Jebusrocks wrote:That is such terribly worded by me lol. It never "applied" (as I put it) because no one stuck to this tradition. People romanticize about marriage, but it never worked because virtually no one followed it.
Actually, a hell of a lot of people did. Most commoners did. That's one of the reasons why formal genealogies tend to match so well with genetic research and DNA testing
. I know for a fact that about 15 generations of the women on the paternal side of my family tree were faithful enough to produce a legitimate line going all the way back past 1599, for example, and that has been confirmed with several DNA tests compared with some of my distant cousins. That's not romanticism, that's verifiable scientific fact. You can check the statistics on that; infidelity which produced children (what are called 'non-paternity events' in the scientific literature) are actually quite rare - between 1% and 5% of documented couples, and probably closer to the low end.
Jebusrocks wrote:A good example is pre-CIvil War South, people frowned upon white owners sleeping/raping their African slaves, and there were many political discourse with ie. Jefferson(who was shamed publicly for taking on a black mistress), but virtually everyone in the South did it.
That's very true. (You didn't need to tell me that, though; having read Slave and Citizen
by Frank Tannenbaum on the subject was very enlightening on that score.) But it's also a historical anomaly. Black chattel slavery simply didn't exist before the 1500's Portuguese trade off the African coast, and the practice wasn't enshrined in law until the 1660's in the Americas. And it was done away with legally within 300 years of its adoption, practically everywhere it was practised.
Jebusrocks wrote:I studied Medieval law codes and their practicalities, even wrote an essay on it, and unfortunately it is true. Virtually none of these laws, even if it existed, were ever implemented unless the MAN whose wife you raped was of high rank, and it almost NEVER applied to those in the country side. In virtually all CHRISTIAN cases in western europe (I have never looked at Muslim or post-Protestant cases), it was settled in an almost Germanic way, the husband would seek revenge, either in cash form (how sick is that..) or by killing the guy.
You studied Germanic law? Then you know what the weregeld
was for, yes?
In places where enforcement was a problem
, and where patriarchal units often took matters into their own hands with private feuds, weregild
was often a way for a commoners' court to defuse a feud before it got out of hand. Feuds could get really ugly. The woman was a full member of the family in Germanic societies, and she could very easily sway her brothers or her uncles to avenge her
(not just themselves - failing to avenge a wronged sister or niece or daughter-in-law was seen as ergi
and shameful); in some Viking stories she was even likely to go out and take the head of her abuser herself.
Jebusrocks wrote:I should also note that many scholars believe that Christianity did not initially start out with this ideology, but adopted it when they began "Platonizing" Christianity to better appeal to those familiar with Greek culture (ie. Eastern Roman Empire). In particular, Galen (A greek medic) believed that women did not contribute to marriage, and one day, men will be able to masturbate into special boxes (they did not know about the egg) and get rid of woman completely other than for pleasure. This was than tied by many Christian scholars with how Eve was lesser (made from Adam's rib) and it was her curiosity that led to the "Fall of Men" in Eden, forever losing that connection with God.
And do you know how many anathemas the canons of the Orthodox Church (and the Catholic Church in the West) issued against these people? The official Christian authorities were practically always on the side of the married women in cases like these, where gnostics and pseudo-ascetics railed against marriage and the rights of women to their husbands' support and sexual attention.
Because, in reality, it is the same as putting emphasis on no sex before ten dates, or whatever arbitrary points you decide. It is an arbitrary date people set. But again, you (as in everyone, i'm not trying to single you out) are the one that decide that somehow, after this set date, the sex is going to be better, which can be true for most people including myself! It just doesn't have to be marriage imo
So you're saying you do understand it now? I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from on this.
Jebusrocks wrote:You do know that birthrates have decreased significantly over the years right in developed countries right? This has nothing to do with pre-marital sex... This is because it is upto the people who have sex, not the act of sex itself. Yes, setting barriers up for yourself (like marriages) can work for some people, but for many it doesn't.
Yes, I have. I took a master's in development econ.
And actually, it has everything to do with increased life expectancy and advanced government provisions of social care for the elderly.
The logic of two parents in a developing country is very different from the logic of two parents in a developed country. In the former, your children are your safety net. If you don't have children, and you can't work anymore in your old age, you die alone, cold and starving. Not a pleasant thought. So the idea was to have as many children as possible, and especially as many boys as possible, with the expectation that at least one of them would be able to support you when you got too old to work anymore.
But if you weren't married to the mother of your children, or if you didn't have legal guardianship in any other sense, the children were under no legal obligation to take care of you. Marriage was historically an institution designed to protect and support the weak
in society - both children in their infancy, and adults in their old age. It continues to be used this way particularly in India, Africa, rural Asia and the poorer regions of Latin America. And as such, it has 'worked' for most people throughout history.
Jebusrocks wrote:And that is why it is outdated. The biggest upside of a PROPER marriage (which, as I have stated before is very rare historically until recently) is that it makes sex somewhat safe; now we have the tools to make it safe.
And like I've said before and elsewhere, these tools are sold on a lie.
Sex is a neurochemical need and a neurochemical drive; it has psychological effects that no physical barrier can render 'safe'. Most people - the majority of people, from what I gather both anecdotally and from studies - are simply not able to simply disconnect their emotions from intimate contact with their partners without suffering anxiety, existential doubt, jealousy, depression and so on. I have yet to meet even one person who was into casual sex who hadn't been sexually abused or abandoned before, and who hadn't allowed those experiences to shape their whole outlook on sex.
Jebusrocks wrote:Marriage is a noble concept, but unfortunately, due to how we as a species are programmed, it was an ideal people merely tuned into, but never fully accepted.
Okay, pop evo psych is total bullshit, in part because its exponents in the popular press like to pretend human beings are computers or machines, and that our neurochemical processes aren't plastic.
They pretend that free will doesn't matter, and that instinct always
trumps experience. I have yet to see this proven rather than assumed. On the other hand, I have seen study after study after neurological study with disclaimers that brain science is still very vaguely understood, that we don't really understand all the processes that go into our decision-making, and that there's actually no such thing as a 'hardwired' behaviour that can't be circumvented or changed through habit-forming.
Marriage is a habit
as well as a legal institution. It's a habit some people try really hard to build. And it's a habit people sometimes fail at or break. But it's still something as 'natural' to human life as any other form of sexual expression.
Bush Leagues wrote:
For instance, I made a judgment about WWD about how he probably lets things bother him a bit too much.
Likewise, I fully expect he has made judgments about me - hopefully at least one of them is positive!
Yep, I fully own that one. I do take things pretty seriously.
And actually, I think the only judgement I ever made about you is that on occasion you run your keyboard without thinking it out fully. But I do that all the time too, so no biggie!
Bush Leagues wrote:
Just to note, there are certainly some people have sex while having no emotional attachment to each other. But in general, kissing implies a deeper emotional attachment. I believe this is why some prostitutes and people who are having casual sex avoid kissing - to avoid emotional entanglements that complicate that particular relationship. At least, that's what I hear.
I can believe that.
But 'implies emotional attachment' is very much not the same thing as 'not natural' or 'not biological'.
Romantic emotional attachments are neurological and hormone-driven. Ergo biological. Ergo natural.
So basically I fully agree with your edit, Bush Leagues