View Single Post
Old 01-30-2013, 05:49 PM
onoma onoma is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 78

Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Which is one of the fundamental issues I have with marriage specifically, and monogamy more broadly. The concept that two humans are sharing a life together is interesting in poetry, but if we step back and think about it even for a moment that idea is obviously bunk.
I think you need to define "obviously."

Humans grow and change intellectually and emotionally according to their own genetic makeup and the prominent stimulus of their environment. Who they are in a relationship with only alters that in that they probably are prominent stimulus in the others environment.
Yes, and given that a partner is a prominent stimulus, they are likely to have a large impact on that growth. What, you've never seen a guy suddenly get into country music because he's dating a girl who loves country music?

Just because they are in a relationship, however, does not change the way human beings develop. There is no genetic relationship switch which somehow now joins the path of two (or more) people simply because they say they'd like it that way.
Oddly, humans are a bit more complex than our genetics. Genetically most (if not all) men are pretty much programmed to screw everything in site. Yet many devout Christian men will actually put off sex until they are married, and never sleep with anyone else. Environmental stimuli (such as a religion or a relationship partner) often trump genetics.

With the exception of Siamese twins who are literally sharing organs, we develop entirely as individuals. So, if there are major changes in a persons outlook, intellect, or emotional development, their partner is only going to share that change with them if they miraculously came to the same decision at the same time. It happens, but if these boards have a story to tell, it happens less frequently then people would like to think.
Miraculously? It's miraculous when 535 different people come to a similar decision in Congress, but it happens. If two people can't discuss things and come to a workable, collaborative decision then those two people have serious problems.

Coercion (pron.: /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force

If someone saying, "My autonomy is important to me. I need you to be ok with not having control over me when it comes to what I do with my time and body" is coercion, then that broadens the definition to the degree that it is a useless word.
Except that that's not the statement entire statement in this discussion. The entire statement is:

"My autonomy is important to me. I need you to be ok with not having control over me when it comes to what I do with my time and body and if you're not on board with my decision then I'm ending the marriage."

So the guy loses his wife, it will hurt his kids, the courts will likely hand half his income to his ex-wife and he's left with nothing rather than sharing. How is that not "threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force?"
Reply With Quote