Re: Marriage

"Shava_X" <voodopeople@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.04.19.13.01.790092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:09:11 -0700, Connie wrote:

"Shava_X" <voodopeople@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.03.22.13.53.310569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:24:06 -0700, Connie wrote:

"woodstock" <thirdwavevisions@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1170527811.320562.96650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 3, 12:02 pm, "Connie" <tucson.con...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
This is interesting...
On this island, when the priestesses ways are followed, and women
choose
their husbands, divorce is rare. Now with the creeping crud of
christianity
there - that holds men must choose - divorce has become common. Very
telling, imo.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/167459

I got "picked" 2 times, and both times ended in divorce. <shrug> -w-


Yeah, but you're an anomaly; an outlier in the data collection.
I picked my first, and we'd probably still be together if we hadn't
both
been so drug-addled. My second picked me; I never like him but with
the
serious alcohol addiction going at the time, nothing really mattered.
This
last one I picked; it's been 15 really wonderful years and counting.
Neither of us see an end to this one.


So in other words, it was drug addiction that doomed Your first to
marriages.

And what is this 'You/He Picked' business?
Are You claiming (because You are certainly implying) that the other
party
has say in the matter?


Need a dictionary? Okay, I'll bite. The "picking business" is about the
dance of seduction. About noticing someone who interests you in terms of
pursuing a relationship, but that person doesn't seem to notice you, so
you
make a conscious move in their direction, with the intent of getting them
to
notice you, and the hope that they might develop an interest as well.
Does
that help?
As for your second question, I'll assume you meant "has no say", rather
than
what you typed: "has say". I'm not "claiming" no say, nor did I imply
that
(per your accusation). If said target responds to the dance in the
hoped-for way, that's a good thing for the seducer and a relationship can
then develop. I'm not advocating kidnap, nor abduction, holding the
target
against their will, forcing them into a relationship without any "say".
Let's call the seducer person "A", and the target person "B". A notices
and
is interested in B, say after seeing and hearing B many times in social
situations. But B doesn't seem to notice A. So A strikes up a
conversation
with B, maybe invites B to coffee or a show, etc. B never noticed how
nice
A was - maybe really never noticed A at all - but now is interested. So
A
and B being seeing each other socially and a relationship develops, maybe
or
maybe not long-term. This is what the discussion is about, Shava_X. In
this example, we would say A picked B. Comprendo?
As to your first statement, there was more to it than that. It did play
a
large part in the first failing; the second was doomed before it started.
There would have been no marriage to the second without the alcohol
addiction, and I woulda left a lot sooner. As it was, the day I sobered
up
I began the dissolution arrangements.


You are greatly over-simplifying the matter, as did the article You
posted.

With the influx of new cultural norms comes a great deal more than just a
shift in who proposes marriage. With the exposure to a new culture comes
exposure to a myriad of new social mores. Reducing the sudden appearance
of divorce down to a matter of the gender of who proposes the marriage is
an absurd over simplification. And comparing the social interactions of
the modern West with the traditional social patterns of an (formerly)
isolated African Island is akin to comparing apples and oranges at best.

In the traditional social structure of that island the 'target', as You so
lovingly put it, had no real choice. Refusal would mean being socially
ostracized. They are, in effect, forced into it. As apposed to Western
norms, where where both parties must mutually choose each other, even if
one person clearly initiated things. Your comparison of the traditional
social situation on an African Island to Your own situation is how You
clearly implied a lack of choice on the part of, as You put it 'the
target'.

What it comes down to, is that the gender of the person proposing marriage
means little. When they became exposed to modern, industrial, western
society, the African Islanders were also exposed to a new attitude about
divorce. An attitude that has changed significantly over the centuries.
The more likely it is that a person will become a social outcast (in some
way, shape, or form), the lower the divorce rate will be. Conversely, the
more socially accepted divorce is, the higher the divorce rate will be.
This can be observed in history, as well as in the modern world.

In addition to picking up the social custom of men initiating marriage,
and numerous other modern Western (more secular than Christian) trappings
(housing construction, marriage ceremonies, and who knows what else), the
younger generation of this Island have also picked up social acceptance of
divorce, and that is why there is suddenly a noticeable divorce rate.


So you don't "get it". What else is new? You are over-complicating the
matter. Take "gender" and "legal marriage/divorce" out of it; maybe that'll
help. Comparisons of today's socially-evolved <snicker> mores with ancient
and historical tribal customs is useful, believe it or not. If more folks
would do this while being open to learning from the past, I dare say we as a
society wouldn't be in the pickle we are today. Customs change, but people
don't. Chew on that one awhile.


.