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.

"Would strongly advise you make your own judgements based on the evidence"

What evidence?

All I've read is a load of nonsense about a penis sucking up sperm.

And what has sex at dawn got to do with anything ? 🤔

Perfect example of people working at a marriage and I admire that. This is exactly what I meant by this.

If people are seriously unhappy and with no prospect of that changing, or are being abused, etc etc, nobody should expect them to stay over vows.

But if it is the case that your partner is struggling or is unwell etc etc, I never understand the contradiction of promising to care for them and be loyal to them only to leave because they dont want the stress of working on the marriage.

I dont agree with the 'obey' part of vows, which is why I omitted them from my own. I respect people who say what they mean and live with intent and purpose. If you don't mean it, why say it.

Two academic texts I referenced. Where that information is from. Like idk what other evidence you would like me to present? Nobody can prove 100% why the penis has its shape. They can argue a theory and back it with evidence, which the two authors do in these books. If you cba to read them you can google them and get a summary. Like it’s not my job to read for you

You haven't referenced any academic texts so don't get pissy with me and tell me I can't be arsed to read them if you haven't given out the information.

Are you OK ?

Most mammals procreate with a penis type of thing and a vagina type of thing. Some mammalian species are naturally monogamous and some are not. So you can't extrapolate anything from the means of reproduction.

Preventing a second sperm from fertilising the egg will mean that zygotes with supra-normal numbers of chromosomes are unlikely, hence increasing the probability of it developing further. That's a sensible female adaptation when it's very expensive for the female body to produce an egg and keep it up to the point of fertilisation, for a start.

Yes as I said - it’s one piece of compelling evidence in two distinct arguments. I recommended 2 books that examine both sides (both for and against female monogomany) and told people to make their own informed decisions.
This is one type of inference that has been used. The other is the study of hunter gatherers. And then egalitarianism and how that would apply to sex.
As I said, both arguments have pros and cons. If you’re interested (which you sound like you might be) the books I later mentioned were ‘Sex at Dawn’ and ‘The Case Against the Sexual Revolution.’

if it wasn’t clear that I am heavily biased from describing myself as a feminist scholar.

https://www.gov.uk/legal-separation

I’ve now given the titles twice in 2 diff posts man. I’m a bit tired of this, thank you for asking.
i don’t want to fight with you. An interesting area to me came up (marriage as a patriarchal construct) and I shared evidence (2 books) twice as part of an informed discussion. You’re being quite rude now. Please feel free to read the posts again for the book titles if you are genuinely interested in the arguments but if not then I wish you well with your day

Isn't the evidence from the palaeolithic that hominins were living in small groups of a few related adult males and larger number of unrelated adult females and their children? With females leaving their birth group and joining another upon maturity. Similar to modern gorillas?

Which is said to be an application of the same principle behind modern marriage - that the males need some form of assurance that the offspring they are caring/providing for are actually theirs.

(Obviously I am simplifying and condensing this for the purpose of posting on a casual discussion forum.)

Actually no. The evidence is groups of up to 150, which everyone stayed in. Sex at Dawn argues that within that, you would have one or two sexual partners which would strengthen bonds - if you died out hunting you had another person to care for your kids. Bonobos are our closest ancestors and they all have sex with each other and focus on sharing. in monkeys you get competition when resources are scarce but this actually isn’t the reality in nature - resources aren’t scarce and humans don’t own anything.
its not a perfect argument - things like abuse and rape exist which it doesn’t explain completely. But it’s interesting.

You didn't say that "Sex at Dawn" was a book or give the author or IBSN number. So how can anyone look it up?

You put it down as if it was a choice activity !

If you are a researcher you should be able to give clear references for what you are referring to.

Don't blame me for your lack of punctuation or ambiguous posts.

i apologise for the lack of clarity. We’re on Mumsnet not Athens but I will in future make clear I’m referring to texts.

for feedback on your behaviour, I would suggest softening your tone a bit. Not everyone wants to fight you. Some just want to discuss out there ideas with people who are interested politely.

Um, you're the one who's been having a go at people for not being able to decipher your ambiguous posts.

What has 'Athens' got to do with anything?

No-one can discuss ideas with you if we don't know what you are talking about.🙄

I understood you perfectly and also saw that research before. It is quite interesting.

I wish you well in your day. I have no interest in validating your false descriptions of events that only exist to serve a narrative where you are blameless and unable to infer information.

So please enlighten us about these "Sperm-sucking penises" - (or should that be 'penides' as it's a Latin noun ?) that the pp was talking about.

Thanks 🙂

Why are you making other people do your research for you? If you’re so interested in penis shapes google ‘evolutionary theories for penis shapes’. It’s literally that simple. You will be more entertained doing that than trying to get reactions here

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

Do people actually take such vows though?
I got married several decades ago, still married. We didn’t have anything about for richer/poorer, in sickness/health, honour or obey in our vows. That’s all a load of twaddle so we didn’t say any of that. We were very realistic and our, extremely short, vows reflected that. Still happily married several decades on, but we didn’t take that as a given when we got married.

Which traditional vows? Every major faith would consider its vows to be at least long established and probably “traditional” but they vary wildly. My lot for instance, had no truck with “obeying” in wedding vows which the CofE would consider a “traditional” vow. Then of course the legal contract entered into by the stating of those vows also varies wildly by jurisdiction.

I was born in the 60s - I can remember as a child complaints that “people” were not taking marriage seriously any more. What they meant in practice was that women were no longer forced to stay with feckless, bullying and/or faithless men. There was no shortage of infidelity, fecklessness and abusive marriages then, it was simply much harder for women in particular to leave them. As late as the 1990s marital rape was still entirely legal and married women had no right to private money until the 80s. Women were deserted by husbands on receiving terminal illness diagnoses when I was a child - people might have disapproved then as now but it happened.

If you were to say that pre-marriage counselling would help more people enter marriage with a realistic mindset I’d agree. If you were to say that for some couples the wedding is so overblown people lose sight of the marriage I’d agree but point out that this isn’t new - I definitely remember overblown weddings which ended in early divorce when I was younger. However I see no evidence that couples enter marriage with less intent of commitment now than when I was a child.

I agree, but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing.

Yes, it is unspeakably shit if someone leaves you when you're terminally ill. But I like that people aren't necessarily sticking to "for better or worse, till death do us part" and/or feeling trapped by vows.

For example, my ex cheated and was emotionally abusive, and I divorced him. I wasn't sticking around "for better or worse". But I delayed the divorce due to a highly religious background and upbringing.

That being said, I'm not getting married again - and the vows were one of the things that originally put me off - I thought "those vows are meaningless, I will 100% leave it I'm miserable for whatever reason".

This certainly hasn’t been my experience. My parents got married in the 70s. I don’t think there were any affairs, but it was my dad’s second marriage and it wasn’t very healthy. They divorced 10 years later. My mum eventually re-married, 3 marriages between them - none of them healthy or functional. Ah, the good ole days! That certainly describes a lot of the marriages I know of in my parents’ generation. Not all of them ended in divorce, but I can’t think of many that were healthy and happy. The ones that are still married, a few of them on 2nd marriages or third, are simply biding their time waiting for their awful husbands to die so that they can finally live their lives. They’re in their 70s now. Clinging on to a dying marriage is no way to live a full and fulfilling life.

I’m in my 40s and I can’t think of a single close friend who has had an affair or gotten a divorce. Yes, I know some divorced people, but those relationships were car crashes to begin with. Most of us are 15-20 years in, very happy, very committed with partners who carry the load and support our careers. I’m living with advanced cancer, possibly incurable, and Dh has made it such that I don’t have to worry about returning to work. He runs around doing the school runs and taking dc to sports so I can rest. Very definition of in sickness and in health.

It isn't that new - this was top of the google and is from 2009
Gender disparity in the rate of partner abandonment in patients with serious medical illness - PubMed

From a Christian/ biblical perspective, you are fully released from your marriage vows if your husband is unfaithful. I am sorry you had to go through this. If my husband was unfaithful, I don't think I could stay with him/ trust him. So you did honour the vows that you made. He did not.

My late medical consultant husband, told me also, that men very often abandon wives who are extremely poorly.