h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Taking a broad look at this institution, as supported by certain political figures, how long is any given marriage expected to last, and why?

As far as I can recall, marriage (or some form of it) was codified by a German Monk, way back when the life expectancy was about 30, maybe less. Clearly it had religios connotations and was presumably 'designed' to keep two procreators as one unit until their offspring could contribute to the community , and then go through the process again, eventually.

The figures for marital breakdown would suggest that as an institution it has a life expectanccy of no more than 10 years, and in many cases less.

Is this because the original model was never designed to exceed the 10 year figure? If not, why do some unions continue way past the expected expiry date, and some founder after only months.

In other words, are human beings not predisposed towards marriage ( or co-habitation), or is it the failure of our )western) society to subdue the "I deserve to be happy" mentality.

Discuss

Novo

Everyone's different... some are happy with one partner at a time, some like to have two or more, some like to go to specialised clubs and have sex with as many as ten different strangers in one evening. Some unmarried couples remain together for life, some married couples hate each others guts after only a matter of weeks.

Predispostion as a whole species doesn't remotely come into it.

If you are right, what then is it's purpose?

Novo,Blackcat>

Does it have to have a purpose other than the fact it makes some people happy?

My understanding was that marriage was a secular phenomenon before it was co-opted by the church. Over the years it has been ritualised, codified, and brought inside the Parish walls. This is not altogether a bad thing - people across the world love and often adopt western marriage ceremonies.

I have a couple of problems with marriage I guess. For one, I'm really hate big public displays and ceremonies, but that's just me and its not obligational. More importantly, and I don't know how seriously people take this, but the actual marriage vows are impossible. You can't promise to love someone forever, you can only tell them you love them now and can't see that changing. I mean its not like its something you can control as such. Maybe people just read it as meaning put the effort in and don't give up till you're sure its wrong?

What people are predisposed to...I would guess several competing strategies. Men are in general a little bit bigger than women, which could suggest a slight tendency towards harems, although that would be very weak compared to, say, a sea lion where the difference in size is many many times. Lifetime marriage does seem to genuinely work for some couples, for others its just not being longely. Some people don't form couples at all, or don't get the jealous reaction. Most people, I would guess, are serial monogomists.

(Oweing a debt to threads a long time back which I can't be bothered to dig for.)

And no, the original model was designed to last more than 10 years. Life expectancy figures are a tricky thing, and depend on the age you measure them at. But, a full lifespan, avoiding disease, child mortality and disaster, was not so much shorter in the olden days: 'three score years and ten'.

"Till death us do part" seems a rather archaic and overly romantic notion these days since we all know that more than 50% of marriages end in divorce.

So why bother?

I honestly don't know. Although not legally married, Nog and I renew our vows to each other each September. Well, at least we have so far. You see, it depends on whether we have kept our vows and if we both feel willing to continue together. And making that sort of promise for a year seems much more realistic and sensible than promising yourself to someone else for the rest of your entire life.

It also helps keep you on your toes. You can't 'slack off' and take the other person for granted because the annual renewal of vows has to me a mutual thing.

I guess I don't really hold much stake in what most people call marriage these days. It seems mostly about the ceremony and the pretty dress and whatnot ... not about real commitment. Watching the same person brush their teeth for 30 years and still standing by them with a furious and dependable love is what I would call true commitment. You don't see so much of that anymore.

We seem to prefer something much easier and superficial these days. Which of course tends to have a much shorter shelf-life.

az

has to *be* a mutual thing ... shit, I even previewed!

az

Hi Az,

That is exactly how my partnership works, and we've passsed the 10 year mark! - Hence my question.

Novo

Marriage is about growing up - about seeing there is something more important than the next shag, about recognising that only through caring more about someone else's happiness, can you only truly be secure and happy yourself.

Some people never meet someone they can commit to in that way.

Some people never grow up enough.

I was once married, and meant every word I stated as vows. That was slightly better than 26 years ago. (The date will never be forgotten, as my son-in-law was born in the same hour that we danced our first dance, in the very same city in Newfoundland) She is now in her third marriage, and I am in my second. The 20th anniversary of this marriage of mine will be enjoyed by visiting assorted h2g2 friends in England, Wales and Ireland. So the idea of 10'ish years may be the statistical norm, and we are one of the exceptions. We have our differences which often complement each other, and sometimes cause some extreme friction. And yet, we are daily quite happy to wake next to each other, and with the exception of one night, expressed our love of each other before the eyes close each night.

Probably the whole need and want of marriage was ingrained in us by our earliest years as practising Catholics. But the reality of it was our wish to openly commit ourselves to each other, witnessed by family and friends. The "purpose" being to please ourselves, and each other.

And McKay seems to paraphrase the sci-fi writer, Robert A Heinlein. Who defined "love" as that condition in which the happiness of another is more important than your own.

I've been married for 20 years next week (2nd May). I meant every word I said when I got married. Many of our vows have been tested to the limit over the years and we still live by them. We trust each other absolutely and I know that each of us has never breached that trust in the 23 years we have known each other.

Marriage for me was the end of one phase of my life and the beginning of another - adulthood.

My parents have been together through thick and thin for 52 years. I have an older brother who has been married and divorced and is on his second relationship and a younger sister who has been married for 20 years in August. One of my younger brothers has never been married and the other is up to 15 years (I think).

I'm not sure that marriage is limited to 10 years as novo suggests but is limited to the capacity of both partners to tolerate and forgive. McKay, Rev Nick and RAH got it right - happiness of another is more important that ones own.



turvy

It's not for everyone and as half of two failed ones perhaps I'm not the one to comment. I will anyway, of course!

I just see it as a public show of commitment to your partner, a promise made in full view of the world. The bigger the wedding, the bigger the desire to let everyone know about how you feel about each other. Small private weddings are like personal contracts, showing the other person just how commited you are to them. When you make someone else part of your family and accept their family as part of yours you just told them and everyone else that they are much, much more important than they were.

There might be a bit of a defining factor then of some marriages. Not all, of course, as no two sets of people are alike. But the size and the need for ostentatiousness ... My present marriage was in the home parish of milady, with her family and earliest world in attendance. But by then, she had been military and away from there for about 5 years, and I was a total foreigner to the region. To us, none of the hometown folks opinion really had any weight, it was not showy but what we wished to have ... Heck, the DJ was her 15-year-old kid brother. His gift to us.

Morning all,

I wasn't thinking that 10 years was a defining period. Clearly since i have lived with my partner for 10, we have continued/renewed the commitment to each other.

Nor was I thinking about the outward show of the 'ceremony', though that is more important to some, than to others.

What really intrigued me was that how, in a marriage or a partnership , some people manage to keep the whole thing going ,through good and bad, whereas others appear to chuck in the towel at a pretty early date.

Obviously it is aquestion of 'love' (however you define it) and the acceptance of each others faults, together with acknowledging that you are equals; if anything, putting your partner first when you can.

My question was a philosophical one, in that the current UK Govt. has seen fit to remove the Income Tax incentives for married couples, indeed setting up a system which almost suggesst that marriage isn't necessary. Yet at the same time wittering on about parental responsibility etc etc.

I accept that good parenting can be accomplished by both married and non married couples, as indeed bad parenting can be.

But shouldn't we be aiming at a tax supported 'contract', maybe renewable every 10 years , to try to make sure that couples stay together, have kids, bring them up not to be 5 year old who get thrown out of school( aside), by putting cash incentives in place to encourage 'family' unity?.

Isn't it a mistake for a government to enact legislation which undermines a system which has served humanity well for many a long year?
- without replacing it with something better?

As to why some people manage to keep a relationship going, I think it is down to 'love', to being unselfish, and being prepared to sacrifice for the good of the partnership.

Novo

I can only guess that longevity for some is a matter of determination and will to make things work. Many people that I have known, who's partnerships or marriages did not last long, are also the sort who give up easily when challenged in other ways. Atleast several times a year, milady and I blow up at each other. But knowing that the rest of the time IS a good partner and friend-ship, we were our way past and move on.

And of course, as every man knows, the best answer to so many things is simply "Yes, Dear".

"work" our way past them ... Danged early mornings, and fresh washed fingers. Just can't do a thing with them.

Honestly, I think the cash incentives are pointless. They won't determine the stability of a couple in the great scheme of things.

I think the purpose of marriage these days is

1) to have a nice party
2) to make a commitment that you're ready to commit to the other person in order to have children (which is the really serious, long term commitment.)

Otherwise, I can't see the point.

I got married after living together with my wife for some time - it didn't change my life much, but it was a nice occasion. We're still together - about ten years in total now.

sprout

I suppose marriage has evolved from a religious to a societal rite of passage. For many it's still valid, we will attend our friends daughter's wedding in August and she is, I guess, late 20's. No church involved, just civil.

Mrs WA and I have been happily married for 30 years and I hope still going strong. The reasons we got hitched are probably more complicated than social pressure. We lived together, much to the dispair of her straight laced parents, for years. With me being away at sea maybe I needed some imagined emotional reassurance. Maybe there was an element of providing famial stabilty as my mother died suddenly leaving a 5 year old son.

Whatever the original reasons it seems to have worked and we are still each others best friend. Looking ahead as dotage peeps it's arthritic head above life's horizon mutual support and company will hopefully increase our quality of life.

As to the married couples allowance yet another stealth tax from the Son of the Manse

<> (novo)

Or perhaps that they are actually with the right person for them.

I suppose that any marriage that doesn't last forever is considered a 'failed marriage', but it's not necessarily a 'failed relationship' if you eventually decide it's better for both of you to move on. It kind of degrades what you had together, be it for 10, 20 or even 5 years. Heck, I've had some very special short-term relationships that helped shape who I am today and I don't think of them as having 'failed'; it's just that that's what they were meant to be.

People do change. And their needs and desires change too. I think it's quite rare and special when two people can grow together in such a way that they are still compatible between the ages of 20-60, don't you? And yes, that does take a lot of commitment and sacrifice if both people feel the relationship is worth it. But sometimes it isn't worth it, and I think it's also very 'grown up' to be able to realise this and accept it and not feel like you've somehow failed.

It's the old quality/quantity thing. Some people are very fortunate and have both. Those that don't haven't necessarily done anything wrong. After all, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

az