18 ms·

The Problem of Marital Loneliness

299 points by lermontov 5y ago

neonate 5y ago
http://web.archive.org/web/20210926020656/https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-problem-of-marital-loneliness http://web.archive.org/web/20210926020656/https://www.newyor... https://archive.is/AfaBY https://archive.is/AfaBY
xrd 5y ago
Ingmar Bergman was quite an interesting character. From his wikipedia page: "His father was a conservative parish minister with strict ideas of parenting. Ingmar was locked up in dark closets for infractions such as wetting himself." I came to find out how his own marriage went. At first, I thought the only reference to his wife was that his name were inscribed under his wife's tomb several years before his death. But, that was because I assumed his film listing would come after his personal life. Scrolling down shows that he was married five times.
- rsync 5y ago
  Was this generated with GPT-3 ?
  - wyldfire 5y ago
    It seems topical and coherent, why do you think it is artificial?
    - mlyle 5y ago
      I'm not the parent poster, but-- It's all topical and coherent, but the text flits between loosely connected points rather abruptly. I had to read it twice before it made any sense. I could see why it would trigger one to think it might be artificial.
      - bdcravens 5y ago
        It made sense to me the first time I read it. Perhaps I'm an AI lol
    - d3nj4l 5y ago
      Something about the structure of the paragraph after the quote makes it hard to follow. I think it's this bit: I thought the only reference to his wife was (x). But, that was because (y). The paragraph is structured as if y explains x, but in fact y explains the entirety of the first sentence instead. It's easy to get tripped up, wonder what the link is, and then associate it with the characteristic schizophrenia of AI generated text.
      - wyldfire 5y ago
        > the characteristic schizophrenia of AI generated text. Maybe it's a well-modeled AI and they occasionally reflect the style of human-generated comments like these.
  - dwohnitmok 5y ago
    I think xrd is alluding to Bergman's TV series being a reflection of Bergman's own marital woes (or vice versa), so no I don't think that reply was generated by GPT-3. Nonetheless I find it amusing that failing the reverse Turing test is becoming commonplace.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    I'm not the most academic in the world, but in his own terms, his biography is a bit of an oddball. The subject matter, the plot, the writing are rather convoluted, and the plot never has any basis in actuality or character, but with this he seemed to be an unlikely candidate for the role "Aged 12-18". [generated by GPT-2]
  - yodon 5y ago
    As with the HN rule to not accuse the writer of not having read the article, I fear we're moving towards a point where we will need a similar rule that discourages people from accusing others of being GPT3 (seriously, going beyond the obviously insulting aspect of the accusation, why would anyone bother to do that - the economic value of a fictitiously constructed HN account is negligible at best)
    - jcelerier 5y ago
      > why would anyone bother to do that - the economic value of a fictitiously constructed HN account is negligible at best Here's the real GPT-3 bot, trained squarely on The Economist articles from 1995 on, with a universe model entirely based on economic values and transactions. A month or so ago, a french presidential candidate said something like "we have too many male engineers building nuclear reactors and not enough female witches casting spells" and I thought that was bullshit, but people like you honestly make me reconsider it.
  - mkl 5y ago
    That's a real Wikipedia quote, so that doesn't seem possible.
  - xrd 5y ago
    To be honest, I cannot be sure I'm not AI inside a virtual world. It all feels really "real" to me, but that could be because the model was trained really, really well. Having gotten that out of the way, I originally made a grandiloquent statement about his wikipedia page not having any information about his marital life, because I thought when I saw the film listings that that was the end of the entry. I feel like it is typical that wikipedia pages give the full course of the person's life before summarizing their creative output, but I don't really know if that assumption is true. When I re-read the page and scrolled down, I realized there was a whole section of information about his married life, so I edited the comment. I should have indicated I edited it. This is one of my favorite personal threads on HN, I have to say. The digital world we live is such that we cannot tell if a few sentences belong to a GPT-3, a schizophrenic, or just a bad writer with run-on sentences. My mantra lately is what would a crazy person do in this world, because I'm definitely feeling like that's the only sure fire safe route to take.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Barrin92 5y ago
"If Jonathan and Mira’s relationship seems better than Johan and Marianne’s, it must also be acknowledged that Levi sets his couple an easier problem. Bergman suggested that marriage was meant to address a metaphysical need: our connection to reality. Levi, by contrast, sees marriage as a way of navigating one’s place in the economic and social order.[..]. The shift is telling. If marriage is composed of a set of tasks or projects—a career, parenting, keeping a home—its failures can be displayed as extrinsic to the question of how spouses connect. Levi’s diagnosis is something like: these people have different priorities. This means that their lives can succeed to a greater extent than their marriage does. What was, in Bergman’s hands, a horrifying picture of the limits of human contact becomes, in Levi’s, a set of increasingly independent journeys of personal growth." This is I think a fantastic observation about a lot of fiction that deals with personal relationships today. What bugs me about so many of them is how narcissistic they are in the sense that the question all of them seem to pose is how relationships can be managed like a project, almost like a self-help career guide. As the article points out Bergman's original piece asked fundamental questions about the nature (and limits) of human connections. From the first two episodes of the new version I've seen it has exactly the kind of atmosphere the article describes, how marriage is 'managed' and organized in relationship to work, careers and so forth.
- defterGoose 5y ago
  I haven't watched either (though was intrigued by the new release), and I have the same sort of feeling about modern romance-focused media. It all seems to revolve around management and coordination rather than the deep existential well that I feel is the basis for all such relationships. Though I do think that the individuals' capacity for introspection leads to two fundamentally different kinds of relationship ills: ones that stem from an externalization of the "problems" to the other person or the relationship itself, and ones that come out of the internal, existential "lightness of being".
ARandomerDude 5y ago
> Of course, we compromise: by taking turns, and by putting up with the fact that one of us is, to some degree, dragging the other along for the ride. But we can also tell that we are compromising, and that makes each of us feel sad, and somewhat alone. This is actually the problem. Compromise is when two people in an adversarial relationship both try to look out for themselves and inevitably walk away disappointed. When two people view marriage as a self-giving endeavor, rather than a self-serving one, happiness follows. You're happy to give and happy to be loved in return. The trouble is for so many people, a mutually self-giving relationship is unthinkable. I've been married for 15 years and my wife and I couldn't be more different. I'm an engineer working on my second Masters degree and she has a high school diploma. Our interests differ wildly but we're very happy because we both share a desire to serve and make the other one happy. Me first is the problem.
- Qi_ 5y ago
  I've heard good marriages described as a 100 / 100 partnership, not just a 50 / 50 one. You described that idea excellently, thank you.
- dforrestwilson 5y ago
  15 years is a long time. Congrats and may you have many more together!
- Halnk 5y ago
  Depends really on the Personality traits and Needs of the 2 people involved. Some differences complement each other. Some dont. And that too depends on the type of problem the couple faces which is not static and changes from year to year. The same couple that complement each other in one situation can be completely hopeless together in another. So its all about Awareness and Communication of what your traits, needs, strenths and weaknesses are. Obviously thats non trivial cause the chimp brain is not really designed for such things. The brain looks outward not inward. It takes much more work to look inward. So all chimps fail a test to produce a list of their personality traits and needs, strengths and weakness wrt to different situations that matches what their partner will produce of them and vice versa. Couples that minimize that gap, and its lifelong hard work, are usually the most long lasting.
quanto 5y ago
I don't presume to analyze someone's marriage, let alone whole life, based on a few paragraphs. Nevertheless, I can't help but notice that the writer of the article describes herself as lonely, having had "trouble forming friendships", "inconsiderate", and having "love for confusion". The fact that she feels lonely in her marriage speaks to me more of her innate nature than her marriage. I wonder whether most non-optimal marriages are like this -- people bring their own problems to the marital table, in hopes that the problems will be solved, and become invariably disappointed that it doesn't solve them. Regardless of what the underlying cause is, my sympathies to the author. Loneliness is a terrible thing to experience.
- mlyle 5y ago
  Yes. Many people have an overwhelming expectation that a partner will fix everything. I mean, often my wife is the only person I see for a several hour stretch. And it's somewhat sad and lonely when I experience something and it's not really something I can share fully with her -- because it's deep and specialized and nuanced in somewhere that I've obsessed. But-- how can anyone expect that of anyone? How boring would life be if I'd found such a close twin of myself that all the weird, esoteric stuff that amuses me made sense to her? She brings her own perspective and abilities, and the cost of this is that I don't get to see myself and my little obsessions mirrored every second in her. A partner can bring an awful lot, but they can't bring everything all of the time.
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    And it's somewhat sad and lonely when I experience something and it's not really something I can share fully with her In a good relationship, people get excited for each other! When Person B is happy and/or geeking out over something... Person A doesn't have to love or even care about every detail of the thing itself. But Person A should be genuinely excited that Person B is happy about something and should take some interest in the thing, if only to understand why it makes Person B happy. I have had a lot of bad relationships.
    - 5y ago
graycat 5y ago
There is an explanation using some old stereotypes, to connect with others: Men share their knowledge and ideas. Women share their emotions and feelings.
- watwut 5y ago
  If you follow this, you won't be able to relate to neither men nor woman. Womens knowledge and ideas will be ignored and so will be males feelings.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  Men tend to get dumped, mocked, or injured if they share their feelings, while women tend to get dumped or mocked if they share their knowledge and ideas. Isn't it handy that stereotypes align with the mechanisms that enforce them? It's nothing innate. None of these stereotypes have any guidance for nonbinary people, so we tend to just get shoved into whatever box is most convenient for the person on the other side.
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>None of these stereotypes have any guidance for nonbinary people Isn't that tautological though? Why would a simplified characterization applicable to the mass of normies contain guidance equally suitable for the small percentage of divergent edge cases?
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      You responded to a sentence. There's a whole post there where I state how the advice is bad for people inside and outside the binary. /u/graycat's advice is bad for everyone.
  - trentnix 5y ago
    None of these stereotypes have any guidance for nonbinary people Looks like quite the stereotype you've identified "nonbinary people". You'd do well to start comparing yourself to actual people instead of the stereotypes you have of them.
p0d 5y ago
"he’s considerate and unromantic, whereas I’m romantic and inconsiderate." I appreciated this observation. I have been married for 26 years. I am more expressive to my wife with my words, "I love you" etc. However, her actions speak louder than my words. I seem to be wired for me first where she is wired for me next. I'm trying to get better at being more helpful rather than grand gestures.
- trentnix 5y ago
  There's a book that is often "assigned" to newlyweds or engaged couples called "The Five Love Languages" that provides some insight into this. I was asked to read it via a church-related program for engaged couples. It's no great scientific and psychological insight into relationships, but I know of a few marriages that it has saved. The general idea is that there are many (the book outlines 5) ways to express love. If you express love one way and your spouse in another way, you may simply miscommunicate. Your anecdote seems to map perfectly to the "love languages" that the author outlines: you'd be a "words of affirmation" type and she's an "acts of service" type. You need to focus on being helpful because "acts of service" moves the needle for her. She needs to be more verbal because "words of affirmation" move the needle for you. And neither you of you should mistake the behavior of the other as being loveless - it's just not expressed in an effective manner. Marrying my wife is the smartest thing I've ever done. We have three very young children (all three 5 and under), never get to go out, never get a break, and are taking an absolute ass-kicking between kids getting sick, potty-training, and all the other normal stuff you deal with. And I've never been more content and happier in my life.
  - p0d 5y ago
    Thanks, it's interesting to have some shape put to my observations. Enjoy the busy stage you are at. My kids are now adults. I enjoyed, am enjoying, the different stages of life. One day your kids will be taking you out to dinner.
didibus 5y ago
My take is that you've got to have some things you enjoy doing together or talking about, but it doesn't have to be everything, and being in a marriage is no excuse for stopping to have other relationships with other people that can fill those gaps. For example, if you're a nerd for philosophy, find some friends who are too, talk to them about it, join online communities, etc. Same thing if you're a nerd for geometry. More importantly I'd say is your partners ability to support you in having those other outlets and relationships or opportunities for doing those things as well. That's what I'd consider love. Do the things you both enjoy together, encourage each other to also find people and ways to do the things you don't both enjoy seperately, and be okay with that. Now, if there's nothing you both enjoy doing or talking about, well, I'm sorry to say, but why are you together? Such relationships cannot survive beyond the initial lust. If one or both of you have grown to enjoy different things and because of that no longer enjoy much in common, well that's how people grow appart, and it's why some relationship do eventually end naturally, and it could be time to move on, and that's okay too.
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  yes this is a very important point, in a marriage, a partner does not need to fill every need you have to have a good marriage.
  - defterGoose 5y ago
    I think a lot of people do expect this though, and it's why so many people believe that there is "one person" for you. A lot of times, it foments resentment, and this is an indicator that the resentful person probably has some internal growth to do. There are also just plain jealous people.
greeklish 5y ago
Some people can only learn from first hand experience and this is why incompatible people marry and and raise children. I dodged the bullet 2 times from partners, that I had feelings at the time (I was lonely and out of a relationship for very long periods before), who didn't want children with me (they would consider abortion in case I left them pregnant, instead of having a family with me, when I discussed the possibility). Love is real and instinctual. No matter how many possible couples you have observed (I appreciate gossip sometimes) to know the possibilities of what to expect, you still have to fight your own urges and dreams.
golemotron 5y ago
It's a nice article, but the realistic view is that pair-bonding in animals (and, yes, humans are animals) evolved to provide resources and stability to children. Couples are prone to a "seven year itch" which corresponds to the time at which children are able to move away from their mothers and the family unit psychologically. Pair-bonding is reinforced by a common purpose: the child or (as a proxy) some other shared goal. When these disappear, the bond weakens. It's a very natural occurrence. Romantically, we want these things to last for life, but the evolved machinery that we are born with does not provide as much reinforcement as we need to make that happen consistently without some of the problems listed by the article.
amriksohata 5y ago
I wonder if this is a modern marriage thing with the ride of individualism. Not saying this is right but back in the day the roles were very defined.
accountofme 5y ago
I am saddened by this article turning into an advertisement for a HBO show.
- NewEntryHN 5y ago
  It literally explains why this show is not as good as the original.
  - accountofme 5y ago
    It has no place being there.
  - defterGoose 5y ago
    Granted, if an Aquafresh commercial was like, "Yeah, we're not such hot shit, Colgate is pretty great too", I'd probably be much more inclined to try Aquafresh.
jbjbjbjb 5y ago
Kids, families, shelter, food(!), retirement, health, social issues/relationships all feel like the things people can connect on. They’re more real, they’re innate. And you need the right level of challenge in all of them, too easy and it’s unfulfilling and too hard is soul crushing. I don’t expect to “connect” with anyone with my own interests and hobbies - that seems incredibly naive to me. They’re far too abstract to be interesting to others.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
I have a personal theory that we simply live too long for the traditional concept of marriage to make sense. "Until death do us part" means something very different if the average lifespan is 50 years versus 80 years. People change, and grow tired of one another, and that's okay and good and healthy. But a marriage which ends in divorce is considered a "failed marriage", as if all of the prior years count for nothing. I say all of this as a single 27-year-old who has never been in a committed relationship, and has no plans to enter one in the future. Perhaps that means I lack the authority to weigh in on this topic, and perhaps it means I practice what I preach.
- refurb 5y ago
  When the average life span was 50 it was because you averaged in a bunch of kids dying at 0 or 1. If you made it to your 20’s there was a good chance you’d make it to 60 or 70.
  - davedx 5y ago
    Do you have a citation for that?
    - kleinsch 5y ago
      Big difference between life expectancy (which is an average including child mortality) and life span once people reach adulthood. > Those records show that child mortality remained high. But if a man got to the age of 21 and didn’t die by accident, violence or poison, he could be expected to live almost as long as men today: from 1200 to 1745, 21-year-olds would reach an average age of anywhere between 62 and 70 years – except for the 14th Century, when the bubonic plague cut life expectancy to a paltry 45. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-anc...
      - keewee7 5y ago
        >Those records show that child mortality remained high. But if a man got to the age of 21 and didn’t die by accident, violence or poison, he could be expected to live almost as long as men today: from 1200 to 1745, 21-year-olds would reach an average age of anywhere between 62 and 70 years If you dig further you can see that these numbers are about male aristocracy in England between 1200 and 1745: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jIMHCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=guy+sharpe%27s+peerage&source=bl&ots=tZwob0HISg&sig=rQtW27BM_bBF0xgeme2kkBYhMmw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin3JHb9uTbAhXCqFkKHcRlDqUQ6AEIZjAQ#v=onepage&q=guy%20sharpe's%20peerage&f=fals https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jIMHCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=... The vast majority of people didn't witness their 70th birthday before modern times.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
I suspect that marriage as we know it was built for an agricultural society. We are (mostly) not that any more, and the “until death we part” doesn’t make as much sense as it did. Marriage will change into something else, we just don’t know what that will be yet.
tailspin2019 5y ago
The quality and thoughtfulness of some of the comments in this thread is outstanding.
vermooten 5y ago
When I saw that HBO were doing a remake I wondered: who do they think they are that they can do better than Bergman?
Ziggy_Zaggy 5y ago
https://outline.com/DmWXyr https://outline.com/DmWXyr
emmelaich 5y ago
Sorta related, I was reading today a translation of Charles Aznavour's "Je Bois" (I Drink) I drink to forget my unfortunate years And this life together With you, but so lonely. I drink to give me the illusion I do exist, Because I'm too selfish To smash my own face. It continues ...https://lyricstranslate.com/en/je-bois-i-drink.html-3 https://lyricstranslate.com/en/je-bois-i-drink.html-3
- gxt 5y ago
  "Yesterday, when I was young There were so many songs That waited to be sung So many wild pleasures That lay in store for me And so much pain My dazzled eyes refused to see I ran so fast that time And youth at last ran out And I never stopped to think What life was all about And every conversation That I can recall Concerned itself with me And nothing else at all" -- https://youtu.be/7GtzB8cfkh0 https://youtu.be/7GtzB8cfkh0 Sometimes I feel every life has been lived more than once, and maybe if we were different we wouldn't have to, but sometimes I wonder if it's what's tough that makes us who we are. Guess we'll have to wait until we can transplant memories so we can all learn from our mistakes, without suffering them ourselves.
uptownfunk 5y ago
First, what a refreshing discussion for HN. Separately, is it me, or do I just see less and less people choosing to get married these days, and even less of them having kids? Wondering if anyone has seen stats to the same and if this is just an n=1 problem or more of a generational trend.
rsyring 5y ago
I think there is beauty and wisdom in making a commitment (through good and bad, till death do us part) and then actually keeping that commitment regardless of how my personal desires are or are not met over the years. Once the commitment to honor my wife and word is most important, it becomes an anchor in my life to the waves of wants and desires which are ever changing. Feeling lonely in my marriage, well, I'm in this thing for life, how can I productively address this with my wife? Or, maybe my expectations of her are unrealistic, can I find friends or interests elsewhere while still honoring and remaining committed to her? If our romance becomes dry, then I work to address that with her. If I notice she's not happy or unsatisfied, then I need to care for her and help if I can. If I can't, then I'm just going to be there with her, walking through dark times, because that's my commitment, and it's loving and honorable. My desires are often fleeting and dishonorable...selfish and wanton. It's good to deny them and pursue more honorable things with my life. The best things in life, the best stories, are those that come after trial and sacrifice. So much of our modern culture is empty and destructive because we've put self, our wants...our desires, in the place of utmost importance. Not having the wisdom to see that philosophy is like dedicating oneself to getting water from a broken cistern. Furthermore, one of the best things a father can do for his children is to love their mother this way.
- derefr 5y ago
  In the end, what do you get from that commitment? Why did you make it in the first place, if not for a selfish reason? What is the place of “honor”, if it is not a code that it makes you happy to live by? People’s terminal preferences are the root of who they are. There is no goal that exists beyond one’s terminal preferences. You can prefer to obey some moral distinction, but you prefer it because that increases your happiness/life satisfaction (or at least, you have absorbed enough second-hand examples that you believe it will increase your happiness/life satisfaction.) If it didn’t, why would your brain ever bother to spit out a “you should do it” answer? > My desires are often fleeting and dishonorable...selfish and wanton. I think you’re confusing societal mores that you’ve chosen to adhere to (e.g. monogamy) with some sort of objective moral function that all humans will somehow be judged by regardless of whether anyone is doing the judging. If you’re sleeping around (the thing I’m assuming you’re talking about here) but you’re in a polyamorous relationship, with a partner who experiences compersion rather than jealousy when people outside of your relationship do things to make you happy — is that act still “dishonorable” or “wanton” of you? What would those words mean, for that to be true? If everyone important to you wants you to enjoy yourself, and you do enjoy yourself, then who is saying no? And, given that, if your marriage partner does say no to something that would make you happy, how is that anything other than an incompatibility between you; something that could have been avoided by ensuring compatibility before commitment? IMHO, you are rationalizing staying in a relationship with a partner whose preferences do overlap with yours enough for life with them to be generally pleasant; but where in some ways their preferences are extremely incompatible with your own. But, because you are embedded in a society mostly consisting of potential partners who also have those same extremely-incompatible preferences to your own, it doesn’t feel like you’d actually have any luck finding a partner whose preferences cohere more closely to your own. You satisficed, and now are attempting to construct a philosophy that makes satisficing seem optimal, so that you can have one fewer regret. People should really spend more time looking outside their own culture for partners. It can turn out that what is “dishonorable” or “wanton” to you, is just regular respectable behavior in another culture in another part of the world. The objectivity of social mores is an illusion created by cultural isolation. (FYI: this is just the standard University “introduction to meta-ethics” stuff, just applied to romantic social mores in particular.)
maire 5y ago
If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, marry your best friend. Don't read these self-help articles. When I was young the pundits kept saying that love only lasts 2 years. I think this is because they had a shallow definition of love. If you marry your best friend you will always be your true self and they will always be their true self.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  I was also preached the two years thing. I wonder where that stupid meme came from?
jlos 5y ago
Within healthy communities the need for meaningful human interaction is spread out among the community and not placed solely on your spouse. Therefore, I suggest a large driver of marital loneliness arises because marriage is not capable, on its own, of solving loneliness. Loneliness roughly means a lack of meaningful relationships. Communities offer the opportunities for various levels of connection from close friends to casual acquaintances while connecting all the individuals to each other (i.e. you have your close friends but everyone also knows each other). Furthermore, healthy communities create a dynamic environment where new relationships form spontaneously as the individuals grow and change (e.g. the former acquaintance marries your sister and now you become close friends, you have a kid and get to know the other parents in the community better, etc). In this way, communities and marriage form a symbiotic relationship. Stable marriages become the bedrock of a community, as family provide the most stable structure for the community. However, strong communities also provide a dynamism and support that reduce the burden on marriage to provide a fulfilling life to those within it. However, meaningful communities have been almost entirely eroded by the acids of modern life: increased mobility (communities, like all relationships, require time), car reliant infrastructure, declining religious participation, and economies built on individual consumption all make it harder to build, find, and belong to communities. And with the decline of communities, the sense of belonging and meaning that once was spread out over a largely stable group now falls to a single individual - your spouse. In fact, one could argue that the increase in marital breakdown observed during the 20th century is itself a second-order effect of the breakdown of communities in that same time frame. Even the liberalization of the divorce laws could, arguably, be framed as a response to a trend already in motion rather than kickstarting it from out of nowhere.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
"Marriage" is a pretty stupid concept to be honest. It's not a good signal of a committed healthy relationship at any point really. Some people get married so they can fuck without shame and guilt. Some people get married because they need tax benefits. My partner and I don't care at all about marriage despite a decade of being together and mutually understood plans of being together for the rest of our lives. We probably will get married. But is that an inflection point on things? Definitely not.
- krrrh 5y ago
  It’s easy to dismiss centuries of cultural evolution across thousands of extant and extinct societies. Taking a look at the absurdities of spending a small fortune on a wedding ceremony, the magical incantation of the vows out loud in front of people who love you and want the best for you can seem pretty unnecessary, this can all look ridiculous from the limited vantage point of a single life’s partial experience. But sometimes once you put down the metaphorical tweezers and take off the lab coat, you find out that there are reasons that this stuff exists. You might be surprised.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Sure. There was religion, small community pressure, political family joinings, gross dowry incentives, a large manipulative industry, a desire to show off wealth. Lots of dumb reasons from outdated cultural norms. Everything you wrote seems to be about weddings though. And while I think weddings are much stupider than marriage, they're not the same.
01100011 5y ago
Marriage is many things to many people. The concept of marriage is both cultural and legal. Whatever you feel about marriage, don't forget that it is also a legal concept with its own definition which may or may not coincide with your specific cultural expectations.
hintymad 5y ago
In my limited experience, couples create marital loneliness over years via bitter complaints when they should've worked on addressing the issue. Instead of saying "honey I'd really like you to enjoy 24, and could you please let me show you how wonderful that show is", a wife would instead say "You never like any show that I enjoy". And immediately the tension mounts. Instead of saying "honey I know you don't enjoy playing tennis, but how about we find something we both like and we can even get a coach", a husband would simply say nothing and find a bunch of strangers to watch tennis in a bar. I don't quite understand such behavior, to be honest. We know that we shouldn't bitterly criticize friends, nor should we use absolute words like "never" or "always" on them. We also know that we should find common interests among friends, and it's okay if we occasionally get it wrong, like this one time you took your pacifist friends to a paintball tournament. Then, why can't we treat our spouse, someone we took an oath to spend the rest of our life with, like our friends? We learn how to conduct crucial conversation and nonviolent communication in our job, then why can't we do the same in our home? I puzzles me to no end.
erikerikson 5y ago
In the problems of this article's perspective is a fixed mindset. That we have our defaults and starting places but cannot expand beyond them. Even (as one has in an [IMO] ideal life partner) given a customized guide into foreign passions and interests. Yet this is step one because the next and following stages are exploring and creating inside that connection and sharing, supporting both the contributed growth of the individuals but also of the shared endeavor and continuous creating. I've been in a relationship not far from the early stages of what is described. Shifting towards what I describe above was contained by physical and emotional violence. So far as I can tell those were echoes of her past traumas, not to excuse. I can empathize though... The task of next levels growth is a challenge that rocks us at levels we are not normally thinking of and in facing we find nearly no guidance to assist us in our journeys. What a pregnant and rich context into which a shift could unlock untold riches of two deeply sophisticated minds with much to offer and deeper challenging commitments to forge. There are other options, clearly, but are there, really? [To be slightly less obtuse: the final sentence shifts from possiblity to desirability which is semantic slipperiness for which I apologize... but not enough to rephrase, apparently]

299 points by lermontov 5y ago

http://web.archive.org/web/20210926020656/https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-problem-of-marital-loneliness http://web.archive.org/web/20210926020656/https://www.newyor... https://archive.is/AfaBY https://archive.is/AfaBY

xrd 5y ago

Ingmar Bergman was quite an interesting character. From his wikipedia page: "His father was a conservative parish minister with strict ideas of parenting. Ingmar was locked up in dark closets for infractions such as wetting himself." I came to find out how his own marriage went. At first, I thought the only reference to his wife was that his name were inscribed under his wife's tomb several years before his death. But, that was because I assumed his film listing would come after his personal life. Scrolling down shows that he was married five times.

rsync 5y ago
Was this generated with GPT-3 ?
- wyldfire 5y ago
  It seems topical and coherent, why do you think it is artificial?
  - mlyle 5y ago
    I'm not the parent poster, but-- It's all topical and coherent, but the text flits between loosely connected points rather abruptly. I had to read it twice before it made any sense. I could see why it would trigger one to think it might be artificial.
    - bdcravens 5y ago
      It made sense to me the first time I read it. Perhaps I'm an AI lol
  - d3nj4l 5y ago
    Something about the structure of the paragraph after the quote makes it hard to follow. I think it's this bit: I thought the only reference to his wife was (x). But, that was because (y). The paragraph is structured as if y explains x, but in fact y explains the entirety of the first sentence instead. It's easy to get tripped up, wonder what the link is, and then associate it with the characteristic schizophrenia of AI generated text.
    - wyldfire 5y ago
      > the characteristic schizophrenia of AI generated text. Maybe it's a well-modeled AI and they occasionally reflect the style of human-generated comments like these.
- dwohnitmok 5y ago
  I think xrd is alluding to Bergman's TV series being a reflection of Bergman's own marital woes (or vice versa), so no I don't think that reply was generated by GPT-3. Nonetheless I find it amusing that failing the reverse Turing test is becoming commonplace.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  I'm not the most academic in the world, but in his own terms, his biography is a bit of an oddball. The subject matter, the plot, the writing are rather convoluted, and the plot never has any basis in actuality or character, but with this he seemed to be an unlikely candidate for the role "Aged 12-18". [generated by GPT-2]
- yodon 5y ago
  As with the HN rule to not accuse the writer of not having read the article, I fear we're moving towards a point where we will need a similar rule that discourages people from accusing others of being GPT3 (seriously, going beyond the obviously insulting aspect of the accusation, why would anyone bother to do that - the economic value of a fictitiously constructed HN account is negligible at best)
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    > why would anyone bother to do that - the economic value of a fictitiously constructed HN account is negligible at best Here's the real GPT-3 bot, trained squarely on The Economist articles from 1995 on, with a universe model entirely based on economic values and transactions. A month or so ago, a french presidential candidate said something like "we have too many male engineers building nuclear reactors and not enough female witches casting spells" and I thought that was bullshit, but people like you honestly make me reconsider it.
- mkl 5y ago
  That's a real Wikipedia quote, so that doesn't seem possible.
- xrd 5y ago
  To be honest, I cannot be sure I'm not AI inside a virtual world. It all feels really "real" to me, but that could be because the model was trained really, really well. Having gotten that out of the way, I originally made a grandiloquent statement about his wikipedia page not having any information about his marital life, because I thought when I saw the film listings that that was the end of the entry. I feel like it is typical that wikipedia pages give the full course of the person's life before summarizing their creative output, but I don't really know if that assumption is true. When I re-read the page and scrolled down, I realized there was a whole section of information about his married life, so I edited the comment. I should have indicated I edited it. This is one of my favorite personal threads on HN, I have to say. The digital world we live is such that we cannot tell if a few sentences belong to a GPT-3, a schizophrenic, or just a bad writer with run-on sentences. My mantra lately is what would a crazy person do in this world, because I'm definitely feeling like that's the only sure fire safe route to take.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Barrin92 5y ago

"If Jonathan and Mira’s relationship seems better than Johan and Marianne’s, it must also be acknowledged that Levi sets his couple an easier problem. Bergman suggested that marriage was meant to address a metaphysical need: our connection to reality. Levi, by contrast, sees marriage as a way of navigating one’s place in the economic and social order.[..]. The shift is telling. If marriage is composed of a set of tasks or projects—a career, parenting, keeping a home—its failures can be displayed as extrinsic to the question of how spouses connect. Levi’s diagnosis is something like: these people have different priorities. This means that their lives can succeed to a greater extent than their marriage does. What was, in Bergman’s hands, a horrifying picture of the limits of human contact becomes, in Levi’s, a set of increasingly independent journeys of personal growth." This is I think a fantastic observation about a lot of fiction that deals with personal relationships today. What bugs me about so many of them is how narcissistic they are in the sense that the question all of them seem to pose is how relationships can be managed like a project, almost like a self-help career guide. As the article points out Bergman's original piece asked fundamental questions about the nature (and limits) of human connections. From the first two episodes of the new version I've seen it has exactly the kind of atmosphere the article describes, how marriage is 'managed' and organized in relationship to work, careers and so forth.

defterGoose 5y ago
I haven't watched either (though was intrigued by the new release), and I have the same sort of feeling about modern romance-focused media. It all seems to revolve around management and coordination rather than the deep existential well that I feel is the basis for all such relationships. Though I do think that the individuals' capacity for introspection leads to two fundamentally different kinds of relationship ills: ones that stem from an externalization of the "problems" to the other person or the relationship itself, and ones that come out of the internal, existential "lightness of being".

ARandomerDude 5y ago

> Of course, we compromise: by taking turns, and by putting up with the fact that one of us is, to some degree, dragging the other along for the ride. But we can also tell that we are compromising, and that makes each of us feel sad, and somewhat alone. This is actually the problem. Compromise is when two people in an adversarial relationship both try to look out for themselves and inevitably walk away disappointed. When two people view marriage as a self-giving endeavor, rather than a self-serving one, happiness follows. You're happy to give and happy to be loved in return. The trouble is for so many people, a mutually self-giving relationship is unthinkable. I've been married for 15 years and my wife and I couldn't be more different. I'm an engineer working on my second Masters degree and she has a high school diploma. Our interests differ wildly but we're very happy because we both share a desire to serve and make the other one happy. Me first is the problem.

Qi_ 5y ago
I've heard good marriages described as a 100 / 100 partnership, not just a 50 / 50 one. You described that idea excellently, thank you.
dforrestwilson 5y ago
15 years is a long time. Congrats and may you have many more together!
Halnk 5y ago
Depends really on the Personality traits and Needs of the 2 people involved. Some differences complement each other. Some dont. And that too depends on the type of problem the couple faces which is not static and changes from year to year. The same couple that complement each other in one situation can be completely hopeless together in another. So its all about Awareness and Communication of what your traits, needs, strenths and weaknesses are. Obviously thats non trivial cause the chimp brain is not really designed for such things. The brain looks outward not inward. It takes much more work to look inward. So all chimps fail a test to produce a list of their personality traits and needs, strengths and weakness wrt to different situations that matches what their partner will produce of them and vice versa. Couples that minimize that gap, and its lifelong hard work, are usually the most long lasting.

quanto 5y ago

I don't presume to analyze someone's marriage, let alone whole life, based on a few paragraphs. Nevertheless, I can't help but notice that the writer of the article describes herself as lonely, having had "trouble forming friendships", "inconsiderate", and having "love for confusion". The fact that she feels lonely in her marriage speaks to me more of her innate nature than her marriage. I wonder whether most non-optimal marriages are like this -- people bring their own problems to the marital table, in hopes that the problems will be solved, and become invariably disappointed that it doesn't solve them. Regardless of what the underlying cause is, my sympathies to the author. Loneliness is a terrible thing to experience.

mlyle 5y ago
Yes. Many people have an overwhelming expectation that a partner will fix everything. I mean, often my wife is the only person I see for a several hour stretch. And it's somewhat sad and lonely when I experience something and it's not really something I can share fully with her -- because it's deep and specialized and nuanced in somewhere that I've obsessed. But-- how can anyone expect that of anyone? How boring would life be if I'd found such a close twin of myself that all the weird, esoteric stuff that amuses me made sense to her? She brings her own perspective and abilities, and the cost of this is that I don't get to see myself and my little obsessions mirrored every second in her. A partner can bring an awful lot, but they can't bring everything all of the time.
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  And it's somewhat sad and lonely when I experience something and it's not really something I can share fully with her In a good relationship, people get excited for each other! When Person B is happy and/or geeking out over something... Person A doesn't have to love or even care about every detail of the thing itself. But Person A should be genuinely excited that Person B is happy about something and should take some interest in the thing, if only to understand why it makes Person B happy. I have had a lot of bad relationships.
  - 5y ago

graycat 5y ago

There is an explanation using some old stereotypes, to connect with others: Men share their knowledge and ideas. Women share their emotions and feelings.

watwut 5y ago
If you follow this, you won't be able to relate to neither men nor woman. Womens knowledge and ideas will be ignored and so will be males feelings.
mkr-hn 5y ago
Men tend to get dumped, mocked, or injured if they share their feelings, while women tend to get dumped or mocked if they share their knowledge and ideas. Isn't it handy that stereotypes align with the mechanisms that enforce them? It's nothing innate. None of these stereotypes have any guidance for nonbinary people, so we tend to just get shoved into whatever box is most convenient for the person on the other side.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>None of these stereotypes have any guidance for nonbinary people Isn't that tautological though? Why would a simplified characterization applicable to the mass of normies contain guidance equally suitable for the small percentage of divergent edge cases?
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    You responded to a sentence. There's a whole post there where I state how the advice is bad for people inside and outside the binary. /u/graycat's advice is bad for everyone.
- trentnix 5y ago
  None of these stereotypes have any guidance for nonbinary people Looks like quite the stereotype you've identified "nonbinary people". You'd do well to start comparing yourself to actual people instead of the stereotypes you have of them.

p0d 5y ago

"he’s considerate and unromantic, whereas I’m romantic and inconsiderate." I appreciated this observation. I have been married for 26 years. I am more expressive to my wife with my words, "I love you" etc. However, her actions speak louder than my words. I seem to be wired for me first where she is wired for me next. I'm trying to get better at being more helpful rather than grand gestures.

trentnix 5y ago
There's a book that is often "assigned" to newlyweds or engaged couples called "The Five Love Languages" that provides some insight into this. I was asked to read it via a church-related program for engaged couples. It's no great scientific and psychological insight into relationships, but I know of a few marriages that it has saved. The general idea is that there are many (the book outlines 5) ways to express love. If you express love one way and your spouse in another way, you may simply miscommunicate. Your anecdote seems to map perfectly to the "love languages" that the author outlines: you'd be a "words of affirmation" type and she's an "acts of service" type. You need to focus on being helpful because "acts of service" moves the needle for her. She needs to be more verbal because "words of affirmation" move the needle for you. And neither you of you should mistake the behavior of the other as being loveless - it's just not expressed in an effective manner. Marrying my wife is the smartest thing I've ever done. We have three very young children (all three 5 and under), never get to go out, never get a break, and are taking an absolute ass-kicking between kids getting sick, potty-training, and all the other normal stuff you deal with. And I've never been more content and happier in my life.
- p0d 5y ago
  Thanks, it's interesting to have some shape put to my observations. Enjoy the busy stage you are at. My kids are now adults. I enjoyed, am enjoying, the different stages of life. One day your kids will be taking you out to dinner.

didibus 5y ago

My take is that you've got to have some things you enjoy doing together or talking about, but it doesn't have to be everything, and being in a marriage is no excuse for stopping to have other relationships with other people that can fill those gaps. For example, if you're a nerd for philosophy, find some friends who are too, talk to them about it, join online communities, etc. Same thing if you're a nerd for geometry. More importantly I'd say is your partners ability to support you in having those other outlets and relationships or opportunities for doing those things as well. That's what I'd consider love. Do the things you both enjoy together, encourage each other to also find people and ways to do the things you don't both enjoy seperately, and be okay with that. Now, if there's nothing you both enjoy doing or talking about, well, I'm sorry to say, but why are you together? Such relationships cannot survive beyond the initial lust. If one or both of you have grown to enjoy different things and because of that no longer enjoy much in common, well that's how people grow appart, and it's why some relationship do eventually end naturally, and it could be time to move on, and that's okay too.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago
yes this is a very important point, in a marriage, a partner does not need to fill every need you have to have a good marriage.
- defterGoose 5y ago
  I think a lot of people do expect this though, and it's why so many people believe that there is "one person" for you. A lot of times, it foments resentment, and this is an indicator that the resentful person probably has some internal growth to do. There are also just plain jealous people.

greeklish 5y ago

Some people can only learn from first hand experience and this is why incompatible people marry and and raise children. I dodged the bullet 2 times from partners, that I had feelings at the time (I was lonely and out of a relationship for very long periods before), who didn't want children with me (they would consider abortion in case I left them pregnant, instead of having a family with me, when I discussed the possibility). Love is real and instinctual. No matter how many possible couples you have observed (I appreciate gossip sometimes) to know the possibilities of what to expect, you still have to fight your own urges and dreams.

golemotron 5y ago

It's a nice article, but the realistic view is that pair-bonding in animals (and, yes, humans are animals) evolved to provide resources and stability to children. Couples are prone to a "seven year itch" which corresponds to the time at which children are able to move away from their mothers and the family unit psychologically. Pair-bonding is reinforced by a common purpose: the child or (as a proxy) some other shared goal. When these disappear, the bond weakens. It's a very natural occurrence. Romantically, we want these things to last for life, but the evolved machinery that we are born with does not provide as much reinforcement as we need to make that happen consistently without some of the problems listed by the article.

amriksohata 5y ago

I wonder if this is a modern marriage thing with the ride of individualism. Not saying this is right but back in the day the roles were very defined.

accountofme 5y ago

I am saddened by this article turning into an advertisement for a HBO show.

NewEntryHN 5y ago
It literally explains why this show is not as good as the original.
- accountofme 5y ago
  It has no place being there.
- defterGoose 5y ago
  Granted, if an Aquafresh commercial was like, "Yeah, we're not such hot shit, Colgate is pretty great too", I'd probably be much more inclined to try Aquafresh.

jbjbjbjb 5y ago

Kids, families, shelter, food(!), retirement, health, social issues/relationships all feel like the things people can connect on. They’re more real, they’re innate. And you need the right level of challenge in all of them, too easy and it’s unfulfilling and too hard is soul crushing. I don’t expect to “connect” with anyone with my own interests and hobbies - that seems incredibly naive to me. They’re far too abstract to be interesting to others.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

I have a personal theory that we simply live too long for the traditional concept of marriage to make sense. "Until death do us part" means something very different if the average lifespan is 50 years versus 80 years. People change, and grow tired of one another, and that's okay and good and healthy. But a marriage which ends in divorce is considered a "failed marriage", as if all of the prior years count for nothing. I say all of this as a single 27-year-old who has never been in a committed relationship, and has no plans to enter one in the future. Perhaps that means I lack the authority to weigh in on this topic, and perhaps it means I practice what I preach.

refurb 5y ago
When the average life span was 50 it was because you averaged in a bunch of kids dying at 0 or 1. If you made it to your 20’s there was a good chance you’d make it to 60 or 70.
- davedx 5y ago
  Do you have a citation for that?
  - kleinsch 5y ago
    Big difference between life expectancy (which is an average including child mortality) and life span once people reach adulthood. > Those records show that child mortality remained high. But if a man got to the age of 21 and didn’t die by accident, violence or poison, he could be expected to live almost as long as men today: from 1200 to 1745, 21-year-olds would reach an average age of anywhere between 62 and 70 years – except for the 14th Century, when the bubonic plague cut life expectancy to a paltry 45. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-anc...
    - keewee7 5y ago
      >Those records show that child mortality remained high. But if a man got to the age of 21 and didn’t die by accident, violence or poison, he could be expected to live almost as long as men today: from 1200 to 1745, 21-year-olds would reach an average age of anywhere between 62 and 70 years If you dig further you can see that these numbers are about male aristocracy in England between 1200 and 1745: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jIMHCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=guy+sharpe%27s+peerage&source=bl&ots=tZwob0HISg&sig=rQtW27BM_bBF0xgeme2kkBYhMmw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin3JHb9uTbAhXCqFkKHcRlDqUQ6AEIZjAQ#v=onepage&q=guy%20sharpe's%20peerage&f=fals https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jIMHCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=... The vast majority of people didn't witness their 70th birthday before modern times.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

I suspect that marriage as we know it was built for an agricultural society. We are (mostly) not that any more, and the “until death we part” doesn’t make as much sense as it did. Marriage will change into something else, we just don’t know what that will be yet.

tailspin2019 5y ago

The quality and thoughtfulness of some of the comments in this thread is outstanding.

vermooten 5y ago

When I saw that HBO were doing a remake I wondered: who do they think they are that they can do better than Bergman?

Ziggy_Zaggy 5y ago

https://outline.com/DmWXyr https://outline.com/DmWXyr

emmelaich 5y ago

Sorta related, I was reading today a translation of Charles Aznavour's "Je Bois" (I Drink) I drink to forget my unfortunate years And this life together With you, but so lonely. I drink to give me the illusion I do exist, Because I'm too selfish To smash my own face. It continues ...https://lyricstranslate.com/en/je-bois-i-drink.html-3 https://lyricstranslate.com/en/je-bois-i-drink.html-3

gxt 5y ago
"Yesterday, when I was young There were so many songs That waited to be sung So many wild pleasures That lay in store for me And so much pain My dazzled eyes refused to see I ran so fast that time And youth at last ran out And I never stopped to think What life was all about And every conversation That I can recall Concerned itself with me And nothing else at all" -- https://youtu.be/7GtzB8cfkh0 https://youtu.be/7GtzB8cfkh0 Sometimes I feel every life has been lived more than once, and maybe if we were different we wouldn't have to, but sometimes I wonder if it's what's tough that makes us who we are. Guess we'll have to wait until we can transplant memories so we can all learn from our mistakes, without suffering them ourselves.

uptownfunk 5y ago

First, what a refreshing discussion for HN. Separately, is it me, or do I just see less and less people choosing to get married these days, and even less of them having kids? Wondering if anyone has seen stats to the same and if this is just an n=1 problem or more of a generational trend.

rsyring 5y ago

I think there is beauty and wisdom in making a commitment (through good and bad, till death do us part) and then actually keeping that commitment regardless of how my personal desires are or are not met over the years. Once the commitment to honor my wife and word is most important, it becomes an anchor in my life to the waves of wants and desires which are ever changing. Feeling lonely in my marriage, well, I'm in this thing for life, how can I productively address this with my wife? Or, maybe my expectations of her are unrealistic, can I find friends or interests elsewhere while still honoring and remaining committed to her? If our romance becomes dry, then I work to address that with her. If I notice she's not happy or unsatisfied, then I need to care for her and help if I can. If I can't, then I'm just going to be there with her, walking through dark times, because that's my commitment, and it's loving and honorable. My desires are often fleeting and dishonorable...selfish and wanton. It's good to deny them and pursue more honorable things with my life. The best things in life, the best stories, are those that come after trial and sacrifice. So much of our modern culture is empty and destructive because we've put self, our wants...our desires, in the place of utmost importance. Not having the wisdom to see that philosophy is like dedicating oneself to getting water from a broken cistern. Furthermore, one of the best things a father can do for his children is to love their mother this way.

derefr 5y ago
In the end, what do you get from that commitment? Why did you make it in the first place, if not for a selfish reason? What is the place of “honor”, if it is not a code that it makes you happy to live by? People’s terminal preferences are the root of who they are. There is no goal that exists beyond one’s terminal preferences. You can prefer to obey some moral distinction, but you prefer it because that increases your happiness/life satisfaction (or at least, you have absorbed enough second-hand examples that you believe it will increase your happiness/life satisfaction.) If it didn’t, why would your brain ever bother to spit out a “you should do it” answer? > My desires are often fleeting and dishonorable...selfish and wanton. I think you’re confusing societal mores that you’ve chosen to adhere to (e.g. monogamy) with some sort of objective moral function that all humans will somehow be judged by regardless of whether anyone is doing the judging. If you’re sleeping around (the thing I’m assuming you’re talking about here) but you’re in a polyamorous relationship, with a partner who experiences compersion rather than jealousy when people outside of your relationship do things to make you happy — is that act still “dishonorable” or “wanton” of you? What would those words mean, for that to be true? If everyone important to you wants you to enjoy yourself, and you do enjoy yourself, then who is saying no? And, given that, if your marriage partner does say no to something that would make you happy, how is that anything other than an incompatibility between you; something that could have been avoided by ensuring compatibility before commitment? IMHO, you are rationalizing staying in a relationship with a partner whose preferences do overlap with yours enough for life with them to be generally pleasant; but where in some ways their preferences are extremely incompatible with your own. But, because you are embedded in a society mostly consisting of potential partners who also have those same extremely-incompatible preferences to your own, it doesn’t feel like you’d actually have any luck finding a partner whose preferences cohere more closely to your own. You satisficed, and now are attempting to construct a philosophy that makes satisficing seem optimal, so that you can have one fewer regret. People should really spend more time looking outside their own culture for partners. It can turn out that what is “dishonorable” or “wanton” to you, is just regular respectable behavior in another culture in another part of the world. The objectivity of social mores is an illusion created by cultural isolation. (FYI: this is just the standard University “introduction to meta-ethics” stuff, just applied to romantic social mores in particular.)

maire 5y ago

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, marry your best friend. Don't read these self-help articles. When I was young the pundits kept saying that love only lasts 2 years. I think this is because they had a shallow definition of love. If you marry your best friend you will always be your true self and they will always be their true self.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
I was also preached the two years thing. I wonder where that stupid meme came from?

jlos 5y ago

Within healthy communities the need for meaningful human interaction is spread out among the community and not placed solely on your spouse. Therefore, I suggest a large driver of marital loneliness arises because marriage is not capable, on its own, of solving loneliness. Loneliness roughly means a lack of meaningful relationships. Communities offer the opportunities for various levels of connection from close friends to casual acquaintances while connecting all the individuals to each other (i.e. you have your close friends but everyone also knows each other). Furthermore, healthy communities create a dynamic environment where new relationships form spontaneously as the individuals grow and change (e.g. the former acquaintance marries your sister and now you become close friends, you have a kid and get to know the other parents in the community better, etc). In this way, communities and marriage form a symbiotic relationship. Stable marriages become the bedrock of a community, as family provide the most stable structure for the community. However, strong communities also provide a dynamism and support that reduce the burden on marriage to provide a fulfilling life to those within it. However, meaningful communities have been almost entirely eroded by the acids of modern life: increased mobility (communities, like all relationships, require time), car reliant infrastructure, declining religious participation, and economies built on individual consumption all make it harder to build, find, and belong to communities. And with the decline of communities, the sense of belonging and meaning that once was spread out over a largely stable group now falls to a single individual - your spouse. In fact, one could argue that the increase in marital breakdown observed during the 20th century is itself a second-order effect of the breakdown of communities in that same time frame. Even the liberalization of the divorce laws could, arguably, be framed as a response to a trend already in motion rather than kickstarting it from out of nowhere.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

"Marriage" is a pretty stupid concept to be honest. It's not a good signal of a committed healthy relationship at any point really. Some people get married so they can fuck without shame and guilt. Some people get married because they need tax benefits. My partner and I don't care at all about marriage despite a decade of being together and mutually understood plans of being together for the rest of our lives. We probably will get married. But is that an inflection point on things? Definitely not.

krrrh 5y ago
It’s easy to dismiss centuries of cultural evolution across thousands of extant and extinct societies. Taking a look at the absurdities of spending a small fortune on a wedding ceremony, the magical incantation of the vows out loud in front of people who love you and want the best for you can seem pretty unnecessary, this can all look ridiculous from the limited vantage point of a single life’s partial experience. But sometimes once you put down the metaphorical tweezers and take off the lab coat, you find out that there are reasons that this stuff exists. You might be surprised.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Sure. There was religion, small community pressure, political family joinings, gross dowry incentives, a large manipulative industry, a desire to show off wealth. Lots of dumb reasons from outdated cultural norms. Everything you wrote seems to be about weddings though. And while I think weddings are much stupider than marriage, they're not the same.

01100011 5y ago

Marriage is many things to many people. The concept of marriage is both cultural and legal. Whatever you feel about marriage, don't forget that it is also a legal concept with its own definition which may or may not coincide with your specific cultural expectations.

hintymad 5y ago

In my limited experience, couples create marital loneliness over years via bitter complaints when they should've worked on addressing the issue. Instead of saying "honey I'd really like you to enjoy 24, and could you please let me show you how wonderful that show is", a wife would instead say "You never like any show that I enjoy". And immediately the tension mounts. Instead of saying "honey I know you don't enjoy playing tennis, but how about we find something we both like and we can even get a coach", a husband would simply say nothing and find a bunch of strangers to watch tennis in a bar. I don't quite understand such behavior, to be honest. We know that we shouldn't bitterly criticize friends, nor should we use absolute words like "never" or "always" on them. We also know that we should find common interests among friends, and it's okay if we occasionally get it wrong, like this one time you took your pacifist friends to a paintball tournament. Then, why can't we treat our spouse, someone we took an oath to spend the rest of our life with, like our friends? We learn how to conduct crucial conversation and nonviolent communication in our job, then why can't we do the same in our home? I puzzles me to no end.

erikerikson 5y ago

In the problems of this article's perspective is a fixed mindset. That we have our defaults and starting places but cannot expand beyond them. Even (as one has in an [IMO] ideal life partner) given a customized guide into foreign passions and interests. Yet this is step one because the next and following stages are exploring and creating inside that connection and sharing, supporting both the contributed growth of the individuals but also of the shared endeavor and continuous creating. I've been in a relationship not far from the early stages of what is described. Shifting towards what I describe above was contained by physical and emotional violence. So far as I can tell those were echoes of her past traumas, not to excuse. I can empathize though... The task of next levels growth is a challenge that rocks us at levels we are not normally thinking of and in facing we find nearly no guidance to assist us in our journeys. What a pregnant and rich context into which a shift could unlock untold riches of two deeply sophisticated minds with much to offer and deeper challenging commitments to forge. There are other options, clearly, but are there, really? [To be slightly less obtuse: the final sentence shifts from possiblity to desirability which is semantic slipperiness for which I apologize... but not enough to rephrase, apparently]