From: akcs.xx414@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ivan Cole Phillips)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Re: A Question of Everybody (was Re: Any married women out there?)
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:00:04 CDT

jclark at sdcc3.ucsd.edu [John Clark] writes:
>(Ivan Cole Phillips) writes:
>+introduces an objective such as a smoothly operating society, certain
>+"family values" will appear.  I do not believe that rewriting marriage
>+contracts to permit extramarital affairs will help the nation's divorce
>+problem.  If people want to modify the typical marriage contract that
>+doesn't bother me personally, but I don't think it should be
encouraged.
>+It only masks the real problems we have to deal with.
>
>There ways to provide 'family values'. In quite a number of societal
>organizations, various forms of non-monogamy are permitted, and the
>societal/family structure remains intact. What seems to be changing
>in this culture is no the non-monogamy rate, but the geneder ratio,
>i.e. the number of men who are non-monogamous has remained the same
>but the number of women who are non-monogamous is rising.
 
>...And after it is typical for the woman to 'compromise' to remain the
>'good wife'.
This should change; compromise is the duty of both husband and wife.
 
You have criticized the submissive role that many wives play in a
marriage.  I am unaware of any human societies practicing polygamy
that give women rights in the first place.
 
>A 'scientific'
>fellow such as your self should realize that 'results not expected
>by hypothesis need not imply failure'.
 
A marriage is not an experiment, it is a commitment.
 
>So in reality what you are saying is that 'marriage' is only for
>stablity for persons who, unless prevented by some misfortune, can
>reproduce sexually. Then having met that basic requirement, you have
>some how concluded that monogamy is the most stable. And further, that
>life long marriage is the best of all.
 
It is true that I only gave a single example of the destructive
nature of divorce.  Divorce is a bad experience for most of those who
have to go through one.  It is expensive and emotionally disturbing.
 
I do not believe open marriage meets that "basic requirement".
I did not marry so that I could have children.  In fact, I don't care
if I have any sons or daughters.  Marriage is a promise to stand by your
spouse no matter what.  Marriage is a promise to be faithful.
Not a promise to stay with her until someone better comes along.
 
>Let's see, a man tells a women "I love you". The current implication
>is for 'life long commitment', that if uttered in the man's 20's
>will be about 50 years. We have in the past 100 years made this
>commitment nearly double what it was in the previous 100 years.
>
>The social changes that an extended life span have not yet been
>adjusted to.
 
True. Marriage is not for the faint of heart.  Perhaps we should have
a 10 year renewable marriage contract.  Much easier to agree to that.
I don't think it will be any more comforting to learn that the next
10 years with your spouse has already been taken by another bidder.
What is the advantage of an open marriage?  More sex partners.
The disadvantages are numerous, among them, the insecurity that your
partner will not only find sex more enjoyable elsewhere, but have
stronger emotional ties to someone else.  How will you fix this? By
adding a marriage vow to engage outsider's bodies only, not their
minds?
 
If you don't know whether you can last more than 25 years, take more
time to get to know your prospective spouse.  If you're still not
sure, stay single.
 
Rewrite marriage vows to reflect your point of view, and see what you
come up with.  I wouldn't sign such a contract.
 
>In the past death of the spouse has been as disruptive of the
>'family' as currently divorce is seen to be. But I ask the
>rhetorical question, if you truely loved your spouse, would you
>rather see them dead or alive albeit separated from you.
 
Marriage does not cause your partner to die.  I do not understand
this argument.
 
>+Why is making a marriage work important?  Because it is _obvious_ that
>+broken marriages are generally a destructive influence on society.  We
>+all
>+know how children suffer from the conflicts of their parents.  Not to
say
>+that all such children have problems, but I think I'm making myself
>+clear.
>Seems so circular, 'society views divorce and separated families
>negatively and the children pick up that attitude'.
 
I do not refer to the 'attitude' of children in this unfortunate
situation.  Many children feel guilt and a lack of self esteem as a
result of divorce.  I claim that most of this misery is avoidable.
This is a well documented phenomenon.  If the only effect of divorce
was more divorce, I would not be discussing this at all.
 
-Ivan