To think marriage vows don't mean a thing anymore

[worldshottestmom]

May get flamed for this, but I'm used to it.

One of the biggest things I hate about marriage is the vows. It's just becoming increasingly apparent that few people seem to take them seriously anymore, to the point that I'm wondering why they're even a thing now.

This isn't even really about divorce rates, either. It's women getting diagnosed with a terminal illness and their husbands leaving. It is now common practice for healthcare professionals to prepare terminally ill women for divorce / to be abandoned by their SO. What ever happened to in sickness and in health?

Frequent MN threads about frustration from women when their husbands lose their jobs and struggle to find a new one, saying they're looking at divorce over it. What happened to for richer or poorer?

Marriage in itself, to me at least, is a vow to be loyal. Yet even as far back as the olden days, a couple get married and the man is back with his 2nd family the second the honeymoon is over.

These days a couple get married and ten years down the line are both having affairs and fighting over who gets the dog.

There are endless examples and I just can't help but feel like marriage is a complete sham, but its the vows that irk me the most. Why not just stand at the alter and say we agree to marry each other for the financial benefits and because its the done thing, kiss, done. At least it would be honest. Weddings just seen to be an excuse to spend 30k on a nice dress and a huge party. It all just feels like one big roleplay to me at this point.

Disclaimer: I'm aware some people mean their vows and are happy in their marriage. Im aware there a circumstances that occur in life that make the bigger picture about survival, safety and happiness regardless of vows taken. Im aware of cultural and social influences on marriage and vows.

I'd also like to mention im aware vows and marriage are rooted in religion. I've heard the excuse before from a certain (divorced) person that they didn't take their vows seriously because theyre just a load of religious blubber. While theyre willingly stood in a church with a gargantuan crucifix with Jesus Christ on it in front of them. The irony. How can a person stand there and take vows they dont mean just for the sake of getting married. Its all so backwards it makes my brain hurt.

My point still stands that I just think the meaning of vows is so frequently taken so lightly these days. I wish I could believe in them, and in finding eternal love and happiness with someone, but with the above points mentioned, all hope is lost. People just don't seem to speak with much meaning behind their words anymore.

We wrote our own vows, however marriage was essentially legal tick-box for us to protect our family (me) financially as best as possible. We also used to opportunity to celebrate our relationship and our love, and to have a memory-making occasion with family and friends, but ultimately we only did it for practical reasons.

There's some interesting neuroscience that essentially tells us that promises we make today are ones that a version of ourselves we don't even know yet will have to uphold. People change, for better or for worse (pun intended), and that's just life. It isn't, however, an excuse for shitty , underhand, or duplicitous behaviour.

@worldshottestmom I'd also like to mention im aware vows and marriage are rooted in religion. I've heard the excuse before from a certain (divorced) person that they didn't take their vows seriously because theyre just a load of religious blubber. While theyre willingly stood in a church with a gargantuan crucifix with Jesus Christ on it in front of them. The irony. How can a person stand there and take vows they dont mean just for the sake of getting married. Its all so backwards it makes my brain hurt.

I agree that the vows matter. They matter whether you get married in a church or a barn. I got married in a barn.

But my take on the para above is a bit different.

A friend and I were asked to be godparents to a third friend's baby. The other nominated godparent said to me, "I'm not religious. I'm really against all that. The font and the prayers and everything. I'd feel like a hypocrite because I don't think it means anything."

And I said, "If it means nothing, does it matter that you do it? If you want to be part of the kid's life, if those responsibilities are important to you, then go along and make your own promises. As you say, the stained glass and the pews make no difference at all."

@confusedbydating "there is no evidence we married when we were nomadic" I'm not sure what you mean by this? There is no evidence of a lot of human activities when we were living in caves and wearing animal skins.

"The penis itself is designed to suck out other sperm - " I think you missed your human biology lessons at school because this is nonsense. Once an egg is fertilised in the womb the egg secretes a substance that hardens it's membrene to stop other sperm entering.

I fail to see how this proves humans were never intended to be monogamous ?

Sperm can live inside the vagina for 5 days before the egg is fertilized. Women are only fertile once a month. The penis has its shape to do this. It’s not all the evidence I have, but it’s one compelling piece.

we can’t prove anything. The evidence strongly suggests it but you’re right, I can’t go back in time and observe prehistoric relationships.

sex at dawn is fab if you’re interested in a funny argument.

It's not incorrect. The idea of marriage 'protecting' women is a very recent one. Historically, women's rights were severely restricted or removed by marriage.

Until the fairly recent past, marriage actively removed women's rights and freedoms.

The marriage bar for certain jobs was removed within my lifetime. Marital rape was only outlawed in 1991 in the UK -- meaning that men who raped their wives were legally immune, because the contract of marriage implied permanent consent.

Only in 1964 was the last legal element of 'couverture' removed, meaning that women were no longer legally subsumed into their husband's identity, and could own and inherit property and make investments and enter into contracts fully in their own right.

Before the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, any earnings and inheritance of a married woman were automatically her husband's. That's a long time ago? Sure, but married women couldn't apply for loans or credits independently until 1980.

So how does all this, IYO, prove that human's weren't meant to be monogamous ??

Well why would this adaptation have become advantageous for men if women were monogomaous? Why would you need it in the first place?

We're all responsible for ourselves though, realising that is the key to a happy life. So whether or not you cite love as your reason for the choice you made, the responsibility will still be your own.
Wishing that an inherent arsehole wouldn't behave like an inherent arsehole is highly likely to be a (potentially very damaging) waste of time (wish in one hand and shit in the other, see what one fills up first 🙈😂).

In many (most?) cases, it's not the vows that people didn't take seriously enough, it was their choice of partner they didn't take seriously enough.

Take out the religious element (and the "obey" clause) and you have a reasonable summary of the aspirations of those getting married if they are going into it seriously.

The fact that many fail merely shows we are all human.

@JasmineMac "(wish in one hand and shit in the other, see what one fills up first 🙈😂)."

Priceless and so astute !

So is this one - " it's not the vows that people didn't take seriously enough, it was their choice of partner they didn't take seriously enough."

Idk it just feels icky you expect the same life experience from a 21 year old as you would a 30/40 year old. Men are manipulative. They're nice until you marry them. Idk anyone who went yes this man is a horrible person, let’s get married. I think they just ignored red flags for reasons that were probably to do with low self esteem and loneliness. And I don’t feel comfortable laughing at women with these problems.

Yes, you are right unfortunately.
I increasingly see marriages that last 5-10 years that fall apart as soon as things get tough (moneywise, children, etc.) A friend of mine had an amazing and expensive wedding on some far-away island and 5 years later her DH was shagging a co-worker and basically kicked her out. Then so many women come in here moaning that they don't get help with childcare and so many people tell her to leave marriage as if this would solve childcare problems. Or married couples having totally separate finances where one person is considerably worse-off and has to "pay back" or "pay their share" all the time.
I read about a woman here who moaned that she was asked to cook - for the first time in her life - a Christmas family meal - and she didn't want to do that. For the love of my life, I could not understand why almost all the readers told her to LTB. I blame culture of individualism and cult of "me, me, me".

That's interesting.
But who took all the financial decisions before a woman got married? Not her father or another next-of-kin male? In which case I don't see how marriage changed anything. Marriage was often the only way a woman could step up in the society and have a better life. I can imagine it was really difficult for an average woman in the past to remain unmarried unless she was rich.

@Mischance "take out the religious element (and the "obey" clause) and you have a reasonable summary of the aspirations of those getting married if they are going into it seriously."

Is the 'obey' clause still there in religious weddings ?
I went to a Catholic Wedding recently and don't remember it being included.
I was married in a church (C of E) second time around (2008) and I asked for it to be removed and it was.

@CostadiMar "I can imagine it was really difficult for an average woman in the past to remain unmarried unless she was rich."

I imagine that was true but it was a lot safer not to marry !

The mortality rate for women dying in childbirth in the Victorian Era was very high.
Approximately 1 in 20 women died during childbirth, and around 25% of infants did not survive their first year, with an additional 20% facing mortality between ages 4 to 10.

And let's not forget, there was no pain relief for labour 😮

I don't get your argument.

The egg refusing further sperm after fertilisation is intended to stop multiple births, which are more risky for the mother. (As we know it doesn't always work because we get twins sometimes !)

What has that got to do with monogamy ??

Im talking about BEFORE fertilisation. In the window before and while she ovulates. She has like 5 days at best to get pregnant right? So if she’s having sex with multiple men in that time period (BEFORE the egg fertilises) then if a man wants to spread his genes, then a penis that sucks out other sperm and makes his priority is advantageous.

do you understand I mean BEFORE the egg is fertilised? Not after? I never meant after. I think this is where we’re confusing each other.

My parents (Spanish law) got a legal separation but never got divorced. As they didn´t want to marry again they didn´t see the point. All their assets are divided and the two new units are independent of each other. I guess that´s what the pp means, she may be from out of the Uk.

@confusedbydating
Where on earth are you getting this biology from? No disrespect to you but …. ??

Well im actually a feminist evolutionary psychology researcher so I read a range of texts.
There are 2 arguments put forward for monogamy, both have pros and cons.

1. men invest in women; men are promiscuous, women are choosey because of the investment of pregnancy - women are naturally monogamous
2. humans lived in tight tribes. Monogamy was not expected - everyone took care of everyone’s kids.

sex at dawn is great. Also the case against the sexual revolution. If you’re interested it’s fascinating. Would strongly advise you make your own judgements based on the evidence

Agreed. When life gets tough so many cop out these days. i think a lot of the time in the 'old days', there was definitely more fear to do with going to hell etc for committing adultery and other things that broke the vows. There is little to no fear now since less people are Christian i guess. i have noticed particularly American Christians do seem happier than most people so they must be doing something right!

Oh yes. Staying in a relationship that doesn't meet your needs out of fear is super healthy...

That's not what i meant, the whole point of marriage was to create a stable environment in which to raise a family. Morally, cheating or just abandoning your spouse because life got tough, they got ill etc woukd break that family unit so the best way to idiot proof that was the notion of 'going to hell' in order to keep them together through thick and thin.

Same as the 10 commandments, if you follow these you can't really go wrong in life. I have never been particularly religious but the bible has the right idea as a guide to life, i am realising this more and more as i get older.

We meant ours and they’ve been tested to destruction over the last 26 years. We’re in a period of testing in sickness and in health to the limit right now. We continue to love and cherish one another. Obviously I didn’t promise to obey because we both knew that wasn’t happening!

Sigh. Im replying to everyones commonly raised points here because i dont have time to reply individually.

I made a post about thinking wedding vows don't mean anything anymore because people so often break them. My point being in the post that we may as well do away with them all together at this point since nobody takes them seriously. (Yes I'm aware religions are not going to abolish them based on public opinion but people go out of their way to write their own vows and still break them regardless).

I make the point of it all just being one excuse to have a party. Telling someone in front of all of your family and friends that you will dedicate your life to a person then admitting you didnt actually mean it and just said it because you have to. Its all just very role-play to me. People will pay even more money to renew their vows and still go on to break them again after. Are they renewing their vows because they actually think they mean something? Are they confirming their retained commitment to their SO? Or is it just another excuse to have a party, like the initial wedding was?

I'd like to thank the people that have sufficient intellect to read an entire post without getting overly emotional and racing to the comments to berate the poster over things they clarified in the initial post. To those who gave the fresh new perspective that you should be able to leave a marriage in light of abuse, or unhappiness, or because things in life happen, thank you, but I did actually already state this in my OP, under the paragraph beginning with "disclaimer";

Disclaimer: I'm aware some people mean their vows and are happy in their marriage. Im aware there are circumstances that occur in life that make the bigger picture about survival, safety and happiness regardless of vows taken. Im aware of cultural and social influences on marriage and vows.

Has been interesting to read the comments thus far tbh. I dont think many people realise they agree with what im saying.

Me: vows are pointless we should abolish them
MN: you are being unreasonable nobody means there vows and theres no point in them

Guess some people just want to argue for the sake of it.

For those asking if im married, im not, I divorced due to being abused. So im definitely not arguing you should stay in an abusive marriage over vows. Though I did think at the time of my divorce how my ex partner vowed to 'love, honour and protect" me, yet ended up being the very thing me and my children needed protecting from. He broke his vows and I left the marriage. I tried tirelessly to work to make things change, but you cannot change an abuser. Before anyone comes for me by saying "oh, you didnt know abusers would lie on their wedding day as they do in their lives every other day? Jokes on you!" In aware that they are like this. It is not always apparent to a victim of abuse actively trapped in a cycle of craving their abuser's fake positive side.

I guess im just not the type of person to say things that I dont mean, and many others are the same. People here admittedly choose to say vows they dont mean, which is what confused me when agreeing to make such a long lifetime commitment to someone.

Im not telling anyone they cant get married wherever they want and say whatever they want during it. Im not the marriage police and im not trying to be, some people seemingly just take everything personally and cant have a conversation about something from a place of objectivity. Im simply posing the question of why, in an increasingly secular society, do people choose to get married in a religious building and exchange vows rooted in religion which they openly admit that they dont mean, especially if they are not religious to begin with. Its interesting that there was thread from yesterday about a woman who's husband lies about how grand he is and his achievements all time, all telling the OP to leave him. Some commenters also on this thread. You have an issue with lying, but dont see an issue with lying in your wedding vows at the very beginning of your marriage? And then go on to defend this contradiction. Weird really. It further evidences the fact that despite the man mentioned in this example clearly had deep rooted trauma from childhood, so many women in this situation would "bin" him instead of supporting him to get help. So many people would throw away a marriage because their partner is struggling instead of supporting them and working with them to help them to become a better person. Its hard, but life is hard, marriage is hard. Just seems in today's society people would sooner leave a marriage or relationship the second it isnt perfect anymore instead of bothering to work on it. What ever happened to that.

Again reiterating, if somebody doesnt seek help when they need to (i.e. in the case of lying all the time) then yes you should leave. Im aware people have to want to help themselves first, but it is my belief that if you agreed to make a lifelong commitment to them it is your duty to see what you can do to help them first. If they dont want it and refuse, fine, at least you tried. But why bother marrying someone just to run away at the first sign of problems? Do people just marry in the hopes of getting half the other person's shit when they inevitably divorce? It seems people set their own marriages up for failure sometimes with the belief that its going to end eventually anyway. Tragic state of affairs really and excuse me for feeling deflated at romance being dead.