The Torrencians

Article

520 days of confinement with 5 other people, sounds like a prison sentence...

Still, I really hope that we'll be able to put a person on the surface of Mars someday.

Ugh...no thanks!

mars sounds... ghetto.

An experience like this with your fianceé or fiancé should be a requirement before you're allowed to marry.

Would save a lot of hazzle for many people. And would also put a clear end to the white dress myth.

Chemtox wrote:An experience like this with your fianceé or fiancé should be a requirement before you're allowed to marry.

Would save a lot of hazzle for many people. And would also put a clear end to the white dress myth.

Welllll I would differ with you on that account sir. But we will just have to agree to disagree. All I will say is that statistically speaking, it is no more likely that a couple will stay together if they live together before than if they don't. In fact more the opposite. Though that statistic could be skewed by the fact that it is usually religion that dictates to a couple not to live together before marriage and the same religion dictates not to split up.

Ah, statistics. Lovely, lovely statistics. Easily manipulated statistics! My favorite statistic was the one about the "epidemic of teen-pregnancy" from the mid 80s, which claimed that over 50% of our teens are getting pregnant. The statistic included data for girls age 13-19--all technically teens, yes. If you broke down the data by age bracket: 13-16 vs 17-19, of the pregnant teens, 95% were in the 17-19 range. If you broke it down again, 90% were in the 18-19 range. Last I checked, 18 was the age of consent, and 18 and 19 year olds are old enough to decide whether or not to get pregnant. In some states, 17 year olds are allowed to marry (and thus, one would assume, get pregnant) with parental consent. Take away the 17-19 category, and you have a very small incidence of teen-pregnancy. Not a zero incidence, to be sure, but nowhere near the 50% that had people so upset.

The divorce statistic is another interesting one: 50% of marriages end in divorce, I believe is the ball-park of the current statistic. What they don't say is that around 75-90% of the marriages that end in divorce were not a first marriage. In other words, if you marry and then divorce once, you're much more likely to divorce if you get married again.

I think what's really required, though, is that we ditch the fairy tale model of marriage--this idea that once you go through the church with the big fancy white dress and get those rings on your fingers, you'll live happily ever after. This idea that marriage has a magical power to fix all your problems, I think, is at the root of so many divorces.

And as a historian, I have serious problems with our current views of marriage. Historically speaking, there were three types of marriages:

"Robbing" Marriage (also known as "Rape" Marriage, but here "rape" is used in its original meaning of "carry off by force" . . . of course, once men carry off a woman by force, we all know what they do with her . . .)
"Purchase" Marriage
"Free" Marriage

In a "Robbing" marriage, the guy kidnaps girl, and brings her into his house, and they are considered married. In most cases, women were willing partners in the kidnapping. In modern parlance, this would be considered an elopement, as this tended to occur either when parents objected to the marriage, or one of the partners was too poor to produce a suitable marriage offering.

In a "Purchase" marriage, a significant exchange of property would occur, and then the couple would be married. Depending on exactly when and where, this could be brideprice (husband pays wife's family to compensate them for the loss of a daughter) or dowry (wife's family pays husband to compensate him for taking on the burden of the wife). This was probably the most common form of marriage, particularly among the elite, and had nothing to do with love, and everything to do with property (we retain this focus on property in modern marriages).

In a "Free" marriage, which was most common among the non-elite, two people would move in together, and they would be considered married. There was no significant exchange of property.

From a historical perspective, one thing that all of these marriages had in common was that you were considered married when you moved in together. The idea of the magical church ceremony was something only introduced fairly recently by the Church with Lateran IV (in 1215--yes, I consider this recent, considering how long humans have been around), and was not universally enforced until the modern period, about the 17th century at the earliest.

It's probably hopelessly romantic of me, but I just feel like if people properly understood the historical context of such things, all our problems would go away!

Wow, very interesting info Kaitrin. Thanks.

But you are right...statistics can be manipulated to get a desired result. I guess I shouldn't have brought religion into it.

Statistics are my friend though =(. I don't know though, it seems like alot of people are using the "statistics are just a bunch of manipulation and lies", then once they hear something more in their favor, they are gladly willing to turn to their own "true statistics" People shouldn't be afraid to look at statistics as long as they are willing to investigate.

Since I'm still kind of a youngin I don't really know much about marriage though... In my opinion( kinda afraid to use this phrase, because my history teacher crammed it in our minds to never use it) I think everything comes down to family values. And divorce I am inclined to see as being selfish( if there was a child). This is what parent's teach their kids: divorce is ok, 1 parent is normal? Great...

P.S. whats a white dress myth?

Well, a white dress at a wedding symbolizes pureness or in other words virginity. The white dress "myth" would refer to the fact that women getting married in white dresses nowadays are not virgins. Of course that may or may not be true depending on each situation. But one cannot say that all women who get married in white dresses are not virgins...because that wouldn't be true either.

Marillion Bloodbane wrote:...one cannot say that all women who get married in white dresses are not virgins...

Fortunately, such occurrence is more and more rare all over the world, even in strict patriarcal cultures were wome are practical slaves. I will not "speak statistically" without citing a formal source, sir, because I'm too lazy to search for one, but such tendency should be obvious enough. I recall a few interesting points from my reading: even before the sexual revolution, in northamerica many virgin brides were only technically so, having their hymen in place, but being very well versed in alternative forms of the art. Love will find it's way. Or was it life? Well, they are about the same anyway.

There was also some study that "rocked the whole nation" stating that most teens engaged in sexual intercourse before the age of consent. I don't recall if it was confirmed or debunked, but at least, it did show that parents had no idea of what their tender youngsters did. Or didn't wanted to have.

And of course there's always the fear of morbus virgineus, the "virgin's anemy," so you'll want to engage in a healthy sexual life as soon as possible to avoid it --you would think this is a french invention, but no, it's german!.

Resuming, I think that just looking around, you can see women claim their right to self-determination, see behind the "you can't but we can because the higher power says so" charade, and so the number of brides "pure" of body and heart tends heavily towards zero.

What's the origin and purpose of the charade? Taking a wild guess, I'd say it's a modern invention of the male homo sapiens, part of the psychology to keep women in practical and sexual serfdom. Maybe Kaitrin can corroborate any of this. Is there any precedent or other proponent of women virginity until being "collared" (ok, usually "ringed," but I borrow the term from BSDM because I see *many* similarities) besides patriarchal religions?

Re-resuming, we should reform our social system. Simply put, we should learn from bonobos.

Marillion Bloodbane wrote:All I will say is that statistically speaking, it is no more likely that a couple will stay together if they live together before than if they don't. In fact more the opposite.

Sources! All I will say is that statistically, you're a liar! Sir.

Haha, just kidding, but without a source, your statements are only your opinion, in my eyes, as I expect mine to be taken. Kaitrin did validated herself as a reliable source (historian, nice), so I will be more inclined to believe she knows what's she talking about.

My opinion, commonly based (biased? on what I see as logic. In this case, I think one of the main problems of couples is communiaction. For starters, they don't know each other. Courtship is all fancy looks and flowers, but it's not until they move thogheter than the true faces show up. And with the lack of communication, the chances to solve any serious differences are minimall.

So when I (jokingly) proposed to send couples to Mars, it wasn't as an "endurance" test, but as a realistic coexistance experiment, so you have the chance to establish communication channels and get to know at least a bit of the real other. I seriously think a simple exercise like this would greatly reduce the number of divorces (and also marriages, but *not* as significantly), and would leave consuelors without job.

skye wrote:In my opinion( kinda afraid to use this phrase, because my history teacher crammed it in our minds to never use it)

I'd believe your teacher means you must not use it while talking history. It's suposed to be objetive: either this happened or it didn't, your opinion doesn't matters. In practice, history can be as subjetive as anything else (*puts anti riot gear on and waits for Kaitring to, hmm, wand spike?*). Ever heard Focault's "history is the victor's"? Of course, most of this problems are not the science's fault, but the historian's (Warning: an error has been detected in: the user; please replace with a backup.)

Even an exact science, say physics, is riddled with subjetive crapola. Is that a planet, a midget or a rock? Is Superstring an actual theory or simple numerology?

So whenever you're not talking about a fact, you're always entitled to your opinion. Ideally, history would be all clear facts, but that's not the case. And if you slide from it to sociology or philosophy of history, it gets all the more hairy.

Of course, senselessly throwing opinions around is not exaclty useful. But, before you use that argument against myself, let me remind you that the Internet is exactly for that. I'd suggest to only listen to opinions that at least make sense, they may actually enrich you; and more importantly, to only believe what is strongly backed up or you verify by yourself.

skye wrote:People shouldn't be afraid to look at statistics as long as they are willing to investigate.

Completely agreed. The problem is that not everyone can check the numbers. Either because the information is not readily available, or because the calculations are way onerous. In important things, the problem is usually both.

skye wrote:I think everything comes down to family values. And divorce I am inclined to see as being selfish( if there was a child).

I believe by family values you mean eductaion; what are you teaching your kids, and more importantly, what examples are you setting; but I think you're interpreting it too strictly. Having both your parents avaiable every day, to share joy or affliction, is usually preferable, I'll agree. Usually.

What is worst for the kid, to have it's parents separate, or to have them both in a situation full of contempt or hatred? This is always very delicate and there's no absolute recipe of course. But divorce can be justified, and doesn't needs to be that bad. It is not a miraculous solution though, you must still deal with the repercussions. Keeping closely in touch is not hard at all this days. And you would've to put some extra effort to do so, and specially to clear things and feelings with the kids, in which is common to think they are not longer loved or even that they are to blame.

Kaitrin wrote:...over 50% of our teens are getting pregnant ... 90% were in the 18-19 range...

That is to say that over 45% of 18-19 years old women get pregnant, which would still alarming, though not legally. I would not expect almost half of all women to want a child the instant they can have one "legally", so if those numbers are right, do they reflect a problem in sexual education?

Kaitrin wrote:From a historical perspective, one thing that all of these marriages had in common was that you were considered married when you moved in together. The idea of the magical church ceremony was something only introduced fairly recently by the Church with Lateran IV (in 1215--yes, I consider this recent, considering how long humans have been around), and was not universally enforced until the modern period, about the 17th century at the earliest.

*Very* interesting, I had no idea such rites were so new.

On a curious note, a few years ago in México it became notorious the case of a robbing marriage (still common in traditional towns I think), were the groom turned the bride back to her family, *after* the first night, with some poor excuse (she was not virgin probably); along a "generous" payment for "injuries and damages." 0.o

Kaitrin wrote:It's probably hopelessly romantic of me, but I just feel like if people properly understood the historical context of such things, all our problems would go away!

I heard this tale from a shrink, she used it as an intro: a visitor came to thanksgiving, and was surprised to see the turkey had had the extremes peculiarily removed. When he asked about it, no one could tell him the answer. A family tradition, the woman of the house said. Her curiosity was piqued though, so she went asking the elders until she put thogheter the answer: her grand grand mother or so had only a small oven, and she had to trim the turkey for it to fit inside. Why would the following generations keep on doing it? Because. Tradition, habit.

Hoping for *all* our problems to be solved is *more* than hopeless and romantic. But I'll agree a good deal of social and personal "traumas" and mannerisms would be rapidly erradicated if people bothered to think the why of such things.

Whew, and if you did read all this, you must be as sick as I am for writting it!

Yay, I'm a sicko! I made it to the end of Chemtox's post!

The version of the "turkey" story I've heard is the custom of trimming the ends of a ham.

One of the things I emphasize as a historian is that history is not about memorizing names and dates (ie, looking for facts). I'd rather talk about "evidence," rather than "facts," and I strongly encourage my students to form their own opinions and develop their own arguments, as long as they can support their arguments with evidence from the sources available to them. Sorry, Skye, you're probably going to have to unlearn what you've learned when you get to college!

I have no problem with anyone bringing in religion. I know it can be a touchy subject for some, but as long as no one is proselytizing, it's a part of our collective human experience, and a deep part of many people's identity.

As for the ideal of the virgin bride and male control of female sexuality, it's very simple, and comes down to men wanting to be certain of their paternity. Some cultures took this to an extreme (like the ancient Greeks), who would quite literally keep their women locked up in small rooms for their entire lives. Young girls (about the age of 12-14) were typically married to men twice their age (late 20s-30s). If you look at the Greek mythology, one of the common themes is men (ie Zeus) sneaking into the women's quarters and getting women pregnant, mucking up the paternity waters.

Actually, I agree with Marillion on virgin brides. I think the numbers of virgin to non-virgin brides is probably closer than people think. A lot of it depends on demographics and age at marriage.

huh...

Yes, yes, yes...In order to discuss Mars, we must discuss types of marriage...

sounds...old...

Eiko wrote:Yes, yes, yes...In order to discuss Mars, we must discuss types of marriage...

No no, it's the way around, because men are from Mars, and women from Venus.