This post has been inspired by a comment by Jewish Atheist. and subsequent comments to his post about relative truth.
How has life improved over the last 200 years...
200 years ago - Marriages are arranged and people do not choose who they want to marry...
Now - Divorce, divided homes, and single mothers having to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet only to have their kids addicted to drugs because they weren't able to be there to raise them as needed.
200 years ago - Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse in families...
Now - Physical, emotional, and sexual abouse in families
200 years ago - A sixth grade education would practically guarantee you a good job and success in life
Now - Someone with a Master's degree works as a manager at McDonalds by day and a bartender by night just to make ends meet, not to mention the student loans they have to pay off.
200 years ago - Up at daybreak to begin the day working in the fields, in the family business, in the home, etc.
Sons of a working age helping their fathers learning to be men, take care of a family and a home, and preparing for adulthood.
Girls helping their mothers in the homes, learning to be a good mother and wife, from their mother, and preparing for marriage one day. God to bed at sundown or maybe a little later if they stay up by candle light.
Now - Most moms and dads work all day. Kids get dropped off at daycare or school for the day so that someone else (in most cases the government) can raise them. Not having any real idea what it means to be a man or woman because mom and dad spend what little free time they have golfing, watching tv, talking on the telephone instead of spending time with them. Even then they get pushed off to the TV, videogames, homework, etc.
200 years ago - People often died relatively young due to sickness & disease or accident. The rich could afford a good doctor to help them. Those that did live to see old age were revered by their society and helped to raise future generations.
Now - Most people live to ripe old ages only to be stuffed into nursing homes and at times abused by overworked and underpaid orderlies while their children wish that they will just die so that they can get what's left of their money after the nursing homes suck away what's there. Meanwhile, healthcare costs rise ever higher and higher so that there becomes a gap between those who can afford good healthcare because they are either rich enough to afford it or poor enough to be able to accept a mediocre coverage by the government Medicare/Medicaid system.
200 years ago - When a boy turned anywhere from 13-16 or 17 he goes through a rite of passage. He is no longer considered a child and is now considered a man. He has been trained and raised to know how to take care of a family and work the family job and it is time for him to live that out. At about 16 or 17 years old he reached puberty at which time he chooses or is chosen for him a young lady to be his wife. When a girl hits puberty at around 15 or 16 she gets married. She has been given in marriage or has chosen who she will marry. She has been trained all of her life how to be a good wife and mother and now she is prepared to do it.
Now - At 11-14 a girl or boy are still in school getting an "education" so that they can be "trained" and "prepared" for life. They live their teenage years knowing that they are adults, wanting to live that out, trying to make that happen, only to be pushed back by a socety that tells the "oh, your not ready" when the reason that they're not ready is because that society has not prepared them. They are sexually frustrated because their bodies have gone through a sexual metamorphasis but they have no outlet for it. So they either bury those sexual frustrations or act out on them. In the process of acting out on them, it messes them up sexually. Sex becomes a "fun thing to do" with no serious thought given to the implications of what their acting out will mean for them in the future (an inability to remain faithful to one spouse, a lower sex drive and sexual satisfaction, STD's, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,.....
Believe you me, i could and probably will go on, and on, and on, and on this way. But due to time sake i have to finish up here. Yeah, life is good all right!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
200 years ago:
If you were African-American, you were a slave.
If you were a woman, you were likely married at 14 or so against your consent.
If your husband beat you, tough luck. You couldn't get a divorce and couldn't get him arrested. He's allowed to rape you, too.
If you were a woman, a black, or poor, you couldn't vote.
If you were a woman, you'd probably die in childbirth.
I'm not saying everything's changed for the better, JC, but if you weren't a rich, white, man (like yourself, I assume) you would have had a pretty hard life. The point of my comment was that morality has improved since then to recognize that black people and women are equal to white men.
If you were African-American and you lived in the southern United States there would be a good chance you were a slave.
If you were a woman, you were likely married at around age 15 and which may or may not have been arranged. That's not the same thing as against their consent.
If your husband was physically abusive there was little you could do about it. If it was bad enough you could return home to your family which would put a black mark on both you and your husband. If you live in todays time and you are a woman you can deny your husband any form of sexual intimacy (a form of sexual abuse), emotional attachment, respect (forms of emotional abuse), anything that he might need just because you feel like it. If he has a problem with it, that's his fault. But if he dares to lay a hand on you he can be arrested, tried, and put in prison.
If you are a woman, black, or poor you couldn't vote. Now you can vote, but as the 2000 election proved one vote, or even 1000 votes don't mean a whole lot. They are much less than the margin of error.
If you were a woman, you were more likely to die in childbirth than today. However there was no "probably" about it.
I may be white, i may be male, but i am far, far from rich. Yes life would have been hard for me and my family, but the reality is that we would have had the entire community supporting us and each other. We would not be one family trying to make it on our own. Our extended family would be close by and if things were really difficult i would know that i could rely on my family, friends, and the rest of the community to help each other out.
Now we have to rely on ourselves, to some extent and degree possibly the extended family, and the government. Now that's what i call the good life!
If he has a problem with it, that's his fault.
No, if he has a problem with it, he can leave.
No, if he has a problem with it, he can leave.
Someone who has chosen to invest in a marriage and actually believes the vows he makes "till death do us part" is not going to just leave. But that's not the point anyways.
The point is not whether he can leave or not. The point is that the morals of this society make it all right for a woman to emotionally and sexually abuse her husband, but if he even lays a hand on her, he can be imprisoned. That's what you raise up as "improved" morals.
JC,
You have some wacky rose colored glasses of history. Not _everything_ has gotten better, but chances are that if you asked someone in the western world which century they would rather live in, which do you think they would choose?
Your romantic unreal views of the past notwithstanding, life was HARD. Unless you were a rich, white man (as JA said) you were probably very uneducated and had no chance for any real success in life except to keep plodding along at the same level of basic manual labor as your father before you and his father before him.
Life was hard, i don't deny that. What my point is, is that people look at our society and seem to think that we are "all that". The real truth is that our society is really messed up. Prior to the industrial revolution there was no such thing as adolescence (and the huge problems that come with it) and mid life crisis. The concept of retirement is vastly different. Our "great" society has screwed us up in so many ways it's not even funny. Unfortunately we don't see it because it's all we know. It's "our" society.
I'm not trying to paint a rose colored picture of the past so much as to point out some of the really screwed up aspects of our society and help people to realize how extremely rose colored we've painted our society.
If you live in todays time and you are a woman you can deny your husband any form of sexual intimacy (a form of sexual abuse), emotional attachment, respect (forms of emotional abuse), anything that he might need just because you feel like it...
The point is that the morals of this society make it all right for a woman to emotionally and sexually abuse her husband, but if he even lays a hand on her, he can be imprisoned. That's what you raise up as "improved" morals.
Hold up, lemme get this straight. I've mis-perceived your views in the past, and I want to make sure I get this straight. If my wife denies me sexual intimacy, or acts diffident towards me, or disrespects me just because she wants to I should be able to do what?
Can you explain what you feel our society should allow in these case?
Can you explain (in your view) how not being intimate with someone constitutes sexual abuse?
btw, arranged marriage in many cases was done without the full consent of one or both parties.
Hold up, lemme get this straight. I've mis-perceived your views in the past, and I want to make sure I get this straight.
Well, thank you eric for not assuming that automatically. I did not realize that what i said was coming across in that manner.
If my wife denies me sexual intimacy, or acts diffident towards me, or disrespects me just because she wants to I should be able to do what?
I didn't say you should do anything. I was merely attempting to compare how one form of abuse is considered unacceptable while others are practically a given.
Can you explain what you feel our society should allow in these case?
Unfortunately, i'm having some trouble understanding the question.
Can you explain (in your view) how not being intimate with someone constitutes sexual abuse?
Actually, the issue is not so much the not being intimate, as it is about control. When a person attempts to use something (or the denial of that thing) that is needed by another person as a way to control them, that constitutes abuse. Thus if someone refuses to be involved emotionally with their spouse (in an attempt to control them) that is considered emotional abuse. Abuse is all about control. It's about getting the other person to do what you want them to by denying them what they need. In this case an extended period of refusing to have sexual relations with your spouse so you can keep them under your control would be abuse.
btw, arranged marriage in many cases was done without the full consent of one or both parties.
"Without the full consent" and "against their consent" are two very different things. Usually arranged marriages were expected. The girl or guy knew that it would happen. It was what was expected and accepted. The individuals may or may not have had any say in it but it was what was "supposed" to happen (in their eyes). Oftentimes in the culture the bride had the right/a way to reject the groom/suitor, but not always.
Thus "without" does not necessarily equal "against".
I hope that that clears things up a bit more eric.
Actually, the issue is not so much the not being intimate, as it is about control. When a person attempts to use something (or the denial of that thing) that is needed by another person as a way to control them, that constitutes abuse. Thus if someone refuses to be involved emotionally with their spouse (in an attempt to control them) that is considered emotional abuse. Abuse is all about control. It's about getting the other person to do what you want them to by denying them what they need. In this case an extended period of refusing to have sexual relations with your spouse so you can keep them under your control would be abuse.
I agree with your statements about abuse being about power. But I'm still confused by your line of reasoning. Let me turn it into a hypothetical, and you can tell me which way you would prefer it, because to me this is the equality in the eyes of the law that you seem to be after:
(
person a hits person b. person a goes to jail.
person c propositions person d. person d refuses... person c propositions person d. person d refuses.
... person d goes to jail
)
OR
(
person a hits person b. person a doesn't go to jail.
person c propositions person d. person d refuses...person c propositions person d. person d refuses.
... person d doesn't go to jail.
)
I realize I may seem a bit flippant here, but if we're going to discuss this logically, I feel like I need to know your unequivocal position on the matter.
"Without the full consent" and "against their consent" are two very different things.
I couldn't disagree more. They are very similar things, differing only slightly in their severity. Imagine living in a society that expected you to marry whomever your parents choose for you. It was expected, right? How would you feel? I think when the rubber meets the road, a society's mores and conventions amount to mild to severe psychological coercion. I see little distinction between no choice at all, and the "choice" of either accepting your betrothed, or being shunned by everyone around you.
I agree with your statements about abuse being about power. But I'm still confused by your line of reasoning. Let me turn it into a hypothetical, and you can tell me which way you would prefer it, because to me this is the equality in the eyes of the law that you seem to be after:
Actually, beleive it or not, i don't have an answer to this. I see this as a problem, but i don't know what the right answer or solution is. Obviously the issue of abuse is about control, physical abuse is easy to define, defend, and judge over thus it is easy to make laws about. These other forms of abuse are not so straight forward. However in looking at abuse it seems that women have more of a recourse when they are being abused, but when they do abuse there is little a man can do about it other than just take it (or leave). If he does retaliate, he is in jepordy of going to prison. Thus i can't answer the question.
Imagine living in a society that expected you to marry whomever your parents choose for you. It was expected, right? How would you feel?
I would feel that this is normal and what is expected. I would be anxious about who it is that my parents chose for me and hope that the person was what i was looking for. I would probably try to let them know what i liked in a girl, but ultimately i would have to trust their judgment.
eric said:
Can you explain (in your view) how not being intimate with someone constitutes sexual abuse?
I can give you my take on this although I don't know if this constitutes abuse but it does constitute something...
...in a marriage, sex is important. It isn't the backbone of a marriage but it does strengthen it. If a woman is holding back sex as a means of punishing her husband or if she is just "tired" or whatever other excuse she comes up with--that weakens a marriage.
I think it leaves a man more vulnerable to sin, say: Pornography, infildelity, excessive masterbation (which isn't a sin, per se, but if the man feels shame or doesn't enjoy it, it's not healthy).
I also feel that men express intamacy and closeness through sex. If the sex is lacking, perhaps so is the intamacy in which this perpetuates a cycle in the marriage. She complains he's cold and withdrawn--so she doesn't want to give him sex--the lack of sex makes him cold and withdrawn.
Anyways...
That's my take.
This is too good to pass by without comment. Eric, in the marriage ceremony there is a point where the officiant says, "If anyone sees any reason why these two should not be joined. Let them speak now or forever hold their peace." This gives the participants the opportunity to negate the proceedings.
JC sounds like he is speaking to individuals, not society as a whole. It has to be the agreed-upon choice of the couple. Call me crazy, but if it is agreed upon that couple A are going to share an intimate evening and husband works late, the evening is shot. Wife spends evening in tears because she had planned and prepared for this evening and he has chosen work over their plans. She has the right to tell him to take a cold shower when he gets home.
Sadie Lou has it right when she said, "in a marriage, sex is important. It isn't the backbone of a marriage but it does strengthen it. If a woman is holding back sex as a means of punishing her husband or if she is just "tired" or whatever other excuse she comes up with--that weakens a marriage. I think it leaves a man more vulnerable to sin."
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is disscussing marriage to the church in Corinth. I don't remember the exact verse number so you will have to look it up in the Holy Bible. Paul says that a wife's body is not her own, but is for her husband. At the same time a husband's body is not his, but is for his wife.(paraphrased-look it up for yourself.
Marriage is a two way street. With my marriage, I gave my all to my husband and after 7 years of fidelity and integrity, he decided he wanted one of the local... um...Yes, I believe that is all that is necessary. She earned her bad reputation. Now, I have to go. I'm at the library and I will have to sign off in a minute. God Bless! Ali Cat
Well, i think i understand your comment a little better now that i've read it the third time. I'm not saying that anyone in particular should go to jail. It's not as simple as that.
person c propositions person d. person d refuses...
person c propositions person d. person d refuses.
...
person d goes to jail
It's not as simple as someone propositioning someone and someone else refuses. Obviously the issue of abuse is about control, physical abuse is easy to define, defend, and judge over thus it is easy to make laws about and for someone to be imprisoned for. When you're talking about denying someone something that is an important part of a marriage but that isn't easily defined or measured, than obviously it would be hard to defend and judge.
That doesn't make one better than the other. However, one is accepted and considered acceptable in todays society while the other can bring a prison sentance.
Thus the morals of todays society in this area are kind of messed up.
Sadie and AliCat -
I'm not talking about what does or does not constitute a good marriage. There are many ways to heal a troubled marriage, and failing that, there are civil remedies in the form of seperation and divorce.
What I was interested in was JCM's views on what is wrong with today's society and the vast and shameful disparity in the punishments for beating your spouse and not sleeping with your spouse.
Post a Comment