This is probably only the third generation that has had marriages lasting for more than a few years. We freak out over divorces and children “not being able see their mother/dad with someone who is not their mom/dad” but it has been happening for hundreds of years.
People have gotten married, women have been pregnant probably 50% of their married years (at least the statistic holds for premodern England). Women have died in childbirth. Nobody has lived for a very long time. Many went through second and third marriages in quick succession.
So if marriages for hundreds of years have lasted (I am pulling this number from the air) on average 5-10 years, why are we stressing lifelong commitment now? Evolutionarily speaking, we are NOT designed for life long commitment. Maybe the lust and spark dying out sometime into the marriage is evolution telling us, move on kiddo.
My history prof is a huge proponent of this. He said his wife and him were getting divorced not because they had problems but because he firmly believed humans are not meant to have lifelong commitments. Is his divorce a bad thing?
[QUOTE]
So if marriages for hundreds of years have lasted (I am pulling this number from the air) on average 5-10 years, why are we stressing lifelong commitment now?
[/QUOTE]
for 5 to 10 years,that just doesnt seem right and the question is based on this assumption.cud u clarify this please .
For creationists: Marriage was created by God to compensate women and bring them up to par with men. Marriage gives them protection and a status of respect in society. So, one should enter marriage with the idea of "till death do us part" mentality.
For evolutionists: Humans babies, of all animals, take the longest time to become independent, and since human society is complex, the social institution of marriage is required to ensure the survival of the child by involving both parents in its upbringing. Hence, marriage was created to facilitate and increase the chances of survival of the offspring. So, yes, from an evolutionary standpoint, marriage loses its meaning after the child is old enought to take care of itself.
Biologically speaking?
Puberty. But I guess in societal sense, the "independence" is defined differently.
Some facts.
Gestation period for monkey is only 18 weeks
Gestation period for higher apes is about 33 weeks
baby monkeys are born with 100% of their brain size
Higher apes are born with 60% of their adult brain size
Humans are born with only 30% of their adult brain size.
You require about two years of absolue care before a human baby can learn how to walk. Impossible to see that trend in other mammals.
Even the ability of standing up straight gives the humans a vantage point to have sex facing their partners and forming a bond. Most animals dont have sex the way we humans do it. It's more impersonal for them.
Also, the ability to have sex all year round --even when the woman is pregnant--is an excellent way mother nature makes sure that the guy sticks around and helps with the rearing of the child.
So, from an evolutionary standpoint, marriage makes sense.
If you are a creationist, then ignore the mesage I just posted.
Someone here asked how long it takes to get kids independent. I say 45 years give or take a decade.
Marrage is a very idealised institution that increased numbers of poeple are turning their back on, one in three marrages break down. Are all of them really to blame? I don't think there is a greater stress upon long term commitment today - I just think that we are just questioning the norms more readily.
It was very known and common for a man to have an affair, the bored housewife and the postman jokes also came from somewhere - it was all swept under the rug - now with women being more enpowered, they refuse to take this kind of ****, they want more rights. The entire dynamics of gender relations in all sectors has been subject to somewhat radical change in the past 30-40 years. Both parties are generally mroe educated.
Its a healthy debate, but unless you are open to living a life of "sin" its kinda the only route to go.
We do alot of things that are anti-evolutionary. These are the things that set us aside from animals.
p/s: one of my chem teacher once said Ohh i cant understand u guys .. how can ya'll spend your whole life with one guy .. i cant even keep a puppy forever lol
I can however try and explain -albiet in a different vein to this thread. One example may be - of how we take active measures to increase the quality of life for the disabled. We even try and help those with er, dodgy genes - reproduce.
In the animal kingdom it is more the survival of the fittest and propogation of most desireable genes - no?
Hiccy, aha, now we are entering into the realm of religion. But isn’t religion antithetical to evolution? Just sayin’.
Oh, i was really not sarcastic when I asked you to educate me. You are superb.
Dope, I can never tell if its you or the female thereof when you are nice to me. It can be seen as being inthe same vein as religion, however equally - such "rights" to "quality of life" (as dictated by the west mostly) are seemingly transdescendent of The Book philosophies.
hi how r u bomba bhaloo??? i missed u soooo much!!!..