Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday April 11 2015, @05:02PM   Printer-friendly
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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:09AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:09AM (#169215)

    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

    by t-3 (4907) on Sunday April 12 2015, @03:46AM (#169228)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @04:00AM (#169232)

      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.