What's the big deal with life-long pairbonding?

:shrug:

Why do people get so upset when other people (who they sometimes don't even know) can't do it?
Why do people get guilt-tripped if they don't want to?

go back on their word.

It's about dishonesty and hypocrisy.

It's more than individuals being hypocritical, although I will not deny that that happens. It happens so often, and call me idealistic, but I cannot bring myself to believe that heart-wrenching betrayal is something inherently programmed into the condition of homo sapiens any more than it is programmed into the nature of wolves or spiders. There's a great fear, a great want, that deserves exploring... Maybe here isn't the right place to ask people to delve into this, though. This question would probably be received much differently if I posed it to another group of people...

It shows a willingness to respect and love the partner even when times are tough.

:shrug:

God help us all.

Very few species bond for life.

is beautiful.

if it doesn't. I feel pretty fortunate - my wife and best friend of 30 years is the biggest deal of my life.

about whether or not other people do it? What's missing that people have to cling so desperately to the idea that lifelong pair bonding has to be viable, not only on a personal level, but culture-wide, nation-wide, world-wide? It's the happy ending to the cultural fairy tale... But what's making things so scary that people can't even face the idea of what society would look like if this particular institution broke down?
WHAT IS EVERYONE SO SCARED OF? The marriage is the fabled refuge... The temple within the storm. Why must broader human society be a storm that one needs shelter from? Why do we stand for this? Why are our lives so shaped by fear of isolation? How did it get to be this way?

these days seems to be that everyone thinks that their views/habits/pursuits are THE ones to have. I think part of it is our unhealthily voyeuristic society, aided by the plethora of shitty "reality" shows, including the train wreck shows like Springer. It is OK to care for the world, country, others, but allow others to live their lives the way they want....but not widely practiced these days.

inferiority.

but being told I'm the freak because I don't screw around gets my goat a bit.

Happiness or what mode of relationships you want ,it's your life.

because you don't want to end up bitter or making someone else bitter after you have discarded them.

Also, if you want to have or think you might have children you need to agree with your partner about how you will care for them and pay for their support before you get into the relationship.

Breaking up is hard to do for adults. It is devastating for children in many cases.

I am male and do not want children. As a man I know I won't get as much grief as women who make the same decision though.

I'll probably never even get married or have a long term relationship. I've grown so used to living my own life, being my own emotional support and getting companionship and empathy from channels that aren't romantic (friends, therapists, family, religious group, coworkers), that I don't know if I'm ever going to go that route.

But that is my life. Its not 'normal', but everyone fails to be normal in some way. Some people prefer open relationships. Fine by me.

As far as 'why' people do it, it has to do with tradition (if you want the psych answer). People who see the world as dangerous tend to rely on authority and tradition for safety (the military, police, traditional values, etc) because strong authorities and a sense of consistency makes life easier. A lack of protective authority figures and a world that is rapidly changing makes people insecure. When you limit the power of authority figures or traditions, you take away their security blanket. Look at how crazy the tea baggers are getting over mild health reform. Its not about health reform, it is about them thinking 'their' america is gone.

So yeah, its wrong when people do that. But even then, its not about you it is about them. It is about their lack of ability to deal with the world w/o being dependent on things like tradition.

And I do agree, we have somehow made marriage into this foundation of perfect emotional unions, when people are generally too messed up to provide that kind of thing. There are a lot of other channels to go to if you need understanding, support and acceptance that are not romantic. And it seems we as a society have forgotten that. So that part bothers me.



There are worse things than being alone but it often takes decades to realize this and most often when you do it's too late and there's nothing worse than too late - Charles Bukowski

...that the individual who can't grasp how other couples can do it begins to lose their sense of 'normalcy'. They begin to wonder if they are the ones who are 'abnormal' and perhaps the other individuals are correct and, hence, normal. Perceived normality, while meaning very little to those of us who recognize it for what it is, is a tremendous motivator for those who do not recognize it as the tool of control that it is. A huge portion of 'normal' life is based on perceived normality, and many societal ills can be traced to the exertion of that perception on communities.

Consider the reactions to (for example) gays, feminism, racial difference, sexual proclivities, and so forth. The 'fear' that fuels the anger so often seen (especially amongst those who don't take the time to reason for themselves) towards these things all stem from the difference between it and what they perceive as normal. Just my opinion, of course. =)

We don't have kids ,have never owned a home ,and we're hippies.If we had kids we would have killed each other years ago ,longevity is not a ruler for success ,happiness is.

I'm happy for the people who seem to fit so well in each other's arms, curled like buds of flowers yet to uncurl, but flower buds are temporary stages, compact, hardy, fiercely defending islands of beauty in the cold winds... But when does more-than-two become also a viable stage for love, not necessarily sexual in nature, but deep, meaningful, trusting? When will there be sufficient warmth for us to unfurl, and for the joining of two hands to be one beautiful connection among many, many, many, and what social milieu stops it from being so now?

Psychology studies have shown this. If you have a situation where people can work together to get ahead, if someone starts cheating then everyone stops cooperating.

however if you find a way to let people punish the cheaters and loafers, then people start cooperating again.

So if it weren't for our capacity for verbal, social or physical violence there would be no cooperation in the first place. If people weren't able to punish people who do not contribute, then we wouldn't even have a civilization in the first place.

As far as your question, I think a lot depends on how much a person gets. The less stressed out someone is, and the more they feel their needs and feelings are being respected the more they will do the same for others.

Most mammals do, I think. But why is it that among humans we've gotten to the point where sex is often used as a bargaining chip to buy emotional closeness and SO MANY OF US have no trustworthy sources of community and support outside of sexual relationships? Why don't we have- tribes, kinship groups, affinity groups, communes, intentional communities, alliances, comrades, WHATEVER; I'm not necessarily saying that any of the above-mentioned things are THE ANSWER, there could be others. If you or ANYONE ELSE reading this have some other structure in mind that you think would be better, PLEASE, by all means, tell me. But I refuse to believe that this is the best we can do- cookie-cutter affection-starved sterile suburban households, gang-violence torn inner cities, second-rate nursing homes where people coming to the end of their years are cut off from those just starting out. And what I'm trying to have a discussion about is HOW IT CAME TO BE THIS WAY. Not just how good or bad your own personal relationship is, or some moral judgement on other individuals, but how THE WHOLE THING got like this... C'mon, y'all are smart enough to have some insightful feedback on this one...

I have to be honest and say that I haven't spent any time exploring that question.

I think it has much to do with power, and with the subjugation of women, but there could be other forces at work I haven't considered.

We've come from cultures that made women property, with fewer rights, and with little respect. The only safety to be had was not as mother, sister, or person, but as a wife. Wife as property automatically invokes territorialism; on the part of the owner of that property, and on the part of the wife, too, who is looking to defend her position from poachers. While we have supposedly evolved beyond that, the underpinnings of our family constructs are still clearly visible.

Again, the predominant judeo/xtian faiths have evolved into monogamy, for the most part, although there is plenty of evidence that they did not begin that way. At least, not for men. That, too, is about power, is it not?

I would love to see tribes, kinship groups, affinity groups, etc. that would fill our need to belong, to have others to look to, who will look to us, to be there for, who will be there for us.

There are often small groups of people who form their own small groups, when they have no other or when they don't "belong" in what they've got. Are you thinking of something like this, on a larger scale?

It can be hard to form social groups when there is no SO; groups of singles work for awhile, but the perceived closeness disappears when a partnership is formed. And, of course, in the mainstream, every invitation URGES us to bring someone, blatantly pointing out that, if we are comfortable without a partner, all the matched pairs are NOT comfortable with us until we pair up.

without sharing too much personal stuff...

I think that we are isolated as a societal plan designed high above us and which has been In place for centuries.

As long as we do NOT have connections in communities and tribes and kinship - In Other Words - as long as we are divided and conquered - we can be ultimately controlled from cradle to grave.

I would say that DU serves and emotional outlet for such community and fills a need for actual physical and emotional closeness the way twitter and facebook and myspace have done.
We NEED closeness, sex, community, family BUT we are chopped and distributed into our cells of living space (cars and bedrooms and houses or apartments) and the communal need we have emotionally gets filled up with a syrupy commercial ooze of tv and music and malls and alarm clocks and schedules and commuting so that we are out of touch (and kept out of touch our whole lives) with any real naturalistic sense of connection with each other.

Even now as I typer these words into an anonymous community i cannot touch npr even know the names of those who i am connecting with. Like an anonymous drunken night out I won't remember a face or a real name of those I had so much fun with as I am disconnected.

So the social and survival norm is a mate/one mate/ to help with the survival tasks - paying the rent, feeding the little ones we produce, sheltering and protecting them.

But we do it in our isolation cells designed by a fascist colonial elitist capitalist structure that NEEDS us as consumers to be isolated, pigeonholed, controlled and compartmentalized and detached from any community which might somehow possibly present any threat or destabilization to those who control our lives.

Is THAT the kind of response you were looking for?

Does it make any sense?

I feel the isolation too...

My home city was dying and was becoming too dangerous for children.

But as a human being I am disconnected from a meaningful community primarily due to economics. Economics creates the isolation we feel and we cling to a handful of those who maybe can break us out of that when we climb into our isolated cells each night. Just one person with a real touch.

There are definitely economic forces at work... "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State" has some interesting analysis to offer, if you're not scared of dead men with beards:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm
but... I don't know. There's still a lot of stuff I'm trying to figure out, and maybe instead of asking, "why?" I should be asking, "what do we do about it?"
Changing the economy to the point where it no longer does this to people will take a long time- though I certainly have hopes that some progress in that direction will be made within my lifetime, and am ready to dedicate myself to fights for such progress- and so, until the social and economic situation is globally, radically transformed, we're faced with the task of doing as much as we can to improve the lives of people like ourselves, living in the pre-revolutionary (revolution meaning transformative process, not military event) here-and-now.
Hmmmm.... Methinks we needs more liberation angels. ;)

what a Jewish refugee fleeing Hitler called his rescuer: an "angel of liberation"

The underground resistance to fascism in France were made up of many liberation angels and many of these were real socialists and progressives. I have some close ties to these rescuers and the rescued.

Educating folks on DU matters! That is one way of liberation.

But I do tend to believe that even in villages and communities and tribes that one on one bonding is a significant part of how we evolved and that the need to protect and care for children and each other (altruism = survival) is really alright. It need not be oppressive even though many have painted it as such. While it is a choice it is also, like abortion, one which is made with so much pressure economically and culturally (not to mention religiously) that often one can not even see it as a choice but more of a compulsion one way or the other.

Butthe immense injustices of patriarchy invited/caused a revolt which made the oppressed become like the oppressors through emulation (a la Fanon).

In fascist states absolute freedom to oppress for the elites means the abuse of freedom and the extremes of self-absorption, narcissism, and the isolation of true total hedonism (what I mean is that fascism encourages such selfishness that anything goes and there is no longer a virtue in faithfulness and mutual love and cooperation, whether exclusive or not).

For fascism to work in democracies there must be that measure of freedom which provides the appearance of real freedom. The destruction of families (usually due to economic stress) is the consequence of "anything goes".

I guess my prejudices are showing (or my idealism) but I do think that family is a near perfect form of community in good fruitful times and places. In league with other families and individuals ideal villages can be made and linked to others.

I have spent some serious time studying communities (I work with troubled kids and families) and what idealistically makes the best environment for healthy minds and life. When a couple is happy and has happy kids and a safe and sufficient life and lifestyle, it is a beautiful thing.

Why did we end up as a society that feels long term, monogamous romantic relationships are the only route to emotional fulfillment and what other options are there?

I really don't know. That would take a while to research, but sounds like a fun thing to know.

This is all off the top of my head, but I remember once reading that Japanese culture views romantic relationships more like an acquaintanceship and use close friendships for emotional intimacy. I don't know if that is true.

I also heard the concept of marriage as an island of emotional gratification started either in the 19th century or the early 20th. But I don't know.

As to what can replace it, that depends. What is intimacy, community, support?

Read the book 'social intelligence' by Daniel Goleman, it is full of good info on the nature of personal relationships taken from a neuroscience and psychological angle.

In it he talks about the 3 main ingredients of an emotional bond

Paying attention to the other person (listening intently)
Mutual positive affect for each other (liking and respecting each other)
Physical rapport (which comes naturally if the first 2 are satiated)


It has been found that when people have those 3 things, their bodies and biology starts to mimic each other. If you hook two people up to biofeedback devices who are having those 3 things, then they will have near identical things like GSR or heart rate variability.



What kind of structure could replace our current one? I don't know. One based on small groups (5-20 people) that are made up of people who self select based on personality, outlook, ethics, experiences, vulnerabilities, etc and which are themselves part of a larger group of maybe 150 instead of mutual pair bonds. Plus a bigger role of extended families (aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc) rather than just nuclear families that are isolated from each other. That would go a long way to combating loneliness in my view.

Debate that all you want. I'm not going to join with you or anyone else in that poo flinging contest. However, life term pairbonding -or monogamy as it used to be known- and tight family coherence are inarguably important to the accumulation and conservation of property. Kids whose parents stay together, whose parents don't go off starting new marriages and new offspring every few years have a built-in advantage in inherited wealth, and can set their sights on either getting more of the same, or on completely different goals in life. Property is transmissible and the benefits accrue over time. You may think, well it doesn't matter much one way or another to my family because we have little enough and conserving it or transmitting it to the next generation is no big deal. But it matters to wealthy families. Ask the kids of any rich guy who has 3 marriages and two sets of his own offspring. They may tell you something like: "if not for the other wives and kids I would be doing what I really want to do like building sailing yachts by hand, or I could own this art gallery instead of just work here." Traditional values tend to be set traditionally by the advantaged class; and those who aspire to belong to that class, generally aspire to the model set by their social "betters".

Don't complain to me. It's not my rule, I just know where it's written.

It's an important institution, WITHIN THIS SOCIAL SETUP. I'm asking HOW this social setup HAPPENED.

:shrug:

Maybe because it is tried and true?

Many thanks :thumbsup:

are just ethical judgements! Not neccesarilly bad ones- people around here seem to have pretty good ethics, overall, in my humble opinion- but that's not what I'm asking right now.
THINGS HAVE MATERIAL CAUSATION!!!
C'mon, somebody address this huge factor, please?
See post 21 for more detail if you wanna.

and that energy can be invested in having and raising the offspring. jmo.

Several species, including humans, have evolved the "mate for life" behavior, so there must be survival value to it, and well-taken-care-of progeny seems to me like the reason.

But the "scatter-your-seed-wherever-you-can" instinct is also present in us (and other species), so the offspring of philanderers and rapists mature and breed without being killed.

Studies of little birds in hedges a couple years ago revealed a wild variety of promiscuous behavior among supposedly pair-bonded nesting birds.

Interesting subject. Short answer: I don't know.

It's hard to do it alone. I'd guess that's the first reason.

I'd also hypothesize that our societal culture that inculcates this behavior evolved when our lifespans were a LOT shorter. There simply wasn't enough time to grow bored, leave, find a new situation etc.

It used to be more typical for three generations to live together but as our lifespan has gotten longer, that's pretty impossible. An 80 year old could potentially live to see their fourth generation. No way could that many people cohabitate to "care" for each other the way it used to be in western cultures, and the way we see it in so many other cultures.

cohabitate to "care" for one another..."
I don't know... I think it could happen but maybe I'm just being overly-optimistic.

Also, on edit: I think it's really sad that if you don't have a marriage partner you'll probably wind up raising your kid along. Sad for the parent, because it makes their life harder, and sad for the kid, too. I also think it's sad that kids wind up primarily being raised by only two people, because people are only human, and we all have flaws, and if there were wider bands of aunts/uncles/cousins/whatever, kids wouldn't wind up having their psyches so majorly shaped by- and wind up internalizing- whatever flaws were present within the people who tried to raise them.

On second edit: I realize that maybe I'm only saying the stuff I said on my first edit because I'm a white person in America, and that it's different in other populations... bell hooks (no caps) wrote some good stuff about how other structures present within the African American community could provide models for social transformation... I need to read more of her stuff.

have shared your life with that one wonderful person.

Remember, the first 25 years of marriage are the hardest. After that, you kind of gradually settle in and being to really enjoy each other.

i read once that altruism really seemed the key in a good, happy, contented marriage. hubby and i tend to do that anyway. son tells us the only arguments we have is when we say no you have the last, no you have, no you, no you.....

but your post is cute

i am a loner so probaby would be hard for me for the most part. btu there is a lot of good in marriage. and with kids, a solid marriage is all the difference. both gender invaluable.... i ahve found in my upbringing and in my kids life.

(23 years married, 25 years living together), I completely agree. I almost added that in my other post that the sheer cussedness of the human race must play into the decision to stay together as a "life long pair bond" since there are too many times when that's the case. Sheer damn stubborness to a vow.

But then you hit that "mark". I'm guessing it's a different timeline for every couple - you are up and over the hump and you're crazy about them, really crazy about them again. You come back around to the reasons you married them in the first place; sex, mind-meld, common interests, comforting routines, peace, genuine heart thumping love when they walk in the room....

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why anyone would divorce. Marriage is a tough gig and certainly not for everyone. The OP has a very valid point. But if your "bond" gets through the nasty shit (and I mean that may take years!), it's worth it. Oh... so very worth it.

all the people that are in comfortable, happy, healthy environments.

thanks

stay for nearly 42 years now. A tad over three years ago I almost lost her to a motorscooter accident - it was nip and tuck for a couple of days. During her recovery and rehab I realized how close it was, and since then every day has been like a gift.

We have become that cute old couple you see walking into a store holding hands. She is also my friend.

22+ years. Ask again in 40.

I just wish I wasn't getting an unrelenting wave of personal answers to social questions.

we can only express what we experience. i cannot tell you what you experience.

the deal is it works for many. i thought i would be single forever. hit 30 adn no desire for one partner. couple years later it changed. was a good change. i am ok single or married. but the married has been an excellent choice.

24 years together this month!


edit: word order.

That's all I'm sayin'.

:thumbsup:

Isolated, we need others.

To keep us as isolated as possible we only get to bond with a small handful of people.

I could not tell if you oppose or promote life long pair bonding but get your question about how did we lose our sense of "village" or our swarm of loved ones...

So I responded in my post #40 above and hope you and others wil respond, mostly just thinking out loud but sharing nonetheless about stuff that matters to me as well...

This one brings on far too much emotion for a clear area of non of yer bee's wax. I generally find social engineering putrid. Consenting people should be at ease to do what makes them happy with all the same benefits and responsibilities that any other citizens enjoy, which is why all rights, privileges, and responsibilities should be fully self contained in the individual.

When the Edwards story broke there were a bunch of these threads too.

I plan to stick around to see how it ends.

You know what I mean, Vern?

and all this time married, i conclude the same as you

funny

with her. We're well on our way.

for better or for worse NO MATTER WHAT.


I think if it can be found, a life-long partnership is very healthy for both partners.




It might not be for everyone, but it's certainly for me! (and I'm single)

I don't think people are going to "get over it", say, by lunchtime tomorrow.

I hope to find my one and only someday. :-)

that we don't know what could happen, and this is true.

so I say to those people, that's right, you might be a pedophile in some future time. hey, who knows what may happen, right?

I'm looking for a soul-mate I'll spend the rest of my life with.