your programming to help you keep the species going. When your IN LOVE, you want to fuck, hold hands, kiss, stare into each others eyes and whatnot. When you LOVE somebody, you just want them to be happy and content and you are willing to protect that contentment at the risk of your own (that's why you'll fight for your boy, kill for your kids and deal with bullshit from your family). You may not even talk to somebody you love on the regular. Love is sustaining shit that just doesn't go away. You love your kids, you love your momma, you love your boys and, if your lucky, you love your woman. Friendship is love, the problem is, a lot of women don't think so, they place a dividing line between friendship and love that fucks up a relationship big time. All most men want is real love (friendship, fellowship, etc.), women want romance and bullshit. Find a woman that is beyond that and you got a REAL WOMAN.

Love is what you have for your family and friends. It's more settled and familiar, it's EASY to LOVE, being in love becomes a burden wihtout REAL LOVE behind it. Folks always talk about being taken for granted, being taken for granted by a loved one is the greatest appreciation they can show you. It means they KNOW you are there and will be there.

Grand gestures are cool, but they are bullshit if that's all y'all got together because it's not about the grand gesture, it's about the little shit. You help your best friend when he's in trouble because he's your friend, not because you are trying to PROVE your friendship. You fight with your brother and get over it because you KNOW he's not going anywhere. A marriage should be the same, but folks fall IN LOVE with people they don't even like, much less really love.

Realest shit I've read all day.

 

[Greed]

Divorce Gets Harder as Recession Ends Jobs, Cuts Asset Values

Well, divorce is outdated, at least until the economy gets better.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0c4BFIwlSYU

 

[LennyNero1972]

Re: Divorce Gets Harder as Recession Ends Jobs, Cuts Asset Values

Well, divorce is outdated, at least until the economy gets better.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0c4BFIwlSYU

Not so fast, it would actually seem to me divorce would actually be on the increase. We'll see. As far as marriage and family in "western culture" I really do believe we collectively need to review and understand why we under go particular marriage customs in this world.

 

[The Pope]

Fuck marriage...

Out of ALL my friends that got married, all but two are now divorced.

The women basically acted like they OWNED them and constantly threatened them with divorce if they didn't get their way.

I think the current laws in-place are set forth to feminize men to the point where they are nothing more than a penis with a paycheck attached.

I say stay single as long as you can... enjoy your freedom.

I feel you, Out of 7 weddings i've been in only 1 couple is still married and that's only because they have two boys. My friend told me that he wishes he had never gotten married and how he wishes he had my situation but a part of me wants to be married just to experience it first hand.