Primative tribes and modern dating

[somedude81]

lol, now that's utterly stupid. Sex refusal should be punished by fine? lol

 

You might want to look into becoming a muslim.

Why not?

 

The contract could have one requirement be a minimum to have sex four days a month. Failure to meet that would be a breach of contract. And of course there should be some sort of penalty for breaking a contract.

[aj22one]

Why not?

 

The contract could have one requirement be a minimum to have sex four days a month. Failure to meet that would be a breach of contract. And of course there should be some sort of penalty for breaking a contract.

 

Well the terms of that contract should be negotiated willingly between the two parties. I don't think a one size fits all minimum should be set. But if you and your potential wife mutually agreed to 4 times a month sex at minimum, I see nothing inherently wrong with that arrangement.

[somedude81]

Well the terms of that contract should be negotiated willingly between the two parties. I don't think a one size fits all minimum should be set. But if you and your potential wife mutually agreed to 4 times a month sex at minimum, I see nothing inherently wrong with that arrangement.

Of course the terms would be negotiated willingly between the two parties.

 

Four times a month is just something that seemed to be an easily hit mark and if either the man or woman can't do that, then something is wrong. Of course there would be exceptions. But those would also be covered.

[mesmerized]

Why not?

 

The contract could have one requirement be a minimum to have sex four days a month. Failure to meet that would be a breach of contract. And of course there should be some sort of penalty for breaking a contract.

 

For sex both partners should be willing and attracted. If one is not for whatever reason they are not...asking them to pay fines for it is ridiculous. Why would someone even WANT to be have sex with someone who is not willing? I can see how that can end the "contract" though. lol

[Emilia]

That's exactly what I think.

 

Marriages should be 3, 5, or 7 year contracts with options to renew. The terms of the contract would stipulate how assets would be divided once the union expires.

 

Acts like abuse, infidelity and sex refusal could cause a breach of contract and could be punishable by fines and a limitation on forming new contracts for a certain period of time.

 

You have just defined 'divorce'

[El Brujo]

Humans are definitely not a "for life" species.

 

...which is one of the reasons why I'm pissed at God, for making me human.

[wwwjd]

"Neverdated" posts a wonderfully full post on topic and we keep going on and on about the SEX stuff. hahhahahahaha! Aren't we amazing?

 

The reason for this topic and roping NeverDated into it is to examine how things are done IN THE RAW.... without the cellphone dependances, without facebook or the on line dat ing stuff, without any of the pressures, misdirections and over complications our modern society GREW into. It is not like our BASIC selves are going to evolve into something else... would we become plants??

 

so, we'll always be chasing skirts, or the guy in the BMW, and marrying the opposite sex (mostly), but things change - not always for the better - and we examine the results and direction of said changes.

We used to meet up and date or call on the phone. Now we sift through photos and profiles trying to narrow it down to the ONE, the BESTEST match... wow these new options are cool. Don't seem to work any better than the old ways....

 

PARADOXICALLY, depression med sales are breaking new records every year, divorces are over 50% and probably rising.... does anyone see parallels here? Maybe HOW we are doing it is NOT RIGHT?

 

Thus, it is very interesting to see what undeveloped groups do with their lives, their systems, their mate selection techniques.

 

NEVERDATED, I'm curious about your background euducation on all this? Personal curiosity or college thesis or why did you gather all this info?

 

It is interesting that the old basics were brutal to the lesser men. In our modern society we OH, SO SHUN that idea and try to keep everyone happy, everything politically correct, everyone equal and fair BECAUSE we are smart, balancing society that respects every individual on the same, equal level....

 

.... and then we go hang out in bars. Where that ALL gets shot out the window. The bold assertive guys with large biceps, tribal tatoos and mating scents attracts the most women, while the weaker, quieter nerdy types stand by in the corners getting ignore.... JUST LIKE THE PRIMITIVE TRIBE SELECTION PROCESS.

 

Have we REALLY evolved at all? REALLY?

Feel free to pat ourselves on the back, but I just don't see it.

[EasyHeart]

Until about 50 years ago, the primary function of women was as breeding vessels. Everyone needed to squeeze out as many kids as possible because (a) lots of the kids died and (2) your kids supported you in your old age, so the more kids you had the more comfortable you'd be and the longer you'd lived.

 

For the tribe/clan/village, it was essential to produce as many offspring as possible to serve as fighters to protect the tribe/clan/village (or kill your neighbors and take their stuff). So the function of women was to be in a constant state of pregnancy and for the society to produce as many kids as possible.

 

Personally, that's not a system that I want to aspire to.

[zengirl]

I don't think you can take parts of a society type piecemeal. As TBF said, there are a myriad of things we do that aren't "natural" --- we've evolved culturally and technologically and our socialization is a product of that. It seems like people sometimes wish for "simpler" lives, but why? Clearly, human cultural evolution has led us here from a simpler place. Progress has served us well so far -- we may need to temper progress and choose to progress in more healthy directions, but the idea that we'd be better off without it, in any way, makes no sense to me. It seems kind of like people winging about "the good old days" -- which is generally done by people who never lived them.

 

So, then why is Divorce a profitable industry? Shouldn't divorces just be a dime-a-dozen normal thing? Maybe we should have marriage licenses simply expire in 3 years and skip billions in attorney's fees?

 

That's exactly what I think.

 

Marriages should be 3, 5, or 7 year contracts with options to renew. The terms of the contract would stipulate how assets would be divided once the union expires.

 

Acts like abuse, infidelity and sex refusal could cause a breach of contract and could be punishable by fines and a limitation on forming new contracts for a certain period of time.

 

You have just defined 'divorce'

 

Seriously, I fail to see how such a program -- systemized, automatic divorces -- would be better than the one we have where people can choose a lifetime commitment (it's totally optional!) with or without a pre-arranged contract (prenup), make contracts during the marriage if they like (postnup), and go through legal proceedings to end it if it doesn't work out.

 

Here's my thought: Why should the system be built for the people who do it poorly?

 

People are always drumming that 1/2 of marriages fail. Well, okay. That means 1/2 of them succeed! Personally, those are the ones I'm more interested in, and statistically you improve your chances of success by getting married later in life, getting an education and marrying someone more educated, etc, etc -- there are many factors.

 

Personally, I'm not concerned about the 1/2 that fail because my marriage has more in common -- statistically and anecdotally -- with those that succeed. That isn't a guarantee, but it's better than betting it won't last!

[EasyHeart]

I agree. I don't see how changing the presumption (from marriage being permanent to marriage being temporary) serves any useful function. If you're worried about protecting assets, get a pre-nup.

 

The primary social function of marriage is to provide for the expense of raising children. Assuming marriage to be temporary defeats this function.

[wwwjd]

I agree. I don't see how changing the presumption (from marriage being permanent to marriage being temporary) serves any useful function. If you're worried about protecting assets, get a pre-nup.

 

The primary social function of marriage is to provide for the expense of raising children. Assuming marriage to be temporary defeats this function.

 

What if we pull the LEGAL end out of it altogether? Seems everything would be easier. Our society is based on profit, not what is best for humanity.

 

These primitives somehow get through it without getting lawyers involved (they have none) why can't we?

[zengirl]

What's wrong with having a legally binding option? It's not like anyone HAS to get married. You can easily choose not to. I even know people who've thrown weddings without the paperwork and people, like hubby and I, who did the paperwork without a wedding. You can create your own adventure now. That's great!

 

I agree. I don't see how changing the presumption (from marriage being permanent to marriage being temporary) serves any useful function. If you're worried about protecting assets, get a pre-nup.

 

The primary social function of marriage is to provide for the expense of raising children. Assuming marriage to be temporary defeats this function.

 

Basically, yes. Though I'm not sure I see it as providing for the expense of raising children ONLY --- Hubby and I certainly view marriage as having social and financial benefits, despite not wanting to have children. I think it's a means of organizing your life that provides a specific social and financial support system. Which is also beneficial to any offspring, but not necessarily without benefits without them.

[NeverDated]

so, we'll always be chasing skirts, or the guy in the BMW, and marrying the opposite sex (mostly), but things change - not always for the better - and we examine the results and direction of said changes.

We used to meet up and date or call on the phone. Now we sift through photos and profiles trying to narrow it down to the ONE, the BESTEST match... wow these new options are cool. Don't seem to work any better than the old ways....

Just my personal opinion, but they don't work because they are all fronts to shield insecurities. As long as we are insecure as individuals, we will fail no matter what measures we put in place. Mass media/marketing bombards us with reasons we aren't good enough. (Sad but true ad campaign.) Each layer of technology is another buffer between us and rejection. First we can look at a person's online profile. They're picture is hot. They're profile looks similar. This seems to be the type of person who would not reject me.

Then we can converse with them in text. They like talking to me and think my picture is appealing. One step less likely to be rejected.

Then we can talk on the phone. They think my voice is nice and I like theirs. Another concern obliterated.

And finally we can meet. But I get rejected anyway. Boohoo.

Ironically, the entire self-buffering process could be avoided by just talking to someone and we'd all save a ton of time.

 

PARADOXICALLY, depression med sales are breaking new records every year, divorces are over 50% and probably rising.... does anyone see parallels here? Maybe HOW we are doing it is NOT RIGHT?

Because our culture is predicated on discontent. Spray on hair. Spray on tan. 5 minutes a day workouts. Even things like Dove's campaign for real beauty buys into it from a different angle - you are good, but GD it, you could be better than good. No wonder depression is up; I have great hair, great teeth, great job, great house, great kids, great life...but my skin tone is slightly uneven. How can I fix that??

 

It is interesting that the old basics were brutal to the lesser men. In our modern society we OH, SO SHUN that idea and try to keep everyone happy, everything politically correct, everyone equal and fair BECAUSE we are smart, balancing society that respects every individual on the same, equal level....

We like to say that. We do it because it's impossible to have a large scale society where more than half of the men are excluded from the system - economically, countries where a large portion of the young men are unemployed [Greece, anyone?] turn chaotic. Generally attractive and genetically fit women don't have trouble finding a mate, so they raise little discontent. Men, on the other hand, have a hard time doing so without some social construct to force equality. It has little to do with the pursuit of a Utopian society and everything to do with maintaining order.

 

Put in place a system where women must stay with only one man, and now you have guaranteed that the majority of men will (eventually) partner off. Problem solved. Men who can't find a mate don't rock the boat because society tells them they're doing something wrong, and now you have online dating advice forums (and more insecurity).

 

.... and then we go hang out in bars. Where that ALL gets shot out the window. The bold assertive guys with large biceps, tribal tatoos and mating scents attracts the most women, while the weaker, quieter nerdy types stand by in the corners getting ignore.... JUST LIKE THE PRIMITIVE TRIBE SELECTION PROCESS.

Mmhmm. And you still see pairing off on generally equal genetic footing. Society adds an extra layer of complication in, though, where intellectually fit men (rich nerds) get genetically fit women because they have a socially valued form of power that attracts mates - how else did Trump attract such gorgeous wives?

 

There was another thread a while ago about ambition. This is exactly why the big burly bar-types you mentioned can get away with having so little of it - they fit the basic evolutionary power requirements. Less physically blessed men need ambition, as those that lack it tend to lack power, or at the very least the potential of power. Many women are willing to take a gamble, but, like our ancestors, we'll also walk away when that gamble doesn't pay off and find someone who's a better bet.

 

NEVERDATED, I'm curious about your background euducation on all this? Personal curiosity or college thesis or why did you gather all this info?

Long story short, not only could I not secure loans to go to school (ex-husband's debt), I didn't feel the need to spend $100,000+ on a formal education in a field with very few career prospects. The nice thing about anthropology research is it's usually freely available (there's no money to be made in charging for it like medical research). So I read, research and study on my own.

[somedude81]

You have just defined 'divorce'

No really, since marriage is designed to be a lifetime contract. Divorce is a very messy way of ending that.

[johan]

 

It's not natural for us to crap in toilets, use computers, wear clothing or cook our meat but we do these things daily.

 

Not me. I don't do any of that stuff.

 

I ate a raw squirrel for breakfast.

[zengirl]

No really, since marriage is designed to be a lifetime contract. Divorce is a very messy way of ending that.

 

Your way would require a similar mess every 3, 5, or 7 years. I guess it'd be less messy in the manner that one would naturally "plan" for it, but it would never allow one the actual security of a truly lifetime commitment.

 

If someone doesn't feel they can really commit to a lifetime commitment, they should not get married, I agree. Prenups and postnups can help as well for people who just want a bit of a "net". I don't think anyone feels they can give an absolute guarantee, but I think your way makes the outcome divorce (the ending of the marriage) MORE likely, not less. People would go into it thinking, "Well, it's only 3 years."

 

Anyone can make a 3 year cohabitation contract if they so desire. Why seek to change what is already working for many people just because it doesn't work for some? Why can't they just use any of the myriad of tools already available to them to create their own system if they don't want an actual lifetime commitment? I think many people DO want that lifelong commitment.

[NeverDated]

What's wrong with having a legally binding option? It's not like anyone HAS to get married. You can easily choose not to. I even know people who've thrown weddings without the paperwork and people, like hubby and I, who did the paperwork without a wedding. You can create your own adventure now. That's great!

Isn't that taking a step back in the social timeline? Lots of people are totally rebuffing marriage as unnecessary. They just live together, because the legally binding option has been commercialized and is broken. It costs $50 to get married. Have kids and buy a house, it costs $50,000 to get divorced.

 

The primary social function of marriage is to provide for the expense of raising children. Assuming marriage to be temporary defeats this function.

I would argue that the primary function of marriage is to enforce a moral code. Nearly all marriage-based cultures have very strict laws for providing for the child should the marriage end. And the social rules defining when it is appropriate to end a marriage have nothing to do with kids.

 

Marriage is classified as a contract, but not treated that way. Most other contracts have a termination clause, but with marriage, you need to go back and decide what the terms of termination are. Wouldn't it just be better to place an time-limit on the contract, like we do all other licenses, and set rules for standard eventualities (house, kids, joint funds, etc.)? People who want to remain married can fill out a renewal form by mail, and people who don't just let it go.

 

Here's my thought: Why should the system be built for the people who do it poorly?

Why shouldn't it? Why can't there be an option to be married for 3 years, 5 years, 10 years or a lifetime license? Require that people set the terms for divorce (prenup) before entering into the contract. Right now, people can enter into it very lightly - you're agreeing to a lifelong commitment of commingling your everything, sign here and hand over the check for $50.

 

Why aren't all marriages, at the very least, required to have a cookie-cutter prenup? It can be modified as necessary, but at least all marriages will then have a set of rules in case they end poorly and simplify the whole divorce process. The sad reality is that when a marriage ends, more often than not, neither party has any idea how to proceed. They have to hire someone to tell them what to do. That's how distanced we are from our own lives. If it's a contract with a license, it should be approached like all others: these are your responsibilities, there are the terms for ending the contract due to failure to maintain it properly.

[somedude81]

I think many people think they want that lifelong commitment. In western society there really is no equivalent to marriage.

 

Anybody who gets married these days and is feeling secure that it's lifetime commitment is a fool. You've already mentioned the 50% divorce/success rate. That's obviously not working for a great deal of people.

 

It's just not reasonable to tell somebody, I love you now and forever and we will never change.

[zengirl]

Isn't that taking a step back in the social timeline? Lots of people are totally rebuffing marriage as unnecessary. They just live together, because the legally binding option has been commercialized and is broken. It costs $50 to get married. Have kids and buy a house, it costs $50,000 to get divorced.

 

Right, lots of people ARE rebuffing marriage as unnecessary. Those people shouldn't get married.

 

Why shouldn't it? Why can't there be an option to be married for 3 years, 5 years, 10 years or a lifetime license?

 

I've no issue with setting up a system like that, but why call the non-lifetime ones marriage? Why not call them something else if you feel society needs that? Lifetime marriage would still be the only one I'd choose.

 

Require that people set the terms for divorce (prenup) before entering into the contract.

 

Why require it? Why not allow people to decide whether they need a prenup or not, as we already do? People CAN enter into it lightly, but that's their business. Let people do what they'd like to do. Why restrict the people who are already happy with the current system?

 

I'm all for expanding systems and creating new ones that others feel they need, but there's no reason to limit people and tell them they MUST have a prenup.

 

I think many people think they want that lifelong commitment. In western society there really is no equivalent to marriage.

 

Anybody who gets married these days and is feeling secure that it's lifetime commitment is a fool. You've already mentioned the 50% divorce/success rate. That's obviously not working for a great deal of people.

 

It's just not reasonable to tell somebody, I love you now and forever and we will never change.

 

If you feel it's not reasonable, then you should not get married or get married with a prenup that makes you comfortable. I'm fine with any number of ways people can live and wouldn't have a problem with optional clauses to make legal short-term commitments, if that's your goal. (I don't see the purpose of getting married for just 3 years, though.) But lifelong marriage is the only kind I have any interest in, personally, so I certainly don't want it erradicated.

[Els]

I think many people think they want that lifelong commitment. In western society there really is no equivalent to marriage.

 

Anybody who gets married these days and is feeling secure that it's lifetime commitment is a fool. You've already mentioned the 50% divorce/success rate. That's obviously not working for a great deal of people.

 

It's just not reasonable to tell somebody, I love you now and forever and we will never change.

 

Wow. So a 50% odds of success isn't good enough for you?

 

If I really feel that I want something or someone in my life, I don't care about Joe, Lucy, and Fred's odds of success. I'd go in for it and do my darndest best to make myself one of the successes. Even if the odds were 1%. 50% is peanuts.

 

Of course, if you feel differently, don't get married. Problem solved. Just be sure to be upfront with potential women about that.

[NeverDated]

Why require it? Why not allow people to decide whether they need a prenup or not, as we already do? People CAN enter into it lightly, but that's their business. Let people do what they'd like to do. Why restrict the people who are already happy with the current system?

Why require Social Security? Why not allow people to decide whether they need retirement savings or not?

 

Because Western society has rules that protect people from their own stupidity and lack of forethought. What would be the harm in having a cookie-cutter prenup that was automatically attached to all marriages? You wouldn't need to have one drawn up and if you don't need it, you never use it.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I think many people think they want that lifelong commitment. In western society there really is no equivalent to marriage.

 

Anybody who gets married these days and is feeling secure that it's lifetime commitment is a fool. You've already mentioned the 50% divorce/success rate. That's obviously not working for a great deal of people.

 

It's just not reasonable to tell somebody, I love you now and forever and we will never change.

 

Then you should never do that.

[zengirl]

Why require Social Security? Why not allow people to decide whether they need retirement savings or not?

 

Because we've learned through experience that it's important for the elderly to be taken care of in their old age. We've had an actual economic collapse where the elderly were dying on the streets, and SS was created to fix that.

 

Because Western society has rules that protect people from their own stupidity and lack of forethought. What would be the harm in having a cookie-cutter prenup that was automatically attached to all marriages? You wouldn't need to have one drawn up and if you don't need it, you never use it.

 

I don't think it's quite the same. If divorces were leading to death, extreme poverty, homelessness, and hunger, I could see it. But they aren't. We don't protect people against EVERYTHING. I'm fine with having a cookie cutter prenup available to people, if they're intimidated with writing their own, but not having it applied. I do think overhauling divorce law has pretty much given the necessary part of this anyway -- most states don't allow lifetime alimony, etc. Divorce is expensive, but in most cases where financial issues are actually forcing people towards extreme situations, it's child support that becomes the issue. And there's no good way to overhaul that, really. Hence EH's opinion on the purpose of marriage, re: child-rearing.

 

The simple fact is, the divorce rate isn't that bad. Most divorced people (not all, mind you) are no worse off after divorce than they would've been had they remained perpetually single. What they lose are generally the financial benefits of marriage. Now, there are special cases where one party --- generally someone relatively privileged --- has a lot more to lose and loses it, but I'm not interested in protecting small classes like that with widespread legislation. A large, often at-risk class, like the elderly, is a different story, especially when the SS entitlement was created to fix real problems that had already occurred.

 

ETA: I think it's worth keeping in mind that while entry into marriage CAN be cheap, it rarely IS cheap, as most people throw weddings---even the cheapest of which are generally quite expensive. fwiw, divorce rates of those who don't have weddings are LOWER (on average) than those who do have weddings. Interesting. Suggests to me that increasing the cost or difficulty to get married does not necessarily improve the outcome.

[EasyHeart]

Basically, yes. Though I'm not sure I see it as providing for the expense of raising children ONLY --- Hubby and I certainly view marriage as having social and financial benefits, despite not wanting to have children. I think it's a means of organizing your life that provides a specific social and financial support system. Which is also beneficial to any offspring, but not necessarily without benefits without them.

I used "social" function to mean the interest that society has in the institution of marriage. It's not a great choice of words, but I couldn't think of a better one (and still can't!)

 

There are also lots of personal benefits to marriage, too, which are the sorts of things that you mentioned. But in my world-view, those things are none of my business, nor are they the business of anyone besides you and hubby. It's your choice and you can do whatever you want that makes you happy. It doesn't affect me, so it's none of my business.

 

Kids with no one to take care of them, OTH, are my business and the business of everyone else in the community because we're going to end up taking care of them if their parents don't. That's why I think the primary social function of marriage is to create an assumption that these two people are going to take care of any kids that come out of the union.

[EasyHeart]

If divorces were leading to death, extreme poverty, homelessness, and hunger, I could see it. But they aren't. We don't protect people against EVERYTHING. I'm fine with having a cookie cutter prenup available to people, if they're intimidated with writing their own, but not having it applied. I do think overhauling divorce law has pretty much given the necessary part of this anyway -- most states don't allow lifetime alimony, etc. Divorce is expensive, but in most cases where financial issues are actually forcing people towards extreme situations, it's child support that becomes the issue. And there's no good way to overhaul that, really. Hence EH's opinion on the purpose of marriage, re: child-rearing.

 

The simple fact is, the divorce rate isn't that bad. Most divorced people (not all, mind you) are no worse off after divorce than they would've been had they remained perpetually single. What they lose are generally the financial benefits of marriage. Now, there are special cases where one party --- generally someone relatively privileged --- has a lot more to lose and loses it, but I'm not interested in protecting small classes like that with widespread legislation. A large, often at-risk class, like the elderly, is a different story, especially when the SS entitlement was created to fix real problems that had already occurred.

 

ETA: I think it's worth keeping in mind that while entry into marriage CAN be cheap, it rarely IS cheap, as most people throw weddings---even the cheapest of which are generally quite expensive. fwiw, divorce rates of those who don't have weddings are LOWER (on average) than those who do have weddings. Interesting. Suggests to me that increasing the cost or difficulty to get married does not necessarily improve the outcome.

I think, too, that different states have different ways of dividing marital assets. I'm certainly not an expert on it, I just know it's really, really complicated.

 

I think one of the big reasons that divorce seem really expensive to people is that they're not used to how expensive it is to live as a single person. The old saying that "Two can live as cheaply as one" is pretty accurate, so once people get divorced they find out how hard us single people have it all the time!!!