See See!!!

Celestial Dung · Post by **Celestial Dung** » Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:04 pm

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2003/08/13/kipnis/

"Against Love: A Poelemic" by Laura Kipnis

A hypothosis suggesting marriage and long term relationships are nothing more then a sociiatal institution designed to control citizens.

I haven't read it yet...need to yes but not yet...so I can't neccessarily put this in the literary forum. Instead I place it in the General forum in order the better generate intriiguing debate over a most prblmatic institution.

The points in the article that I wish to raise go along the ways of freedom. Any long term relationship takes aways elements of freedom. In a society where are freedoms are consistantly compromised via work, social laws, and the advent of death do we really need yet another institution to chain ourselves? Chains made of velvet are still Chains.

I'm awaiting good discussion on the child rearing portion of this debate. To quote from the book review...

" Kipnis has the knives sharpened and ready for anyone who believes that solid, wholesome marriages, in which all problems or even potential problems are swept under the rug by both partners, are somehow good "for the sake of the children." Kipnis cites how little we spend on education as a nation, and she also notes that one in five American kids live in poverty. "Sentimentality about children's welfare comes and goes, apparently: highest when there's the chance to moralize about adult behavior, lowest when it comes to resource allocation.""

I see various arguments pertaining to that argument. One would be the polictial schism between those who believe that government should have a role in social ills and those who belive that the government should have a little to no role. The other argument would be the quality of care children get in a married relationship as opposed to a a split parenthood. From my perspective not all married couples are better then split parents.

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Thu Aug 14, 2003 8:31 am

I'm against marriage, so there's no need for me to toot my horn over that subject.

However, as far as long-term relationships go: When you find something that works, stick with it. If it's good for both parties, it's good. And when it doesn't work out the way you'd hoped and/or planned, learn how to hide the bodies inconspicuously.

The reason why I've seen most relationships fail is due to the fact that one or both individuals could or would not accept change. Love, like life, is not immutable. And I thank my lucky charms for that on a daily basis.

Hardcoregirl · Post by **Hardcoregirl** » Thu Aug 14, 2003 9:19 am

I think it says something that prolly the happiest, together for the longest couple I know has an open marriage. Its sorta weird, as I get older my views on monogamy are changing...

I do know some people that are married and very happy, so I'm not saying it never works...its just very rare...

I've been married once, for the wrong reasons of course, and I don't see it happening again unless I get suckered into the "tax and economic reasons". Sometimes it is cheaper to live as a couple.

As for staying together for the kids, thats a load of crap. Children can tell if the parents are unhappy, and that will affect them greatly. However, I do not think its a good idea for mommy to bring home every guy she meets/dates/fucks whatever...

I think people spend way too much time staying in situations where they are not happy. I was with a guy for 3 years, miserable, and I still kick myself for it. (funny though, he's married and in Portland, yet called me yesterday to tell me he loves me and doesn't understand why we split 4 freakin' years ago!!!)

Malakelle · Post by **Malakelle** » Thu Aug 14, 2003 10:27 am

I think if two people are happy together, and can be a couple for a long time GO for it, yeah you do lose some freadoms, but you gain stuff you wouldnt have other wise.
Staying together for the childeren isnt a good reason, I think its a way of hideing fromt he fact your scaried to go out into the world alone. Or to be left alone, your just making the kids more upset and crazy by always fighting or being unsocal.

Lost Traveler · Post by **Lost Traveler** » Thu Aug 14, 2003 10:51 am

Well Im against the instatution of marriage but not the life long commitment. slate had a marvolus article about just getting the govement out of it then if your religion required it the you still could just uncle same wouldnt have anything to say about it. We've Only gotten to the point where only 50% of marriages fail, which means 50% of them work. (thats stutered and all over the place but just some points of interest)

Mother Mo · Post by **Mother Mo** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:23 am

Well, I'm getting married next month, so I guess you might say I'm for the institution. Tom & I have been together for 8 years, & we both know that a piece of paper & a couple of rings don't change our feelings for each other, or our level of commitment.

The reason we're doing it, is because after losing loved ones & seeing what happens in the final drama of existance, we feel safer knowing that no one else will have the right to come in & try to speak for either of us. I won't have to argue with his mom or sister as to what Tom wants, and he'll be officially designated to speak for me & make decisions for me as well. My property would automatically be his, with no arguments standing a chance.

Also, my Dad did geneology charts for our family. We've traced our ancestors all the way back to Europe. If my descendants want to keep those kinds of records, they'll know about my man through official documents. There are no official records of long term relationships. I want it to be known to anyone, at any time, that this is the man I was with. This is who I shared my existance with, & who helped me to raise my children. I guess it's like doing a job, really well, and getting official recognition for it. He has earned the title "husband," & I want people to know that.

My 2 cents worth...

Nexxus23 · Post by **Nexxus23** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 7:35 am

Well said.

Personally, I'm neither for nor against marriage- it's a couple's choice whether or not they want to be legally committed to each other for life. IMO, a lot of people get married for the wrong reasons, or have a flawed viewpoint as to what marriage is, but just as many do it because they're just happy with their chosen mate (hence the 50/50 split between marriages that work and ones that don't). There's a trend in America of people getting married older than before- ages 25-30 instead of the traditional 17-25. That trend in and of itself makes me think that people are waiting until they are sure it is the right person for the right reasons. I have to say I support that mindset.

The GLBT movement is fighting for the right to marriage mainly for Mother Mo's reasons above. I can't say I blame them- all I can do is think about how I would feel in their shoes and I come up with "F*ckin' pissed." As it is now, gays do not have any inheritance rights, survivor rights, or hospital and visitation rights, even if they have been together 20 years or more.

Thank you. This public service announcement was brought to you by Nexxus23's extremely strong morning coffee.

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 9:33 am

Nexxus23 wrote:There's a trend in America of people getting married older than before- ages 25-30 instead of the traditional 17-25. That trend in and of itself makes me think that people are waiting until they are sure it is the right person for the right reasons. I have to say I support that mindset.

Yes. Encourage thinking. It's a Good Thing™.

Nexxus23 wrote:The GLBT movement is fighting for the right to marriage mainly for Mother Mo's reasons above. I can't say I blame them- all I can do is think about how I would feel in their shoes and I come up with "F*ckin' pissed." As it is now, gays do not have any inheritance rights, survivor rights, or hospital and visitation rights, even if they have been together 20 years or more.

I agree that gays should be allowed to get married. There is no logical reason why they shouldn't.

Basic human rights should not be the sole trophy of Straight White Republican Judeo-Xtians.

It's a bitter irony that a country that was founded on concept of having the freedom to choose different beliefs should be so quick to deny people the right to freedom to choose different beliefs. When all is said and done, it's fucking hypocritical.

However, I think it's absolute

that one has to be married to acquire those rights in the first place. In my own not so humble opinion, one should be able to get Schmoe #1, sign a legal document, and grant them those rights. And if one wishes to grant them to Schmoe #2 (or #3, or #4, and so on), the same process should be available.

But then, I'm nothing if not arbitrarily radical.

This Pubic Service Announcement was brought to you by the letters 'm', 'o', 'n', 'o', 'g', 'a', 'm', 'y', 's', 'u', 'c', 'k', 's', and the number

(3.14159265358979323846264, baby!).