4 ms·

Here's my random, unsolicited opinion: I doubt porn is the cause. Porn might be a comorbidity (what I'd put my money on), or maybe a symptom (I doubt that, too

Here's my random, unsolicited opinion: I doubt porn is the cause. Porn might be a comorbidity (what I'd put my money on), or maybe a symptom (I doubt that, too), but the idea that it's the cause is pretty odd to me. I think marriage is fundamentally an economic institution. People got married because it made economic sense. You needed a partner to rear children with, assuming you wanted children at all. There's all the stuff about love and companionship and all that, but there's no reason why we need to fixate on one particular arrangement. It was about partnerships of families. I think marriage made a lot of sense in small towns. It makes sense for large, political dynasties, for the old wealthy, etc. It doesn't make so much sense for the young middle class today. This is my rough, unvarnished opinion. Would love to hear criticisms, refinements, etc.

selmnoo 12y ago
> I think marriage is fundamentally an economic institution. I don't like that reduction of marriage. Having known several couples who've made it for over 50 years and above, it really makes things clear to me -- they let themselves be totally truthful and vulnerable to each other, they rely on each other in the other's time of need, they find joy in doing things as one. Like most things, marriage is what you make of it, if all you want out of it is economic benefits, it can be just that.
- imaginenore 12y ago
  Nothing stops you from being truthful and vulnerable without getting married. There are tons of marriages with lies and mistrust.
  - selmnoo 12y ago
    Of course, you can have that without getting married. But you see, more than anything, marriage is really a cultural institution. It has a strong symbolic power. It's an excuse for a big party, a signaling of commitment, etc. We humans do a lot of things based on tradition and culture. Marriage is one of those things. Because come on, if we don't have culture, what do we have?
    - nishonia 12y ago
      > Because come on, if we don't have culture, what do we have? Well reasoned and logical action?
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        There is no such thing as logical action independent of values, which are cultural. Logic can help with determining how to serve values, but it can't tell you what your base values should be.
        nishonia 12y ago
        > values, which are cultural. It only takes one exception to disprove a rule, and in the interest of not inviting debate - I'll pick an obvious example: biological imperatives have nothing to do with culture. Everytime I hear somebody excuse silly behaviour with "culture" it reminds me of the Louis CK bit: http://youtu.be/CQSRPMFDTSs http://youtu.be/CQSRPMFDTSs
    - imaginenore 12y ago
      Marriage is a tradition, but I don't see what's so cultural about it.
- baddox 12y ago
  You might not like a further reduction which I suspect is true, which is that monogamy (punctuated or otherwise) itself is an economic (or if you prefer, game theoretical) institution dating back to when females traded reproduction for food and protection. There was no easy way for a male to determine the paternity of the child of a female with which he has mated, other than securing an ostensibly exclusive relationship and monitoring the female's fidelity as best as possible. Of course, I don't think that takes anything away from the couples you know.
  - maratd 12y ago
    > There's no easy way for a male to determine the paternity of the child of a female with which he has mated, other than securing an ostensibly exclusive relationship and monitoring the female's fidelity as best as possible. I disagree. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y34OKA http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y34OKA
    - baddox 12y ago
      I meant a long time ago, when these institutions first developed among humans. The fact that paternity tests exist now probably only corroborates my point. I'll edit the comment for clarity.
      - maratd 12y ago
        It's an important distinction. The desire for fidelity is clearly genetic. I agree with you, it probably entered the gene pool because of those reasons. With those reasons now gone, it can and probably will exit the gene pool. This will drastically change the nature of human relationships.
        baddox 12y ago
        Yes, I think we agree fully. I would add that the persistence of norms does not have to be directly genetic in the way most people would interpret that. It could be indirectly genetic, in the sense that we have a strong genetic propensity to adopt the norms of our social surroundings and attempt to spread those norms to the next generation. That propensity probably applies even for norms that have far outlived their original purpose.
- waps 12y ago
  Also, allowing yourself to depend on the other, being truthful and the other things you say will quickly translate into economic benefits. Stability, emotional/financial/..., a safety net, a second opinion, a distraction when needed, I don't know how I'd do without.
- sgnelson 12y ago
  Do you have to be married to be in a loving relationship with someone for 50 years?
sliverstorm 12y ago
I suspect it also made more sense when men were breadwinners and women were housekeepers. You needed both roles to have a family. Nowadays, it's more feasible to do it all by yourself, thanks to gender-equality/labor-saving-appliances/increased-wealth/etc. (Unfortunately "feasible" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", at least not yet) P.S. When I say wealth, what I mean is the wealth of progress we all share... I don't know if there is a term, but for example a vacuum cleaner ran ~$50 in 1920 ($600 in 2014 dollars) and you can buy one today for $15.
- waps 12y ago
  I think that stopped because it became no longer financially feasible. In the 60s it was easily doable (for a man) to be the breadwinner for a family of 4-5, even 6 people. Anno 2014, It's just not possible anymore. A household, especially with children, requires a $60k wage minimum and the average wage is $32,140 [1]. I'm scared to think how much influence this really had on female emancipation. It is striking how female emancipation happened just a few years after it became pretty much required for household income. It might be more an effect of US (and Europe) social policy than anything else. That way of seeing things also explains gender attitudes much better. E.g. to see why it didn't happen in the middle east. Simple : effectively nobody has a job, of the locals, not men not women. Apparently if employers have a choice out of 1000 individuals, of which 500 women and 500 men, and only 10 will ever get hired, those 10 are overwhelmingly likely to be men. Makes me wonder if gender equality in the middle east would be as simple as dropping average wage, and getting employment up to 40-50% at least. Makes you wonder if that would shut up all the allah has ordained women ... crap. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    It is striking how female emancipation happened just a few years after it became pretty much required for household income. Plenty of people would argue the first caused the second. Double the labor supply, halve the wage.
- tomp 12y ago
jerrac 12y ago
Porn is purely selfish pleasure. Thus, when a person is married, they're used to being selfish about their sexual pleasure, resulting in strife. And when people think about getting married, they realize that would require them to stop being so selfish, since marriages don't last unless you are willing to sacrifice your own desires in order to help your spouse. So, porn is a cause, or at least, part of a cause. As for marriage being an economic institution... Not really. Male and female are different. We think differently, our bodies are different, and so on. In most cases, those differences complement each other. So, marriage is the joining of two people into a partnership that lets them cover each others flaws.
- selmnoo 12y ago
  I think it's crucially important to note that even if folks watch porn, it doesn't mean they can't have a successful marriage. My thinking is it would actually probably help to make a conscious decision to stop watching porn or at least reduce to a healthy minimum (insofar as it is an activity that may make a man and a woman more distant and aloof), and look instead to rebuilding a healthy physical relationship [1]. The reason I feel the need to emphasize this is that I think it's pretty much a matter of fact these days that many people watch porn. They should not start thinking now that they'll have trouble with marriage because of their porn habits, rather they should focus on what can be done to prepare for a successful marriage and commit to that. [1]: Somehow I'm expecting people to get nitpicky on me on this, so let me just preemptively say: if within the framework of your relationship watching porn is acceptable to you and your significant other, then bless you both, keep doing it.
- aikah 12y ago
  > Porn is purely selfish pleasure. Some couples watch porn together.You make it "a selfish pleasure" only if you want it "a selfish pleasure". And yes,women watch porn,like they buy dildos, though they might not be interested in "Bangbros like gonzo" ,but something with a higher production quality.
  - stevewilhelm 12y ago
    HBO's 'Game of Thrones' for example.
RockyMcNuts 12y ago
Other things cause them to not get married, then since they're not married they can watch porn.
baddox 12y ago
> Porn might be a comorbidity (what I'd put my money on), or maybe a symptom (I doubt that, too), but the idea that it's the cause is pretty odd to me. I'd guess that the increase in porn usage is caused by a simple and unrelated phenomenon: the vastly easier access to porn.
angersock 12y ago
I'm rather entertained at the number of people objecting to your description of marriage as an "economic institution". That's exactly what marriage has been for thousands of years: primarily a way of ensuring the continuity of property and perpetuation of a family name. Feelings, by and large, don't enter into it in the grand scheme of things. Marriage today would be tolerable if it weren't for the absurd debt spectacle involved (in both getting a ring and a ceremony), the rather nasty legal implications upon divorce, and overall the lack of societal support for raising a family these days.
jseliger 12y ago
I think marriage is fundamentally an economic institution. People got married because it made economic sense Marriage and divorce laws are also biased against men—which Helen Smith details in Men on Strike: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594036756 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594036756 . The book is not great but it is a decent introduction to these issues.

selmnoo 12y ago

> I think marriage is fundamentally an economic institution. I don't like that reduction of marriage. Having known several couples who've made it for over 50 years and above, it really makes things clear to me -- they let themselves be totally truthful and vulnerable to each other, they rely on each other in the other's time of need, they find joy in doing things as one. Like most things, marriage is what you make of it, if all you want out of it is economic benefits, it can be just that.

imaginenore 12y ago
Nothing stops you from being truthful and vulnerable without getting married. There are tons of marriages with lies and mistrust.
- selmnoo 12y ago
  Of course, you can have that without getting married. But you see, more than anything, marriage is really a cultural institution. It has a strong symbolic power. It's an excuse for a big party, a signaling of commitment, etc. We humans do a lot of things based on tradition and culture. Marriage is one of those things. Because come on, if we don't have culture, what do we have?
  - nishonia 12y ago
    > Because come on, if we don't have culture, what do we have? Well reasoned and logical action?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      There is no such thing as logical action independent of values, which are cultural. Logic can help with determining how to serve values, but it can't tell you what your base values should be.
      - nishonia 12y ago
        > values, which are cultural. It only takes one exception to disprove a rule, and in the interest of not inviting debate - I'll pick an obvious example: biological imperatives have nothing to do with culture. Everytime I hear somebody excuse silly behaviour with "culture" it reminds me of the Louis CK bit: http://youtu.be/CQSRPMFDTSs http://youtu.be/CQSRPMFDTSs
  - imaginenore 12y ago
    Marriage is a tradition, but I don't see what's so cultural about it.
baddox 12y ago
You might not like a further reduction which I suspect is true, which is that monogamy (punctuated or otherwise) itself is an economic (or if you prefer, game theoretical) institution dating back to when females traded reproduction for food and protection. There was no easy way for a male to determine the paternity of the child of a female with which he has mated, other than securing an ostensibly exclusive relationship and monitoring the female's fidelity as best as possible. Of course, I don't think that takes anything away from the couples you know.
- maratd 12y ago
  > There's no easy way for a male to determine the paternity of the child of a female with which he has mated, other than securing an ostensibly exclusive relationship and monitoring the female's fidelity as best as possible. I disagree. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y34OKA http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005Y34OKA
  - baddox 12y ago
    I meant a long time ago, when these institutions first developed among humans. The fact that paternity tests exist now probably only corroborates my point. I'll edit the comment for clarity.
    - maratd 12y ago
      It's an important distinction. The desire for fidelity is clearly genetic. I agree with you, it probably entered the gene pool because of those reasons. With those reasons now gone, it can and probably will exit the gene pool. This will drastically change the nature of human relationships.
      - baddox 12y ago
        Yes, I think we agree fully. I would add that the persistence of norms does not have to be directly genetic in the way most people would interpret that. It could be indirectly genetic, in the sense that we have a strong genetic propensity to adopt the norms of our social surroundings and attempt to spread those norms to the next generation. That propensity probably applies even for norms that have far outlived their original purpose.
waps 12y ago
Also, allowing yourself to depend on the other, being truthful and the other things you say will quickly translate into economic benefits. Stability, emotional/financial/..., a safety net, a second opinion, a distraction when needed, I don't know how I'd do without.
sgnelson 12y ago
Do you have to be married to be in a loving relationship with someone for 50 years?

sliverstorm 12y ago

I suspect it also made more sense when men were breadwinners and women were housekeepers. You needed both roles to have a family. Nowadays, it's more feasible to do it all by yourself, thanks to gender-equality/labor-saving-appliances/increased-wealth/etc. (Unfortunately "feasible" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", at least not yet) P.S. When I say wealth, what I mean is the wealth of progress we all share... I don't know if there is a term, but for example a vacuum cleaner ran ~$50 in 1920 ($600 in 2014 dollars) and you can buy one today for $15.

waps 12y ago
I think that stopped because it became no longer financially feasible. In the 60s it was easily doable (for a man) to be the breadwinner for a family of 4-5, even 6 people. Anno 2014, It's just not possible anymore. A household, especially with children, requires a $60k wage minimum and the average wage is $32,140 [1]. I'm scared to think how much influence this really had on female emancipation. It is striking how female emancipation happened just a few years after it became pretty much required for household income. It might be more an effect of US (and Europe) social policy than anything else. That way of seeing things also explains gender attitudes much better. E.g. to see why it didn't happen in the middle east. Simple : effectively nobody has a job, of the locals, not men not women. Apparently if employers have a choice out of 1000 individuals, of which 500 women and 500 men, and only 10 will ever get hired, those 10 are overwhelmingly likely to be men. Makes me wonder if gender equality in the middle east would be as simple as dropping average wage, and getting employment up to 40-50% at least. Makes you wonder if that would shut up all the allah has ordained women ... crap. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  It is striking how female emancipation happened just a few years after it became pretty much required for household income. Plenty of people would argue the first caused the second. Double the labor supply, halve the wage.
tomp 12y ago

jerrac 12y ago

Porn is purely selfish pleasure. Thus, when a person is married, they're used to being selfish about their sexual pleasure, resulting in strife. And when people think about getting married, they realize that would require them to stop being so selfish, since marriages don't last unless you are willing to sacrifice your own desires in order to help your spouse. So, porn is a cause, or at least, part of a cause. As for marriage being an economic institution... Not really. Male and female are different. We think differently, our bodies are different, and so on. In most cases, those differences complement each other. So, marriage is the joining of two people into a partnership that lets them cover each others flaws.

selmnoo 12y ago
I think it's crucially important to note that even if folks watch porn, it doesn't mean they can't have a successful marriage. My thinking is it would actually probably help to make a conscious decision to stop watching porn or at least reduce to a healthy minimum (insofar as it is an activity that may make a man and a woman more distant and aloof), and look instead to rebuilding a healthy physical relationship [1]. The reason I feel the need to emphasize this is that I think it's pretty much a matter of fact these days that many people watch porn. They should not start thinking now that they'll have trouble with marriage because of their porn habits, rather they should focus on what can be done to prepare for a successful marriage and commit to that. [1]: Somehow I'm expecting people to get nitpicky on me on this, so let me just preemptively say: if within the framework of your relationship watching porn is acceptable to you and your significant other, then bless you both, keep doing it.
aikah 12y ago
> Porn is purely selfish pleasure. Some couples watch porn together.You make it "a selfish pleasure" only if you want it "a selfish pleasure". And yes,women watch porn,like they buy dildos, though they might not be interested in "Bangbros like gonzo" ,but something with a higher production quality.
- stevewilhelm 12y ago
  HBO's 'Game of Thrones' for example.

RockyMcNuts 12y ago

Other things cause them to not get married, then since they're not married they can watch porn.

baddox 12y ago

> Porn might be a comorbidity (what I'd put my money on), or maybe a symptom (I doubt that, too), but the idea that it's the cause is pretty odd to me. I'd guess that the increase in porn usage is caused by a simple and unrelated phenomenon: the vastly easier access to porn.

angersock 12y ago

I'm rather entertained at the number of people objecting to your description of marriage as an "economic institution". That's exactly what marriage has been for thousands of years: primarily a way of ensuring the continuity of property and perpetuation of a family name. Feelings, by and large, don't enter into it in the grand scheme of things. Marriage today would be tolerable if it weren't for the absurd debt spectacle involved (in both getting a ring and a ceremony), the rather nasty legal implications upon divorce, and overall the lack of societal support for raising a family these days.

jseliger 12y ago

I think marriage is fundamentally an economic institution. People got married because it made economic sense Marriage and divorce laws are also biased against men—which Helen Smith details in Men on Strike: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594036756 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594036756 . The book is not great but it is a decent introduction to these issues.