Sex before Marriage

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:38 pm

No, it is not a rule.

There are five main principles to look at and are used as a guide when choosing a spouse..

1.the family and the its background, tradition and culture

2. the capacities, potentialities, and talents of the individuals (this includes education and 'training')

3.the nature of the individual which must be suitable for a good match (union)

4.the age factor, where the boy should be older than the girl, possibly a quarter more than the girl.

5.the wordly viability of the household in the day to day living; the sources and means to conduct a respectable household.


It sounds more like buying a car to me!

What happened to love?

I suppose it doesn't matter if both parties are in the SES - it's not like they're ever going to see each other anyhow!

...and you may have picked up by now, I think this is a load of utter twaddle!

:bad-words:

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:24 pm

Isn't "twaddle" a delicious word? *g*

and yes, this "resipe" for choosing a partner IS total twaddle! And if you swap "choosing a spouse" to "choosing an emloyee" then the guidelines also break a whole swathe of anti-dscrimination laws.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:51 pm

In Misty's defense, the principles she posted are not hers but those of SES.
Mike Gormez

Antises

Postby Antises » Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:03 am

Also note that in the Hindu philosophy often followed by the SES, marriage is not only the union between two people, but the union between two families, a concept unheard of in the West: hence arranged marriages, extended families and there being more to marriage than love.

Misty

Postby Misty » Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:15 pm

Alban wrote:
It sounds more like buying a car to me!

What happened to love?



You must realise that in arranged marriages many years ago, people belived that love comes after marriage.

However in the case presently, if these factors are considered then love may follow. It is only one tiny weeny aspect of philosophy looked at, in the course.

Why would we look at the other persons background?

why would we looked as their culture?

why would we look at thier age?

Who can say that none of these matter? Who can honestly say they would get married to someone without knowing the answers to any of these questions?

Misty

Postby Misty » Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:44 pm

a different guest wrote:Isn't "twaddle" a delicious word? *g*

and yes, this "resipe" for choosing a partner IS total twaddle! And if you swap "choosing a spouse" to "choosing an emloyee" then the guidelines also break a whole swathe of anti-dscrimination laws.


Why may it be twaddle? It is all very well that you call it twaddle, but what may be wrong with it?

For if many people in the past looked and considered these concepts when getting married, surely it has some value?

P.S: I may not be familiar with the australian spelling, but in the english dictionaly here, it is recipe with a "c", not an "s". I don't know how Australians spell, but I thoguht it would be worth knowing how they do, since earlier it was clarified that only the Amercians spelt civilisation with a 'z'.

Antises

Postby Antises » Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:24 pm

1.the family and the its background, tradition and culture

2. the capacities, potentialities, and talents of the individuals (this includes education and 'training')

3.the nature of the individual which must be suitable for a good match (union)

4.the age factor, where the boy should be older than the girl, possibly a quarter more than the girl.

5.the wordly viability of the household in the day to day living; the sources and means to conduct a respectable household.


Here's briefly what I think of these suggested principles for deciding whom to marry:

1. This is definitely a worthwhile consideration if you are a traditionalist or if you consider marriage to be the union of two families as well as the union of two people, or if you are a 'cultured person' (whatever that means to you) and wish to marry someone who is similarly 'cultured'. If you don't care about "background, tradition and culture", then you can and will just ignore this.

2. Many may disagree with me here, but I think it is natural (yes, I know, you'll all say there is no such thing as a 'natural' quality of a human) for someone to want to marry someone who is similarly educated and is interested in what he/she does for an occupation.

3. Surely this happens anyway? If you are a law-abiding citizen, surely you do not want to marry a convict who has not changed his/her ways?

4. This, I feel, is a personal choice. There is an old English "rule" which states that ideally the woman should be half the age of the man plus 7 years (so a 26-year old man should marry a 20-year old woman). The man being a quarter older than the woman means that a 25-year old man should marry a 20-year old woman. That's about the same. So it's not necessarily just an SES/Hindu/evil rule. Two cultures have independently come up with this suggestion. But, of course, it's still a personal choice.

5. I think this happens anyway. At least one of you must have enough money to live on, unless you are planning to live on the streets. If you are wise, you really don't want to marry someone who throws away their money. This is especially important in places where it is very difficult to climb the property ladder. It's nothing philosophical, just a practical suggestion.

That's what I feel about these suggestions. In summary, I think 2, 3 & 5 happen anyway, while 1 & 4 are personal decisions.

P.S. I cannot understand how someone can dismiss the suggestions in a second by calling them "twaddle" - for all I know, they probably haven't even read them. Also, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.[/quote]

Misty

Postby Misty » Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:58 pm

Antises wrote:P.S. I cannot understand how someone can dismiss the suggestions in a second by calling them "twaddle" - for all I know, they probably haven't even read them. Also, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.


I agree to that.

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Fri Apr 02, 2004 7:17 pm

I called it Twaddle and I stick to that.

The reason is simple - it is ignoring the single most important facet of marriage which is love. If you try and manufacture love, believing that it will come because a set of rules have been adhered to, then I would suggest that the best you are likely to get is affection.

There have been many marriages that have broken all the above rules and have been described by both parties as bliss - just as there have been many marriages that have failed that have been based on the rules.

Anyway, when I was in the SES, they were touting around the idea that there is only one "true" partner for each of us....so what if that partner doesn't fulfill all (or any) of the rules!

I would also suggest that love is one of those things that we as humans know very little about. On the whole we know very little about all the of different forms of energy that exist, and love IMHO falls into that category.

All I can say is, you may think you're there, but you certainly know when you really are - and until you get to that stage, you can only hypothesize about it!....so I don't expect you to understand, really

Misty

Postby Misty » Fri Apr 02, 2004 8:06 pm

Alban wrote:so I don't expect you to understand, really


Okay, am I wrong to say that you are assuming that you are the only one to have fallen in love?

Alban wrote:
The reason is simple - it is ignoring the single most important facet of marriage which is love. If you try and manufacture love, believing that it will come because a set of rules have been adhered to, then I would suggest that the best you are likely to get is affection.


Firstly,they are not rules. Just principles of guidence. It doesnt say you MUST follow them at all.

Secondly, thankyou for the suggestion, but I have seen people who have actually married through arranged marriages, and infact they truely fall in love. You are wrong to assume that as far as one can go with those guidances is just affection. People have proved that to fall love is possible after marriage.

Alban wrote:There have been many marriages that have broken all the above rules and have been described by both parties as bliss - just as there have been many marriages that have failed that have been based on the rules.


Again they are not rules. Did you read what I had quoted? Let me repeat:


"These principles help provide a harmonious union. The laws set out by the wise explain the ideal. ANd we are encouraged always to reach for the ideal. There is no garantee that if all the five factors are met completely, the marriage will be filled with happiness. Nor is there the suggestion that if any factor is not adheard to, the marriage will be a disaster. Happiness in a marriage is dependant upon the decision to force all things together."

I called it Twaddle and I stick to that.


Oh Alban, you are fully entitled to call it what you like, after all it is your opinion. However I have learnt not to make an opinion if I don't know the full story. By calling them rules constantly shows you really haven't read it properly. Nevertheless you seem pretty sure to stick to it. So be it.

Antises

Postby Antises » Fri Apr 02, 2004 8:25 pm

Alban wrote:If you try and manufacture love, believing that it will come because a set of rules have been adhered to, then I would suggest that the best you are likely to get is affection.

You missed the point: it is NOT believed that love comes DUE TO following a set of rules. It IS believed that love grows naturally if both members of the union seek the same things from their marriage and are committed. Also, believe it or not, divorce is statistically less likely if factors other than 'love' are taken into account before marriage. Psychological research has been done in this area:

...couples whose marriages begin in romantic bliss are particularly divorce-prone because such intensity is too hard to maintain. Believe it or not, marriages that start out with less "Hollywood romance" usually have more promising futures...couples who divorced showed that loss of initial levels of love and affection, rather than conflict, was the most salient predictor of distress and divorce.


Alban wrote:so what if that partner doesn't fulfill all (or any) of the rules!

Again, you missed the point: they are suggestions, not rules.

So basically, Alban, you can't actually criticize any of the 5 suggestions, but you just think they're wrong because they don't mention love. Just because they don't mention love, it doesn't mean love isn't important: love generally comes after marriage in the philosophy which puts forward the suggestions. And you can't seriously say that the (approximate) 50% success rate for marriages in the 'civilized' world today shows that most people 'know when they are in love'.

Also, the message that divorce in general does more harm than good is prevailent among researchers:
It seems that the divorce culture feeds on itself, creating a one-way downward spiral of unhappiness and failure.


You seem to think that arranged marriages either rely on luck or are a mistake from the beginning because they do not consider 'love'. In answer, I will quote from another researcher who is interested in marriage and divorce:
A cultural anthropologist had a cute analogy to compare Eastern and Western marriages. He said marriage is like a pot of water. Western couples marry when the fire is in flames, the pot is hot and water is boiling. After the marriage, the fire dies down and the pot soon begins to get cold. But, Eastern couples go out to collect the wood after they get married. Then they light the fire and start warming the pot. By the time the water comes to the boiling point and starts cooling, life is almost over. I always get a chuckle when I relate this analogy and end it with, "Don't let your marriage go to pot."

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:08 am

Misty wrote:Okay, am I wrong to say that you are assuming that you are the only one to have fallen in love?


Yes totally!

Misty wrote:Secondly, thank you for the suggestion, but I have seen people who have actually married through arranged marriages, and in fact they truly fall in love.


...and then there are the SES arranged marriages that went very wrong indeed....or maybe you don't know about them!

Misty wrote:You are wrong to assume that as far as one can go with those guidance is just affection. People have proved that to fall love is possible after marriage.


I maintain that you cannot manufacture love....however this raises the 10 million dollar question..."What is Love". And as there is not a person in the world who can claim to be able to scientifically identify love then it all boils down to personal opinion...in which case it is your opinion that I am wrong and my opinion that I am right. I am basing my opinion on a number of experiences in which I thought I was in love, and then my current situation which I am prepared to say is unequivocally love (not that I am infallible it is true)....On what experience do you base your opinion?

Misty wrote:Again they are not rules. Did you read what I had quoted? Let me repeat:


...you going to argue on semantics....ok, you say they are not rules, and yet you call them "The laws set out by the wise". Rules can be broken just as laws - both are "guidance" to how we should behave.

Misty wrote:Happiness in a marriage is dependant upon the decision to force all things together.


"Force"....this is the sort of language I take issue with....why should force be necessary?

Misty wrote:However I have learnt not to make an opinion if I don't know the full story.


You must know an awful lot about love and life in general then, because there seems to be a large number of your opinions all over this board!

antises wrote:It IS believed that love grows naturally if both members of the union seek the same things from their marriage and are committed.


I don't have a problem with love "growing", I just maintain that it must be there to start with.

As for statistics - see my response to Misty regarding our inability to identify love. This would then render statistics useless, as one couple's definition of love may be another's definition of affection, and another's of lust. It is my belief that more people who get married are not in love than those who marry and who are - but again this cannot be backed up with figures for the same reason. It would be an interesting exercise however to ask a large number of divorcees whether, looking back, they still believed they were in love when they got married - even more interesting if they had subsequently re-married. Note I said interesting, not statistically decisive.

antises wrote:Again, you missed the point: they are suggestions, not rules.


See my response to Misty!

antises wrote:So basically, Alban, you can't actually criticize any of the 5 suggestions, but you just think they're wrong because they don't mention love.


Exactly, love is the overriding, Number 1 requirement. As long as you have that, then the 5 are nice-to-haves...actually, they are only nice-to-haves for certain people. There are many people who rejoice in other cultures, or being classless, or for whom education means nothing even though they are educated themselves.

antises wrote: love generally comes after marriage in the philosophy which puts forward the suggestions.


Which is why I'm casting aspersions on that particular philosophy in the context of this society in the western world.

antises wrote:And you can't seriously say that the (approximate) 50% success rate for marriages in the 'civilized' world today shows that most people 'know when they are in love'.


Agreed....but is forcing them into an arranged marriage a viable alternative?

antises wrote:Also, the message that divorce in general does more harm than good is prevalent among researchers:


No argument there either. Divorce is hard on all parties, not least because it is admission of failure....I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

antises wrote:You seem to think that arranged marriages either rely on luck or are a mistake from the beginning because they do not consider 'love'


When arranged marriages were more commonplace in western society, infidelity was quite the norm.....as was beating your wife....neither of which I condone.

I think there is one thing here that needs to be said. I am not saying that if you are not in love then you will be unhappy. I am sure there are many millions of arranged marriages where each partner has accepted their lot and has made the best of it, and been very happy. Remember too, that it all depends on your expectations. If you are brought up to believe that to end up with a good man or a good woman will bring you happiness, and your parents pick out a "good" partner who doesn't beat you or who dutifully brings up your family then the chances are you'll be happy.

There is quite evidently a different idea and expectation of love in other cultures. It [love] does certainly seem to play a lesser part in marriage in certain cultures, but in those cultures I would suggest that marriage is more of an enjoyable duty than the celebration of love that it is supposed to be in western civilisation (as espoused by most western religions).

So this does beg the question of both of you (Misty and antises) of how you view marriage. What is it to you? It is obviously not a celebration of love if you are promoting the theory that love will come later!

On a completely separate point, I have spent a long time typing this response and expressing my views and experience in a cogent form. We are veering off the original thread into a general philosophical discussion, which I cannot continue devoting this amount of time to. We all have different experiences and we all change our opinions as we grow older and gain more experiences. I feel I have pretty much covered my views and opinions on this and other threads and so will be taking a back-seat from now on to avoid repeating myself....that's not to say I will stop reading it.....I may even comment too, but you get the general idea!

Alban

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sat Apr 03, 2004 5:49 am

Misty wrote:
Antises wrote:P.S. I cannot understand how someone can dismiss the suggestions in a second by calling them "twaddle" - for all I know, they probably haven't even read them. Also, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.


I agree to that.


If you are agreeing the to last point in that post, then why did you make such a scarcastic response to mine?

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:13 am

Anyway, when I was in the SES, they were touting around the idea that there is only one "true" partner for each of us....so what if that partner doesn't fulfill all (or any) of the rules!

That's quite interesting. I recall I'd been at the SOP for about 6 months, and heard the school leader talking about "love" being the recognition of the divine in another person - that this is what attracts us to partners, friends, people in general. I asked if this meant - theoretically - that anybody had equal potential to be a suitable spouse. The answer was pretty much 'yes', although he did go on to talk about different personalities initially attracting or repelling each other, and the male and female universal elements naturally complementing one another.

The theme was, though, that "love" occurred when two people recognised the universal Self in one another, which could in theory happen between any two people. I certainly have never heard the idea that there is only one "true" partner for each of us, except in the context that once you're married, it's for life.

Misty

Postby Misty » Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:02 am

Alban wrote:
Misty wrote:Again they are not rules. Did you read what I had quoted? Let me repeat:


...you going to argue on semantics....ok, you say they are not rules, and yet you call them "The laws set out by the wise". Rules can be broken just as laws - both are "guidance" to how we should behave.



Laws are not guidances, in my opinion, ther are. And in this case I am not talking about Laws set by man, I am talking more upon the point of natural laws, which no man makes, but it is just set out as it is. The 'wise' have translated what they see into words as far as I see. You also seem to be missing the point which I had highlighted in bold. Ofcourse if I enlarged them or used them in caps you would certainly think i was shouting...


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests