Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social Subject: Re: Living in sin? Message-ID: <2315@nsc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 13:04:13 EST Article-I.D.: nsc.2315 Posted: Mon Feb 4 13:04:13 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 05:00:17 EST References: <295@stat-l> <1117@houxm.UUCP> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: The Village Lines: 63 Xref: watmath net.singles:5770 net.social:448 Summary: In article <1117@houxm.UUCP> gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >This seems to be the case these days. 10-20 years ago, married couples seemed >to be more willing to work things out. Nowadays, I guess with the women's >liberation movement and other changing attitudes there's less pressure from >family, friends, and society at large to keep a marriage working. Greg, I don't know if you realize what you said, but this is an extremely insulting comment to many groups, including divorced people, 'liberated' women (whatever that is) and most other people. Ten or 20 years ago, couples stayed together more than they do today. The reason for this was that women were financially dependent upon their men. They stayed home and kept house, he went out and made money. As women join the job market, they become more independent and no longer HAVE to take the garbage men have been feeding them for years. Look at things-- back then, men cheated on their wives, lied to them, beat them (and their children), and were generally nasty. Women were definite second class citizens, little more than unpaid nannies and sexual slaves. None of this is any different than it is today, in many ways, except women are now more able to survive on their own. If the alternatives are starving and a few bruises, you learn to take the bruises. Societal and religious pressures were also strong inhibitors. There were many, many marriages out there that would have been better off if they had been dissolved but weren't. 20 years ago I'd probably still be married and miserable. Now, I'm single and working towards a better situation. There are times when you have to realize that you've made a mistake and cut your losses. The alternative in business is bankruptcy, and in life the alternative is very similar. Marriage might have been made in Heaven (depending upon your pantheon) but marriages are put together by inperfect and changing humans, and somethings they don't work out. Believing otherwise is putting on blinders. You have'nt been through either marriage or divorce, Greg. You miss a perspective on the situation. What you say may sound good to you, but to someone who's been through the whole shebang, you are saying things in a very naive and simplitic form that isn't really correct. I'd suggest being very careful with how you say things in the future, or stick to things you have a better knowledge of. >> For these among other reasons, I've decided that if I ever tie the >> knot (gasp! shudder!), the words "...til death do you part" will not appear > >A lot of people seem to be writing their own vows these days. I guess that's >the best thing to do if you're going to get married by the state and you're >not sure that you can keep the traditional marriage vows. Well, if and when I do get married again, I'm going to keep the traditional vows. You can rewrite the words, but they really DO show the real meanings of marriage, and a marriage IS supposed to last forever. Anyone who thinks they can change what marriage is about by rewording the contracts is silly or doesn't really understand the concept of marriage. You can't make marriage less of a committment by changing the words. Words are reality, just reminders. chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Life, the Universe, and lots of other stuff is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs