SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-SoylentNews-ruining-your-marriage? dept.
Anthony D'Ambrosio writes at USA Today that marriage seems like a pretty simple concept — fall in love and share your life together. Our great-grandparents did it, our grandparents followed suit, and for many of us, our parents did it as well. So why is marriage so difficult for the millennial generation?
"You want to know why your grandmother and grandfather just celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary? Because they weren't scrolling through Instagram worrying about what John ate for dinner. They weren't on Facebook criticizing others. They weren't on vacation sending Snapchats to their friends." According to D'Ambrosio, we've developed relationships with things, not each other. "Ninety-five percent of the personal conversations you have on a daily basis occur through some type of technology. We've removed human emotion from our relationships, and we've replaced it colorful bubbles," writes D'Ambrosio. "We've forgotten how to communicate yet expect healthy marriages. How is it possible to grow and mature together if we barely speak?"
D'Ambrosio writes that another factor is that our desire for attention outweighs our desire to be loved and that social media has given everyone an opportunity to be famous. "Attention you couldn't dream of getting unless you were celebrity is now a selfie away. Post a picture, and thousands of strangers will like it. Wear less clothing, and guess what? More likes," writes D'Ambrosio.
"If you want to love someone, stop seeking attention from everyone because you'll never be satisfied with the attention from one person." Finally D'Ambrosio says the loss of privacy has contributed to the demise of marriage. "We've invited strangers into our homes and brought them on dates with us. We've shown them our wardrobe, drove with them in our cars, and we even showed them our bathing suits," writes D'Ambrosio. "The world we live in today has put roadblocks in the way of getting there and living a happy life with someone. Some things are in our control, and unfortunately, others are not."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Saturday April 11 2015, @05:09PM
How can you risk settling and settling down with someone who's only 85% of what you want when the 90% person could just be another profile or search away?
We're addicted to the newness and initial rush of new partners, and technology only enables that further.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday April 11 2015, @06:26PM
True. Many have made the perfect the enemy of the good.
Newer and better is believed to be just a temporary heartbreak away, and some will accept any amount of strife in their life (and impose it on those around them) for a minor (and temporary) upgrade.
The fallacy, of course, is that there is no such thing as the perfect mate.
Marriage was never intended to provide that, and never really did. I've never met a serial-dumper that ever ended up happy. There are at least three of these I've known for their entire adult life, having been classmates, or kin to them. True to form they are huge into social media, tweet everything and have several fake facebook accounts running. One carried a burner phone her husband didn't know about till she accidentally spilled her purse.
The guy/gal who dumped his/her wife/husband for you will do the same to you, usually before the 7 year clock runs out.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @06:38PM
Induction proof:
1) Whoever you pair up with it won't be perfect. (universe is imperfect as Hawkings has stated)
2) At any time you can look for a better match.
3) Because no matter how good match you may have (1) there will always be a better match (2) such that you will NEVER be satisfied or have any partner if you continuously think there's a better one.
Conclusion: Get real with perfect expectations of an imperfect universe and live with a optimal imperfection according to circumstances.
When all time is spent searching there will be no time to actually do something with what you may have right now.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theronb on Sunday April 12 2015, @05:41AM
This dilemma is not entirely new, although it has been much heightened by technology. When I was young (pre-Internet) I was exposed to Playboy and the idealized Playmate images. I soon figured out that a) real girls didn't look like that, and b) those who came anywhere close to that weren't interested in me. I "settled" for a real life woman who loves and have been happily married for many years, having decided that trading up was not productive or realistic. It's that decision that is called commitment and it is a conscious choice.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:06PM
You're also forgetting about one of medical science's greatest accomplishments: the Tranny.
These days, it's possible for a man to basically become a woman. His testes are pushed into the body to become her ovaries. His penis is inverted and pushed into the body to become her vagina. His glans is twisted back and placed above the new vaginal opening, creating her clitoris. His scrotal sac is split and becomes her labia.
The reverse is also possible. A woman can become a man, gaining a penis and scrotum. The ovaries are usually left in place, however, due to it being risky to move them. Prosthetic testes are often inserted into the crafted scrotum, however.
It's perfectly heterosexual for a man who was born a man and remains a man to get into a sexual relationship with a man who was born a man but who became a woman. It's also perfectly heterosexual for a woman who was born a woman and remains a woman to get into a sexual relationship with a woman who was born a woman but who became a man.
These sorts of relationships can actually be extremely stable, yet they are completely heterosexual and without the stigma that has been placed on same-sex marriages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:49PM
No it's not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:51PM
It is perfectly heterosexual. One partner is a man, one partner is a woman. That's the very definition of a heterosexual relationship.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by t-3 on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:56PM
Except that a surgery does not a man or woman make. You cannot change sex with a surgery. There's nothing wrong with being transgender, but don't try to act like the physical reality has changed just because you want it to. When a man can have surgery, be impregnated naturally, and give birth with no issues, and a woman can have surgery, impregnate someone naturally, and produce a child with no issues, THEN you can say a transgender person is whatever sex they wish. Now, people could certainly be more accepting of the condition, but you can't really blame anyone for the stigma attached to something which is, while being a naturally occurring condition, very unnatural.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:59PM
As a Ruby programmer, I apply the Duck Typing test to every object around, including physical objects. If it looks like a penis, and it feels like a penis, and it tastes like a penis, then it is a penis. Maybe it's a natural penis, or maybe it's a hand-crafted artisanal penis. The exact subtype of penis doesn't matter. It's still a penis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @06:27AM
You.must be fun to shop with. Especially in porn shops.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @12:06AM
Nothing is unnatural. Humans are part of nature, so how could what they do be unnatural? Furthermore, unnatural != bad, even if unnatural things did exist. And natural doesn't necessarily mean good, either.
but don't try to act like the physical reality has changed just because you want it to.
?
I assure you, plenty of physical things change when you go through those procedures. Some women can't give birth, so does that mean they're not True Women? And some men can't impregnate others, so are they not True Men? Your judgements seem completely arbitrary.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Sunday April 12 2015, @02:12AM
Dictionary definition of unnatural: contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal. Note that I never said anything about unnatural being bad, never said natural was better. I just said you can't expect people to readily drop their stigmas and uneasiness about the issue. I see that you've also tried to make call me out on a no-true-scotsman, but you're just being pedantic. The NORMALLY ACCEPTED STATE OF THINGS is that male + female copulation = non-0 chance of pregnancy and birth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:09AM
Dictionary definition of unnatural
Arbitrary.
I see that you've also tried to make call me out on a no-true-scotsman, but you're just being pedantic.
No, I'm saying the "normally accepted state of things" is arbitrary. As I said, plenty of women can't have kids. Plenty of men can't impregnate women. Are they not True Men and True Women, then? That's not just pedantry; that's pointing out inconsistencies. They have the right genitals, so why not?
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:46AM
No, the dictionary definition is based on the common present and historical usage of the word. Plenty of people are defective from a genetic standpoint: THEY ARE NOT NORMAL BY ANY COMMON USAGE OF THE WORD. NOT BEING NORMAL DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON. Another poster commented on shrimp, sure they are naturally hermaphroditic/change sex and all that, but they're also shrimp, not humans.
If your mental gender doesn't match your sex, that is unnatural per the above definition.
If you then have surgery to change your appearance, you cannot say that surgery changes your sex from male to female or vice versa unless the normally accepted reproductive capabilities of that sex can be anticipated as a consequence of that surgery.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @04:00AM
No, the dictionary definition is based on the common present and historical usage of the word.
Which is arbitrary.
THEY ARE NOT NORMAL BY ANY COMMON USAGE OF THE WORD.
Maybe not, but they also don't apply the logic of "Can't have children? You must not be a True Man/Woman!" when it comes to people with genetic defects.
If your mental gender doesn't match your sex, that is unnatural per the above definition.
We've already established that that definition is flawed and arbitrary, so whatever. Society is illogical when it comes to all sorts of things.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by hemocyanin on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:22AM
You know what is interesting -- sex change is actually a naturally occurring incident in nature. You may even have eaten some of those M-F sex-changing critters, at least if you like the larger sized shrimp.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/shrimp/identification.html [wa.gov]
It's no wonder god hates shrimp -- they're all M-F transexual cougars! http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ [godhatesshrimp.com]
So glad I have no god cause I sure do love spot prawns (and coonstripes and pinks, especially pinks -- small but so sweet).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:11PM
His testes are pushed into the body to become her ovaries.
Shhh, don't let the humans know about that technology yet. They're still injecting estrogen or taking it in pills, which is causing a problem with various fish species.
You are correct about the legal quagmire surrounding what happens post-op. Unfortunately this species hasn't evolved far enough for the average cisgender to wrap his or her mind around the possibility that the body part between their ears has a gender and sometimes that gender doesn't match their reproductive system from birth. Most of them believe gender transition is a desperate attention-grab or some kind of self-mutilation fetish.
Some of them even believe that gender transition is evidence of a demon coming from the burning hells, taking their son's form, killing their son, and attempting to summon demons Evil Dead style into their homes.
Granted, giving them that technology would go a long way towards ending transphobia and misogyny. However, the steering committee still wants to see whether the environmentalists will turn around to become transphobic and anti-contraceptive due to the estrogen in the water supply, for the lulz.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:04PM
Some of them even believe that gender transition is evidence of a demon coming from the burning hells, taking their son's form, killing their son, and attempting to summon demons Evil Dead style into their homes.
Unfortunately, yes, a large fraction of the American public (probably over 1/3) actually believes this kind of stuff, and similar things too. Just search on Amazon for books about "demon possession" and "angels". Many people today still believe stuff no different from the wacky stuff Christians believed in the days of Salem.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:01PM
Wow, your medical knowledge is rather pathetic. M-to-F people do not have their testicles turned into ovaries; that's quite impossible. What really happens is they have to take estrogen pills every day since their bodies don't naturally produce it. But yes, they do do some rather impressive reconstructive surgery.
The bad part about all this is that such people rarely actually "pass"; there's just too many other anatomical differences between men and women. Some of them, like the Adam's apple and the heavier brow on men, can be solved with surgery, but at what cost? Most people don't have $100K+ lying around to do all this stuff. Other things are impossible to change (with today's technology): hip size, shoulder size, hands/feet size, etc. And those are the things which tip people off.
Hopefully, one day, we'll have the ability to "reprogram" our bodies to look however we want, so people won't have to be stuck with bodies they're not really happy with or comfortable in. But we're still a ways off from that now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:29PM
Are you actually suggesting that labia crafted out of what was once scrotal tissue are not actually labia?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday April 12 2015, @02:30AM
A friend is trans, and she's an attractive woman (with *nice* non-fake tits) especially for being 60-something! What gives it away are the coarser hair (head hair, not body hair) at the nape of her neck, and the shape of the muscling in her calves, both still decidedly male. Most people never notice, but one mutual acquaintance twigged to it right away.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday April 12 2015, @02:50AM
Most people never notice
Most people don't notice because most people simply aren't very observant unless something is really obvious and out of the ordinary. Assuming you're a male, you could run around in a skirt and while a small minority of people might notice, most wouldn't at all, until you stood in front of them and pointed it out to them. People are just clueless and inobservant, in my experience. Now, if they're actually paying attention to something/someone (like if you're in a conversation with them), that's different, but just walking around in public, most people just aren't paying attention to other people around them.
Now if she's not detected by people even when they're in an extended face-to-face conversation with her, or other circumstance where they're around her for some length of time, that's impressive. However, it is hard to say if people can't tell, or if they're just being polite or simply don't care, and never say anything (because after all, isn't the ideal for someone like that to be able to live their life as a normal person of their new gender?).
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday April 12 2015, @04:02AM
In our crowd I know there's at least a few people who haven't noticed (yes, really!), and in my judgment the rest don't care -- you are what you present, and after all these years no one even pays attention. Cuz like you say, ideally let folks live their lives as they wish.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Sunday April 12 2015, @08:38PM
We're addicted to the newness and initial rush of new partners, and technology only enables that further.
The Ancient Greeks didn't have the same relationship model that the current Victorian-era marriage ushered in. Perhaps it is time to stop assuming that humans are life long pair bonding creatures, as the other apes whom we share over 90% of our DNA and thus heritage with are not life-long pair-bonding creatures either.
It's remarkable how unwilling humans seem to dismiss assumptions when it comes to themselves when one considers how fervently they advocate for unbiased study of nearly everything else.
Hypothesis: Social Media is causing Marriage Failure. Null Hypothesis: Correlation isn't causation. Alternate Hypothesis: The divorce statistics have gone higher as culture has punished humans less for indulging their natural desires; Evidence: The upward trend in divorce rates started decades before social media was invented.
In the past more people stayed married even after "cheating" than they do today. Further in the past such "cheating" was normal -- the ancient Greek word for "friend" also implied "with benefits"; Harems and orgies were common. Delve deeper into history and the concept of "marriage" didn't exist. Cultural ideals change faster than our genes, and thus our natural instincts are typically at odds with naive impositions such as the idyllic life-long marriages or the idiotic deeming of masturbation as sinful.
We're not "addicted" to newness, we've just become predisposed to promoting genetic diversity due to millions of years of evolution. It's not surprising that technology would accelerate any naturally existing trend. See also: The porn industry.