Proposed changes to divorce law

[Rhiannon]

If people don't like the commitment of marriage, they can always just live together, as many do. If they marry, it should be a real commitment.

What makes you think that people who live together aren't 'really committed'?

[Shaker]

If people don't like the commitment of marriage, they can always just live together, as many do. If they marry, it should be a real commitment.

That's great and all but doesn't actually respond to any of the points I made. "Real commitments" naturally come to an end sometimes.

[Shaker]

What makes you think that people who live together aren't 'really committed'?

I can think of certain scenarios where people who cohabit exhibit more commitment than those who marry. Despite what Steve H may think divorce is a complicated, lengthy and expensive process; in a marriage it's easy to just settle for the sake of a quiet life. People who live together stay in a relationship that they can often leave at any point because they actually want to be there.

[Steve H]

What makes you think that people who live together aren't 'really committed'?

i didn't actually say that, but in any case, if they are committed, why not get married?

[Shaker]

i didn't actually say that, but in any case, if they are committed, why not get married?

The expense? The planning required? Not seeing any need for a do?

[Rhiannon]

i didn't actually say that, but in any case, if they are committed, why not get married?

Because they think that marriage is a load of old pony?

[Harrowby Hall]

It is worth remembering that the primary reason for marriage is the protection of property. Marriage was originally "designed" as a method of restricting the incidence of opportunistic sex to women - thereby ensuring that men knew that any offspring was their own. This meant that the transmission of property down the generations was safely done within a single family. A woman's job was done once she had provided an heir and a spare.

The mechanism of reproduction was not understood. Women, it was believed, had no genetic role and were merely incubation devices.

Religion got in on the act by introducing the concept of sexual activity as being sinful. The motivation for this was to increase the power that religious figures had over other their believers. By introducing shame and guilt into sexual relations they transformed the nature of marriage and turned into a device for control.

We have surely progressed beyond the need for such an imposition on mature human beings. We now know where babies come from and we can accurately identify their fathers. We can control our fertility. Women are rightly no longer perceived as inferior to men and do not need to be constrained. If the bond between two people is sufficiently strong there is every reason why they should marry ... if they want to.

And should that bond break down and the couple become strangers to each other then there is every reason why they should be able to dissolve their formal relationship.

God no longer puts husbands and wives together.

[Shaker]

Bang on the money.

[Roses]

It is worth remembering that the primary reason for marriage is the protection of property. Marriage was originally "designed" as a method of restricting the incidence of opportunistic sex to women - thereby ensuring that men knew that any offspring was their own. This meant that the transmission of property down the generations was safely done within a single family. A woman's job was done once she had provided an heir and a spare.

The mechanism of reproduction was not understood. Women, it was believed, had no genetic role and were merely incubation devices.

Religion got in on the act by introducing the concept of sexual activity as being sinful. The motivation for this was to increase the power that religious figures had over other their believers. By introducing shame and guilt into sexual relations they transformed the nature of marriage and turned into a device for control.

We have surely progressed beyond the need for such an imposition on mature human beings. We now know where babies come from and we can accurately identify their fathers. We can control our fertility. Women are rightly no longer perceived as inferior to men and do not need to be constrained. If the bond between two people is sufficiently strong there is every reason why they should marry ... if they want to.

And should that bond break down and the couple become strangers to each other then there is every reason why they should be able to dissolve their formal relationship.

God no longer puts husbands and wives together.

A good post.


I am glad we are now living in the 21st Century where women, on the whole, are not treated as chattels and belonging to the male of the species.   

[Steve H]

It is worth remembering that the primary reason for marriage is the protection of property. Marriage was originally "designed" as a method of restricting the incidence of opportunistic sex to women - thereby ensuring that men knew that any offspring was their own. This meant that the transmission of property down the generations was safely done within a single family. A woman's job was done once she had provided an heir and a spare.

The mechanism of reproduction was not understood. Women, it was believed, had no genetic role and were merely incubation devices.

Religion got in on the act by introducing the concept of sexual activity as being sinful. The motivation for this was to increase the power that religious figures had over other their believers. By introducing shame and guilt into sexual relations they transformed the nature of marriage and turned into a device for control.

We have surely progressed beyond the need for such an imposition on mature human beings. We now know where babies come from and we can accurately identify their fathers. We can control our fertility. Women are rightly no longer perceived as inferior to men and do not need to be constrained. If the bond between two people is sufficiently strong there is every reason why they should marry ... if they want to.

And should that bond break down and the couple become strangers to each other then there is every reason why they should be able to dissolve their formal relationship.

God no longer puts husbands and wives together.

I suspect that most of the above is highly questionable.

[Shaker]

Instead of merely asserting as much and scuttling off thinking that your work is done, why not show it to be wrong?

[Roses]

I suspect that most of the above is highly questionable.

I have an example of a woman in my own family being used as a child rearing machine.

My great aunt was in love with man, and the feeling was mutual. Sadly her eldest sister died in childbirth and my aunt was forced the marry her sister's unpleasant much older husband, in order to help bring up the baby boy to which her sister had given birth! Her husband treated her very cruelly indeed, it was a great relief to her when he kicked the bucket in 1952. She never remarried and eventually died at the great age of 104.

[Steve H]

I have an example of a woman in my own family being used as a child rearing machine.

My great aunt was in love with man, and the feeling was mutual. Sadly her eldest sister died in childbirth and my aunt was forced the marry her sister's unpleasant much older husband, in order to help bring up the baby boy to which her sister had given birth! Her husband treated her very cruelly indeed, it was a great relief to her when he kicked the bucket in 1952. She never remarried and eventually died at the great age of 104.

Sigh...

[Rhiannon]

A good post.


I am glad we are now living in the 21st Century where women, on the whole, are not treated as chattels and belonging to the male of the species.   

Depends on your culture. Some think that females should be erased in the womb.

[Roses]

Depends on your culture. Some think that females should be erased in the womb.

No doubt you are thinking of China. 

[Rhiannon]

No doubt you are thinking of China. 

No.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45497454

[Steve H]

If you believe in a woman's right to choose, you have to accept that they may choose abortion for reasons you disapprove of.

[Rhiannon]

If you believe in a woman's right to choose, you have to accept that they may choose abortion for reasons you disapprove of.

Except it isn't a choice. It's cultural pressure, the threat of divorce, of being ostracised. It's a kind of honour crime. Did you actually bother reading the article at all?

[Steve H]

Except it isn't a choice. It's cultural pressure, the threat of divorce, of being ostracised. It's a kind of honour crime. Did you actually bother reading the article at all?

No, but I'm aware that women may be pressured into decisions we progressive Western liberals may disapprove of - but then again, they may make what we consider bad decisions for themselves. See also the debate about Burqas and Niqabs.

[Rhiannon]

No, but I'm aware that women may be pressured into decisions we progressive Western liberals may disapprove of - but then again, they may make what we consider bad decisions for themselves. See also the debate about Burqas and Niqabs.

Aborting a child because it is female is not the same thing as choosing to wear a headscarf. FFS. It's not simply being pressured into something that we 'disapprove of'; it is saying to a woman that her sex is so unwanted that it should be destroyed. Eliminated. Erased. The children in her body should be wiped out. Because she is female. And you know the really sad thing? Many women go along with it because they wouldn't wish the hell of their lives on their daughters.

[Steve H]

Aborting a child because it is female is not the same thing as choosing to wear a headscarf. FFS. It's not simply being pressured into something that we 'disapprove of'; it is saying to a woman that her sex is so unwanted that it should be destroyed. Eliminated. Erased. The children in her body should be wiped out. Because she is female. And you know the really sad thing? Many women go along with it because they wouldn't wish the hell of their lives on their daughters.

How exactly do you know all this? You sound like an evangelical anti-abortionist hypocritically bringing up the abortion of disabled foetuses, which is a touch ironical. Incidentally, the headscarf is called a hijab. The niqab and burqaare the ones that conceal the face.

[Rhiannon]

How exactly do you know all this? You sound like an evangelical anti-abortionist hypocritically bringing up the abortion of disabled foetuses, which is a touch ironical. Incidentally, the headscarf is called a hijab. The niqab and burqaare the ones that conceal the face.

It's out there. On discussion forums, in the news media. Women from these communities are trying to protect each other, call it out as an honour crime. The first time I came across it personally was when my best friend's cousin went to India to abort a daughter because she couldn't get an abortion here. My friend wondered if she would have to do the same. We were 14, 15 I guess.

If you want to read about it there's some info here.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/early/2018/06/19/jech-2018-210622.full.pdf

Incidentally, I don't disapprove of them having the abortion because the likelihood is that life will be shit for them if they have the child, and for their daughter too, unless they are able to get out of the marriage safely. Its the whole culture that needs changing, an our response to 'cultural sensitivities' that are actually excuses not to deal with abuse.

But we are getting off the topic of marriage. Should you wish to continue, start another thread.

[Roses]

Sigh...

And what are you sighing about?

[Steve H]

And what are you sighing about?

Your inability to understand that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all, and your usual solipsism.

[Roses]

Your inability to understand that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all, and your usual solipsism.

Oh dear you are a very sad person if you haven't anything better to do than try to wind me up, GROW UP!