A
male
age
30-35,
Starmonster888
writes:I was revising physics when an epiphany struck me that made me realize something potentially significant about the high rates of failure in cross-gender relationships, that is male and female companionship( and if you're wondering what the correlation between physics and relationships is, so am I).To understand my theory, you first have to ask yourself why it is that, on average, family based relationships last longer than, for example, a dating couple's relationship?My answer to this question is that there is typically near zero percent (NEAR 0%..just for clarity:)) permeability within family relationships. For example, you never have the choice to say "you know what, i'm going to find a new daddy". As I emphasized, this is NEAR zero because of the possibilty of other factors such as divorce, but on the most part, families are far less permeable, whereas dating relationships are. You can easily find a new boyfriend if you so wish.To really put this into perspective how important impermeablity (the inability to leave a group, or in this case, a relationship) is, I'll give Reicher and Haslam's psychological study of tyranny as an example(google it if you like, cool stuff).In a simplified nutshell, they had an experiment with guards and prisoners, and there was a period where one prisoner could be promoted to being a guard. The group was permeable at this time because of this promotion possibilty, so the prisoners were not united. As soon as the one was promoted however, it became impermeable, and the remaining prisoners indentified with each other, and united agaisnts the guards.Back to relationships, if a person in a relationship feels that the they can leave it ie. they don't need the other individual(s), that relationship is doomed to fail. The key to a successful relationship is erasing the permeability within it. The challenge is how? How does one man/woman make themself unique and needed in someone's life, so much so that the relationship can be maintained? This differs with people.THIS ONE PART OF MY THEORY!!! I just realized how much I've typed and I don't want to bore you. I will provide the rest if you're interested.Thanks for reading. NOTE: For the purpose of this article, the bond between family members is generalized due to the majority, however I am fully aware that there are individual cases in which family relationships are, for one reason or another, weak or even non-existance. This however does not disprove my theory for families with "normal" bonds.
View related questions:
divorce, last longer, period Reply to this Article
Share |
You can add your comments or thoughts to this article A
male
reader, PM  +, writes (6 January 2011):
 Starmonster, very interesting theory that, I think, captures much of why divorce happens in our society. The fact that there is an official way out means that people will opt to take it. It's why the divorce rate in the Catholic countries like the Philippines is essentially 0 - divorce doesn't exist there. With that said, however, I think it's a bit of an oversimplification.
I think by no stretch of the imagination, should "staying together" be considered the benchmark or measure of success in a marriage. I don't think any of us would call a marriage where the husband beats the wife until she's bloody each night a success. By your reasoning though, if a couple is together, that marriage is intact and a success even if abuse or torture is going on.
Another thing you have to consider in comparing family and marriage is that because there is no official way to "divorce" your family, there are few statistics on it. I've personally never seen any studies on it so I'm not sure that they exist. But, just because it's not been measured, doesn't mean it can't happen. In rough neighbourhoods, it's pretty normal for people to give up their biological families and find surrogate families on the street. It can be how gangs are formed. Saying that family relationships last longer than marriages based on statistics assumes that the statistics tell you everything you need to know about reality when it's not the case. Children "disown" their families all the time but have no legal way of declaring it because the moment they become of age, they are their own person and declaring independence from their parents at that point is redundant. Permeability in the family sphere exists but is much harder to identify because there's no way to record that you "broke up" with your mom or dad even if you did.
A quick final thing is that I personally don't believe that the way to make a marriage last is to create dependency to the point where a person cannot or does not want to leave. The way to make a marriage last is to stay in it, period. Divorces happen because people choose to get divorced. Sometimes this decision is inevitable because getting married was not the best choice for that relationship at that time (e.g. getting married while drunk in Vegas) and sometimes it's the best choice for all concerned (e.g. wife is being abused by alcoholic husband while their child watches), but it is always a decision to leave.
A
male
reader, Starmonster888 +, writes (5 January 2011):
Starmonster888 is verified as being by the original poster of the question In all my time on this site, this is the first time I've been addressed as OP:)...then again this is my first article/question ever so i guess it makes sense.
I was promised handcuffs once. Never happened:(
ChiGirl, I give. This here will go on for eternity because it's so heavily reliant on individual perspective, and honestly, I don't have enough maritial experience to have a valid opinion on the matter. I can a truce:)
...............................
A
male
reader, Jmtmj  +, writes (5 January 2011):
 Finding the balls to actually walk in and buy fluffy hand-cuffs is the missing part of the equation Chi
One day... one day...
But I've digressed this article enough, sorry OP ;)
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl  +, writes (5 January 2011):
 Found anyone to cuff up with yet Jmtmj?
...............................
A
male
reader, Jmtmj +, writes (5 January 2011):
I do like that well metaphor gamine, nice one :)
Hand cuffed in a positive way you say... oh yes, I've seen those fluffy pink hand cuffs in adult store windows...
Count me in.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (4 January 2011):
Im just going to repeat myself if I answer your last question, so excuse me. Mimic the bonds created in family? Fully possible. But you don't like my answer :p
As for "blood is thicker than water", yepp thats true in most cases, but only because we hold family above other matters. It's a social construction once again. Perhaps you should study society a bit longer before you jump to the conclusion that a family is naturally loving and divine etc etc. Reading the bible for example won't be a bad start, since it starts with the first brother on earth killing the other. Read history too while you're at it, in many scenarioes brothers are rivals, not allies. You should not take for granted that love is the core of a family and has always been and always will be.
I think you continue to miss my point though. Marriage as it was intended, not the clishe it's been turned into by idealistic westerners, is what brough people together and love came from that bond. Arranged marriages as well as non arranged ones, once you treat marriage at the same level as family, and without the option of divorce, then there you have it. Through the marriage your partner becomes your family, your blood, through having children together your blood is bond together even tighter.
Sorry for the repeat, but I think I fail to see how this doesn't answer your question. Perhaps because you seek some eternal love based on the love you have seen yourself in your own family. Thus you imagine the same love should be found in partnership. But look at it from my point of view, growing up in a family without much love for one another, hostile family members and separations, people who can't stand the other, never talk to the other, and basically all choosing to live on their own personal island. Family then is nothing but a nice word. It's not much to base a loving relationship on. Hence, marriage to me bring people together, such as family, love is not a guarantee, but can grow if everyone plays nice.
At the end of the day, if you're stuck on an island with one person you will end up with a certain level of care no matter who the other person is.
...............................
A
male
reader, Starmonster888 +, writes (4 January 2011):
Starmonster888 is verified as being by the original poster of the questionChiGirl: Because of it's structure, it's almost near impossible for a real family to lack love. It's possible that, INITIALLY, a family might have been established to, for arguement's sake, provide finacial stability. But even in such a case, love is usually a bi-product; the childeren in that family will grow with each other and, consequently, form an emotional bond and rely on each other as a primary source of emotional stability. They'll probably trust each other, and i'm pretty sure they'll do so out of instinct ,not because they want finacial support.Jmtmj: Not exactly:) My suggestion is more that if we feel like (this'll sound stupid) we are handcuffed in a positive way, we'll be more likely to stay in a relationship. If we feel like there's something exclusively provided from partnership with a person, staying with them will be effortless.Actually, I think Gamine pretty much states what I'm trying to say in a paragraph:/......"If we knew with absoluteness that our mate was the ONLY source for all intimacy (emotional, physical, sexual) we would make darn certain that our source was duly taken care of. We would not ruin it and have back up plans including others as our 'out' or as our way to find fulfillment. We would dedicate our whole self to nurturing this bond." That's EXACTLY what I am saying. This is possible with family because "blood is thicker than water" pressumably, but I how do we mimic this form love outside the family? Can we?
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (4 January 2011):
Excuse me, love is the bond in family? Hardly the way you idealistically imagine. Finances, need, dependancy, supply, those are bonds in a family. If there is love as well then you are lucky! Family is obligation as much as any marriage is, and marriage is the bond between two families, and the legal institution that makes two people a family. How do you think families are created in the first place, people adopting themselves into whatever family they choose?
...............................
A
male
reader, Jmtmj +, writes (4 January 2011):
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand this theory and have completely missed the mark, but are you suggesting that we hand-cuff ourselves to our partners for extra longevity?
...............................
A
male
reader, Odds  +, writes (4 January 2011):
 While putting the chance of permeability at near zero is off by about fifty percent these days, I'd say ChiGirl is right: you've caught on to what marriage was invented for.
It was not meant to be a declaration of love - many old cultures wisely believed that love would naturally follow a marriage, if the couple were matched properly. It's not meant to be a breakable bond - the intent is to provide stability, in different ways to different family members.
Most arranged marriages in the past, outside of nobility, allowed the couple to refuse. So do the ones practiced by some religious groups today (at least the ones in civilized countries). Yes, there was pressure, but that's part of being an adult. There's pressure behind every decision - call it standard pressure. This pressure exists because good marriages produce the most stable, productive unit on which to base a society. It's the atom from which more complex societies can be built.
Anyway, I think comparing the length of a dating relationship to a marriage is kind of tough to do fairly. Marriages are, by definition (outside of the arranged marriages already mentioned), formed from the dating relationships that had long-term potential. It's more like evolution, where only the fittest survive.
You may be on to something if you look at all relationships, comparing how much the couples consider each other replaceable or "permeable," to those couples who cannot see people as replaceable.
...............................
A
male
reader, Starmonster888 +, writes (4 January 2011):
Starmonster888 is verified as being by the original poster of the questionThe problem with using arranged marriage as example is that the individuals involved are usually subject to other obligations eg. family tradition or finance, so they stay together with whom ever they are assigned.
The issue with comparing marriage with family is a matter of nature vs nurture really; marriage is a legal agreement, where as love is the bind in family.
Think elastic bands. You pull that thing hard, but it rips back. It HAS a breaking point, but you have to exert to reach it. Thats family.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (3 January 2011):
What do you mean "we have to take whatever comes with it". Of course you have to, but you also take whatever comes with family and you can't replace them.
The problem with men and women as you portray is not really as much of a gender specific, but a problem with people to understand the other 100%. Then again, why should you. In arranged marriages for example there is not even a need for the persons to know each other well, they might have just met a few times, yet they stay together, and I'd dare say aren't particularly more unhappy than any person in a "love-marriage" would be.
To be honest, just my personal opinion, I wouldn't mind at all if my parents found me a husband as long as I have the option of accepting or rejecting that particular man. Then get to know him through marriage as you get to know your siblings as you grow up. You can't choose them, you may not even like them much, but you love them, you stick with them, and you find your happiness in your family.
Of course, in a society focused on the idividual, family will never come first. Your partner may never come first either, as the individual is told to always expect more and more and more and never settle for less than perfection... as you pointed out yourself.
...............................
A
male
reader, Starmonster888 +, writes (3 January 2011):
Starmonster888 is verified as being by the original poster of the questionChiGirl,,It's the mordern day culturization, like you said, that's underminded the concept of marriage, and I can't say i'm unhappy about that, because I don't think marriage is the best way to be rid of permeability, simply because it's principles differ so much with cultural differences.For example, like you mentioned, divorce was introduced by protestants because, in their eyes, that's fine, whilst catholics to this day are against the idea.And that's just christians.The problem is, if we rely on marriage as the binding agent in relationships, we have to take what ever comes with it, which in some communities could be arranged marriges and other beliefs subject to ethical debate.I think the solution hides in removing the gap between sexes. The problem is, when it comes to dating relationships, people identify with their gender before their partener. For example, a girl can have "men don't understand us" mind set, and her criteria in finding a lover would then be a guy who understands women. Then she'll ask herself subconsiciously "what covers understanding", and when you combine media specifications with this question, you'll find girls looking for their definition of perfection. For eternity. The same with guys.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (3 January 2011):
You've rediscovered the marriage I am afraid. In marriage you are forever bond to one person, until death separates you. You become family. There is no option of leaving. Divorce is a "new" idea created by the protestants. Before that if anyone wanted to remarry they'd have to kill of their wife.
Many people in modern society have completely forgotten about this though, and think marriage is nothing more than a "declatarion of love". Marriage however, in more than one culture, goes way beyond that, and goes directly into the theory you have reconstructed. Family bonds. Or, the inability to leave, or the need for a partner for life.
In many countries you simply can not afford to live on your own unless married. You can not have a family unless married. You depend on extended family for work, housing, raising children, baby sitters etc. You need two incomes to make everything go around for example. There are economical benefits to being married, so many economical benefits. It's a modern luxury to not need the marriage.
...............................
|
