At my age, I hardly know anyone who's not been divorced (including myself) at least once. What do you attribute that to?
After reading the comments, I'll offer an addendum - Does anyone who's been divorced believe they contributed to the reasons for divorcing?
After reading the comments, I'll offer an addendum - Does anyone who's been divorced believe they contributed to the reasons for divorcing?
- Also, people are naturally , sexually attracted to more than one person, many people. It's just a fact of nature that cannot be erased by "vowing". So, there is a fundamental tension and stress from repression of natural instincts in monogamy, or exclusive sexual partnership which is a fundamental of marriage. There are of course good reasons for this limitation , and regulations of sexual instinct in all societies, so this is not an easy contradiction and tension to overcome.
- I think another problem is that our custom makes marriage partners critically dependent upon each other for many very critical and important life projects, as said making or getting money (finances), parents of the same children, raising children, sexual partners, friends and confidantes. This tends to make both very concerned about the abilities of the other, creates lots of emotional from one on the other. This person can really mess up your life if they screw up, so you tend to think about their behavior very critically at some level of consciousness, including explicitly and how you communicate with them. You are likely to put pressure on them, become impatient or angry with them MORE THAN ANY OTHER PERSON YOU HAVE EVER KNOWN. You are like alter-egoes, One Person. So, one becomes demanding of the other. The bundle of relationships is too large and too important between marriage partners.It's your most important one-on-one relationship, far more important than all others. It's too much on one relationship.
- April I think the idea of people naturally attracted to more than one person makes sense Charles. But just because someone looks good doesn't mean you act on it. No harm in looking. I have noticed that the healthier relationships understand this. I just didn't realize that it might be seen as permission to step over the line. I was told that because I didn't back check on my Ex's activities ie. check pockets and phone records, I wasn't being sensible. Men have to be chased after and watched like hawks. Well I don't agree with that. I don't want a relationship where I have to constantly watch of every indiscretion. If that is what marriage is all about you can have it. But I will say that I was dumb and didn't even notice that his clothes were disappearing from the closet. He just sort of spread them out artfully so I didn't notice. When I did I felt like a fool. Nobody enjoys playing the fool.
- Charles Brown Yes, April Storm, but in repressing that natural instinct, one creates psychological tensions within oneself. Morality cannot overcome biology just because it is "virtuous". So, in not acting on the urge, one creates an internal , unconscious tension. I guess I'm saying, unfortunately, "just looking" is not healthy at a deep level. It is frustrating.
- Charles Brown I don't have a solution for this problem, but I insist that it is scientific fact and true. It just makes too much sense biologically and psychologically. Religion cannot erase biology.
- Charles Brown And there is a tremendous burden on the marriage partner to fulfill all the other partners' instinctive needs, _all_ of them, every time ! It is too much of a burden.
No comments:
Post a Comment