I really don't see the use in waiting until marriage. If you are in a stable relationship, why not enjoy some intimacy?

>>57242
Religious and misogynist indoctrination are the most common reasons listed by the posters in the reddit thread. The good thing is they were all thrown away the moment the divorcees realized what was actually best for them.

>>57241
i struggle with this. it makes no sense because i'm a lesbian, but i just don't feel comfortable having sex with someone who is not 100% commited.

>>57256
You can't be 100% committed to a future you don't know.

>>57256
It's just heartbroken people wanting others to feel their pain.

having an experienced person (including sex and dating) at your side for life is superior to having a virgin, because if they picked YOU then you know the love is true. rather than your virgin lover with puppy syndrome

>>57257
You're right. But it makes me uncomfortable that they might just up and leave if this future is a bit different if we are just dating? like for me there are 4 tiers of trust, last being marriage and since there is something tangible about their love and willingness to stick around i think that's where i will feel safer about the commitment, baring life changing events that might affect the future such as death or disability.
Of course, this is kind of null with divorce being a thing. It's more of a mental feeling of "you agreed to spend your life with me, and now i feel comfortable being the most intimate with you". One that i maybe should work on since most gay people aren't waiting for marriage and i might end up alone.

>>57264
It makes me uncomfortable the idea that I wouldn't be allowed to just up and leave if the future turned out something unacceptable for me. Feels like marriage is a trap designed to keep me prisoner after deceiving me with lies and unkept promises, I would commit murder to get out of a situation like that. I am real glad divorce exists and and I will never agree to spend my life with anyone unconditionally, my being together with anyone depends entirely if my conditions are always respected. If any of my conditions are broken the deal is off, period. It's not a matter of now; it's a matter of 2, 5, 10 years in future or more. I don't know what will happen in the future and I don't want to find myself tied to a situation that is not what I originally agreed to. Blind faith in something you have zero control over is akin to playing russian roulette with a loaded gun, no thanks.

>>57269
The nice thing about breaking up/leaving while not married is that there's no lawyers involved and no private property stolen.

>>57241
I've had sex with the better part of 100 people for a reason: if you have only had sex with 5 guys in your life, each guy is 20% of your entire sexual experience. If you have sex with 100 people, each guy only has a 1% share. After getting rid of my high school bf (who was horrible at sex but I didn't know any better) I fucked as many guys as possible to dilute his 'share'. Now he is only a distant memory, only a small fraction of my sexual resume.

Knowledge is power. Why would it be different for carnal knowledge? Now I know good sex from bad sex, good penis from bad penis. I am a afficionado of penis.

>>57260
This seems like advice meant for heterosexual men, not women.

I don't think males have that virgin puppy love syndrome, since if they did then I would expect to hear at least a noticeable but small minority of sexually experienced women voice a preference for virgin male lovers (emphasis on lovers, not necessarily long term relationships, more "if you need a rebound get a virgin for a few months and dump him when/if it sours"). The reality is that fuckboys are preferred for a three month affair. In real life the only two varieties of women I hear saying that they'd like to date virgin men are women who are deeply mentally ill, and women who are virgins themselves–and in neither case does it seem like it is an actual preference that translates to meatspace, more of a fanfiction preference. If virgin males were capable of puppy love syndrome then there would be at least one single charm point about them, in at least one single context. There is not.

In the second place, being picked by a sexually experienced man means nothing, either. For example:
>>>/feels/6181
>my mom's pedophile brother who used to kiss me as a child had a heart attack last night and needs surgery, but he cant get it because the nurse ripped his corkscrew artery. He raped a 15 year old girl in 2011, blamed her, is completely broke and cant take care of his 10 kids and 3 ex wives or 1 current wife, but he keeps trying to get me to live with him in south korea and adopt me. I guess he finally took the hint and started ignoring me since last christmas. He's been killing himself by eating mountains of greasy fast food daily and gained 200 lbs presumably with guilt for years, but everyone pretends he's so innocent for some reason and they keep expecting me to care, but I'm really hoping he dies soon.
3 ex wives and 1 current wife is a fine and possibly above-average resume of fully consensual adult sexual partners. Being picked by this man didn't and shouldn't make anon feel any better than being picked by any other scumbag.

>>57284
Big lmao, needed this for the day.

wat

>>57284
Lol rejection cope

>>57303
None? people are just discussing theirs povs

>>57303
Honestly the idea that marriages can go bad is part of the problem. People didn't even think about marriage in those terms in the past. As an institution it's a round peg being and society is a square hole. There's simply none of the social infrastructure to support it anymore, I've given up hope at this point. It's dead and our attempts to revive it are just killing it more.

>>57309
Marriage can go bad and "in the past" women were simply abused and forced to stay prisoners if the marriage turned bad. People change, situations change, death to the idea that a woman should be forced to stay with a man or a situation that changes for the worse.

>>57401
I'd truly never advocate and wish for some one to stay in an unsalvageable and abusive relationship but divorce is terrible, it's essentially the equivalent of getting a mildly aggressive form of cancer. It financially ruins a family, the distress leads to a similar amount of deaths and just the general emotional distress and instability it causes.
It's also one of the most common triggers for teens first bipolar episodes.

There's definitely a down side to forcing some one to stay in a terrible and abusive relationship but there's downsides for not insisting marriage is important.

>>57309
I think marriage should purely be a religious agreement and have nothing to do with the state. The Amish have a really successful community with not many horror stories, 95% of the 18 year olds that leave for rumspringa return as well and there aren't really any horror stories like other religions, unless some fucked up old bastard gets into a position of power in their community, but usually that gets handled from what I understand.

>>57401
>>57403
One of my friends had a civil wedding (as opposed to a religious wedding) and refused to speak any vows at her wedding because she thinks those things are bullshit. She says marriage is good as long as the man doesn't take you for granted and knows he must actively keep the relationship alive, kinda like an employee who knows he's going to lose his job if he doesn't meet the regular KPIs. It's no coincidence she has extremely good work ethic.

Her parents used to give her that "divorce is bad" talk too until they shut up for good when she had enough and asked do they prefer murder instead, because she's not staying in a marriage she doesn't want to stay no matter what.

>>57405
There's something to appreciate about social rituals that makes a more traditional wedding interesting to me, Christianity has been gutted of any real cultural substance in the US and I'm an atheist anyways so I have no idea what I'd do if I ever got married though

>>57406
I disagree. Social rituals that perpetuate bad ideas like "marriage is for life" should be done away with, it just sets people up for disappointment when their delusions clash with reality.

>>57407
Nothing's stopping you from having wedding vows or some other ritual and still getting divorced. If you're in a relationship you probably do certain gestures to signal your affection that aren't completely rational but work dur to cultural context but that doesn't mean you're suddenly enslaved to your SO

>>57408
Due to*

>>57407
>Nothing's stopping you from having wedding vows or some other ritual and still getting divorced
That's because people in the past have fought against those wedding vows and what they entailed. Before people (women and also men) started speaking critically of marriage and wedding vows, those words did mean exactly that, that a woman is suddenly enslaved to her SO. I admire those people and I agree with them, I'm not going to do something I find unacceptable and hypocritical.

>>57405
Good thing I still have a sense of compassion. I may not have a lot of things, but I'm glad I still feel sympathy for other people.

>>57410
I'm not prescribing for you how you should view marriage, if certain rituals are totemic of the patriarchy to you, you should avoid them. The idea that someone can't say wedding vows or something without internalizing misogyny isn't true though and it seems to me that renouncing all ritual surrounding marriage because you see it as a concession to the patriarchy is a bit much

>>57413
I said nothing about other people, I speak for myself and what I believe in.

>renouncing all ritual surrounding marriage is a bit much
Nah it's not. I'm grateful people spoke up for me before because it means if I ever get married, my marriage will be exactly like I want it, not like third parties want it.

>>57415
I mean you specifically said that rituals that perpetuate certain ideas should be done away with which I took to mean that you were making a normative statement about how others should behave. I guess that is true though in the sense that you're specifically picking out rituals that symbolize ideas that are detrimental but my point is that what ideas social customs represent are flexible and too a degree within the control of its participants. Finally when I say that divorcing yourself from all social custom is a bit much I mean it in the sense that you seem viserally opposed to the rituals surrounding marriage whereas a saner reaction in my view would be simple distaste although it seems like the way that the conversation has panned out we've only really been talking about contemporary American Christian rituals which are dogshit in the sense that they aren't really rooted in an actual cultural tradition while also still being vaguely totemic of socially conservative bullshit

>>57413
Rituals do perpetuate certain detrimental ideas, that's an undeniable fact. I've witnessed too many a comment from bad people where a woman was criticized for choosing divorce because "What about her vows?! She's so disgusting/All women are whores blah blah blah blah". These bad people don't care to understand the situation that led to those words being meaningless, they actually take the ritual for sacred and are offended when it's not treated as sacred at all. These rituals are weapons bad people use to oppress women, I don't want to give those people any ammo.

Others are free to behave however they please, if they like saying a stock phrase they can, so long as they recognize those words don't wield any actual power and people are free to leave anytime they please, themselves included. What I mean is: if two people believe in what they say at their wedding that's their choice, but if the crowd surrounding them believes in what they say too and, when things go bad, holds their words against them and against me because they expect me to believe the same, that's what I am against.

>my point is that what ideas social customs represent are flexible
They were made flexible, at the price of isolation and imprisonment of the political activists who worked to make them flexible and malleable. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_marriage.

There's people out there who would love to make them rigid and inflexible again.

>>57241
>If I had someone I wouldn't be opposed to marrying, I would want to live with him and have sex with him before marriage
I don't understand, isn't the default to be opposed to marriage? Once you stop being opposed to marriage, what exactly stops you from getting married other than time? Unless, are you stating that you wouldn't want to have sex with someone until they proposed?

>>57419
Why say the words if you don't believe them? No one is holding the married couple at gun point to utter vows. The entire point of taking a vow is that both parties recognize it as such, a vow. If they don't want the commitment of vows, just fill out a form and mail it in to the government. The entire point of a marriage ceremony is a public event for witnessing a cultural contract exchange between parties. Don't want a contract exchange? Don't act like you're giving one.

>bad people
Ah, yes, we wouldn't want bad people doing bad things would we?

>>57421
>Why say the words if you don't believe them?
Exactly. I don't believe them, so I won't say them. Other people though might believe them in the moment and later realize they made a mistake, or they might say them because of peer pressure they are too afraid to rebel against, or they know they're meaningless so who cares, there's multiple reasons for doing something. When a woman realizes she made a mistake saying that bullshit my reaction is to help her divorce, correcting that mistake and getting better with her life. Bad people's reaction is to keep her stuck in her mistake.

>>57421
>>57424
Also
>If they don't want the commitment of vows, just fill out a form and mail it in to the government
Thanks to political activism, there's civil weddings or justice of the peace weddings which are effectively a ceremony to give people something to celebrate (because humans like to celebrate what they perceive to be good things in the moment) but entail none of the vows bullshit traditional weddings retain.

>>57427
Problem is even that hot and charming dude might turn out or become an asshole who doesn't care while you stress yourself to burnout trying to do what he doesn't. Before the wedding he can make all the promises he wants but you have no guarantee he will keep them, and if he doesn't, it's you who's screwed. Fuck that. Make him afraid to lose you, and if he doesn't care, leave him, marriage or no marriage.

I just want to say domestic abuse is absolutely terrible and while I haven't experienced it first hand I've seen a lot of others that have. No one should suffer through that and there are definitely scenarios where divorce should not only be allowed but probably also enforced.

But I feel like this ran away in a really negative direction really fast. With the general census seeming to believe that marriage is a tyrannical institution hell bent on enslaving women by male dominated societies. It almost seems pointless to even write anything else about the topic with that in mind, but here it goes.

I believe there's some really important ideas I think about when I think about topics like this…
Life is hard. It's always been hard. Before the industrial and scientific revolutions you essentially had to constantly ensure your food supply. You were always one failed crop away from a potential famine, you were always one failed crop away from literal starvation and death. Even with all the insane advancements humans have created to lighten the burden, life is still fucking hard. Having children was hard, they died regularly, you tried to have a lot because they died really regularly. There was no hospital you could go to if you miscarriaged, went into breach or were anemic and bled out. Even getting pregnant was hard, even getting pregnant was a concern for your life. When life was this hard, if some one in a relationship, especially with children, wanted to leave because maybe they just weren't feeling it anymore or became interested in some one else(which both of these concerns seem to be cause for divorce far more often than domestic abuse) the consequences of this were much more severe than what would happen now. Back then it was likely death if you got divorced plus all the other terrible things, not because some assholes wanted to force their morals on you in an honor killing, but because you'd likely starve to death or because some one thought you were vulnerable and weak enough to take from. Getting divorced now doesn't result in nearly the amount of consequences, because life is easier. If you get divorced now people will regularly be met with financial ruin, negative states of emotion and some unhappy kids BUT it's DEFINITELY survivable.

From my perspective(which could be wrong), tyrannical societal structures has had little to do with what people could and couldn't do IN COMPARISON TO the intense struggle of living life. Meaning we live in a pretty easy going time that gives us the freedom to do more of the things that we actually want to do without having to worry about negative consequences.

If marriage and having children was truly terrible, rich people wouldn't be doing it, but they actually do it at higher rates than poor people. And I doubt rich people are trying to oppress themselves.

As I see marriage currently, it is something that is emotional, and emotions are unstable. By having an institution of marriage to give some structures to those emotions it helps bring stability, not oppression. Marriage is an abstract concept though, it can literally be anything you want it to be. There is no magical harry potter death curse to ensure that you die upon a failed promise. There is no true divine to hold you to these standards, zues won't come and strike you with lightning to prove you wrong anymore.

>>57429
>>57430
Forgot about adding in the strict courting rituals men and women both were expected to engage in.

Not that it matters too much to point out, but there are reasonable ways to go about determining if some one is a piece of shit or not. The worst part of this is that it takes a lot of time and social skills people generally aren't equipped with to determine that.

>>57430
Rich people pioneered divorce though. Divorce was already available to the masses before christianity, and after christianity, it wasn't a random peasant that defied the Pope when he had the power to get people killed for defying him, it was Henry VIII. And it wasn't the working class that pioneered divorce for everyone (not just aristocracy) with the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act, it was the wealthy and influential British bourgeoisie. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 and the Divorce Reform Act 1969 made divorce reasonable for women and coincide with women gaining power and wealth in society at a mass level. Rich people divorce more than poor people because they have more possibilities than poor people, and I hate the hypocrisy that "marriage is good, you should love your husband" is something pushed even if you have to marry to eat. It's the same disgusting bootlicker view that thinks workers should be "grateful" to have a job. Fuck that, employers should be grateful there's people willing to use their time and abilities to help them make a profit.

Also you omit that people, women especially, were rushed into marrying because a free single woman was unacceptable for the society you talk about. It is a modern feminist conquest that a woman can live all her life without either marrying or becoming a nun (and nuns are the brides of christ so it's still a marriage lol) and not be treated worse for it. There were strict court rituals in Jane Austen's time and women still fought for better because no ritual is good enough if you find yourself trapped in a situation you can't escape with a whole society of jailers.

This part:
>there are reasonable ways to go about determining if some one is a piece of shit or not
Shows you don't get it. A man doesn't have to be a piece of shit to be the wrong man. He can simply be someone you don't want to be with, maybe someone you don't want to have sex with anymore because you don't like having sex with him, or someone who has developed annoying habits you don't tolerate. Are you willing to tell men they should stay in a sexless marriage for the rest of their lives? Are you willing to tell women they should just get raped by their husbands to save their marriage, or they should just suffer in silence because yes? Pretending there's no problem doesn't make the problem disappear.

>>57434
Fuck am I really going to have to go into communism now? Again in my original points, Freedoms that people have been afforded have largely been due to the creation of wealth through inventions and innovations. Not because people fought for them, though that is a necessary step. But without the former you're just trading one tyranny for another and that's not progress. Nothing you've pointed out has made any of my ideals become inconsistent. As I've said, life is hard and the rich are to be the first ones able to afford making bad decisions(not that it gives it any level of moral justification). And it should follow that as society becomes richer, it too can afford to make more bad decisions but also afford more freedoms(irrelevant but I feel the need to point out I believe this shouldn't be used as a justification to stop society from growing richer). Also, not that I care in the slightest about the church, I'm pretty sure the church was pissed at king henry the 8th and this also aligns with my ideal that it's more the fact wealth changes things, not tyrannical patriarchal social constructs because |rich people > church of tyranny|.

>Shows you don't get it.
Shows how disgustingly rude and dismissive you are, by assuming that my entire belief system is encapsulated in 2 simple posts on an increasingly shittier website.

By the way, communism was only created because Russia missed the boat the rest of the western world was on when it started to violently overthrow the monarchies(which women also had a hierarchy within). And it's a flaming pile of shit.

But to stay on track(commence more sarcasm) Yeah obviously I totally think it's reasonable to completely disregard another human being because in that moment I'm not enjoying their company and it's really obvious there's NOTHING reasonable that can be done to resolve interpersonal relationship issues, humans are suppose to biologically be dead by 40 anyway! Which I believe just so happens to coincide with when males start gaining the most benefits from their financial stability and work. Maybe we should create a new defining line for the bourgeoisie to be 40 year olds, it would definitely handle the pesky boomers who have been destroying society(actually not sarcasm). Are your parents over 40? We can start with them, send them to the gulag so their labor can contribute back to the state they stole it from. Honestly I'm pretty sure I'm a rape apologist for even entertaining the idea of marriage in any form. What a useless idiot I am!

The funniest thing is to portray the harsh realities of life in my original post I entertained the idea of posting imagines of the Russian famines, but they're so grotesque It's likely I'd be banned. Oh also I've made 4 posts in this thread alone, I'm sure that's totally enough to encompass my entire world view now.

>>57435
I never once said the word patriarchy in any of my posts, you brought it up. Wealth changes things but if you are not allowed to accumulate wealth said change will never reach you, too. Guess who wasn't allowed to open and own a personal bank account until the 1970s. Women had to protest and fight in the political arena in the '70s to gain the right to open a bank account without their husband’s permission. That's what I mean when I say that people fought for them.

I have no idea why you're bringing up communism now. Is it because I think workers deserve rights and dignity? Fucking hell unions started under robber barons in the USA, there's nothing communist about wanting workers to have rights. It is because I used the word bourgeoisie to describe the wealthy British upper class of the 1800s? That's what it's called, sorry the word triggers you.

>making bad decisions
Nobody possesses a crystal ball to see into the future. Everyone is bound to make bad decisions at some point of life. My idea is that bad decisions happen and shouldn't be used as excuse to hold people back, rather people should be helped correct their mistakes and move on. Divorce is not a bad decision; the failed marriage was a bad decision, divorce is the good decision to correct a mistake and move on with your life. Not once I said people should jump to divorce immediately, but if communicating your problems falls on deaf ears, your partner is already disregarding you so I don't see why you're so hellbent on making someone stay with a person who doesn't care.

>>57436
>My idea is that bad decisions happen and shouldn't be used as excuse to hold people back
They should though.

I feel like the majority of people in this thread don't understand that the societal intent of marriage is securing inheritance and reproduction rights, anything else is secondary. Marriage isn't about the people in the marriage, it's about the children produced by the pairing and the responsibilities involved. Any other notion or romantic association with the concept only comes from society's incredibly individualistic focused zeitgeist at the moment.

>>57470
Said the person listening to society about how individualistic she should be. What separates a couple that isn't married with a couple that is married apart from legal and reproduction rights?

>>57470
You're still gonna pay taxes and earn money for corporations.

>>57470
The fact you can speak English tells me that you've already been programmed by society by a great deal. Why not speak a unique language?

>>57457
No, they shouldn't.

>>57465
>Marriage isn't about the people in the marriage
Yes it is. The people in the marriage are the ones who have to live the marriage, not the rest of society. The rest of society therefore has no right to speak about what people do with their marriage, as the rest of society isn't the one suffering because of a bad marriage. As much as the rest of society likes to pretend a problem doesn't exist, people still suffer and will resort to violence to stop their suffering. The rest of society is responsible for and deserves that violence.

>>57475
>>57475
>I don't even have any ties to society.
You were raised by wolves?! Please tell me more I'm really interested in this.

>It doesn't matter what separates them, who the fuck cares what couples do if it makes them feel better?
Society does, when a couple enjoys killing other people for an absolute minimum.

>I am trilingual. I write in english on this imageboard so you can understand, retard.
Did you invent any of those languages, or were you taught how to use any of those languages?

>>57476
>Yes it is. The people in the marriage are the ones who have to live the marriage, not the rest of society.
And? That has nothing to do with what marriage is, nor it's intent.
>The rest of society therefore has no right to speak about what people do with their marriage, as the rest of society isn't the one suffering because of a bad marriage.
The concept of a marraige doesn't exist outside of society. Marriage is a purely social construct. It means absolutely nothing without a society around it to enforce it. If only two people exist and no one else, marriage doesn't exist. Exclusivity only makes sense in the context of a group dynamic.
>As much as the rest of society likes to pretend a problem doesn't exist, people still suffer and will resort to violence to stop their suffering.
Completely true, desperate people do desperate things. Still has nothing to do with what a marriage is.
>The rest of society is responsible for and deserves that violence.
Of course they are, though this actually gets more into government then society has government has the monopoly on violence and needs to enforce it's monopoly on violence.

>>57475
>is a neet
>talks about not being tied to society
If it isn't Karla Marx. lmao
>>57476
>no they shouldn't
Yes, they should, and they always will. You'll never change the truth.

>>57478
Did you teach yourself what trolling is, or did you have to observe other people doing it?

>>57482
It does have to do with the other femanons in this thread. That's why I didn't include OP.

>>57480
>disagree with me?
>MOID
Seriously. Believing people shouldn't face the consequences of their actions doesn't suddenly make it a law of the universe. It'll still happen.

>>57477
>That has nothing to do with what marriage is, nor it's intent.
That has everything to do with what marriage is and it's intent. The people who live in the marriage decided what their marriage is and what is its intent, no one else. Why? Because those who aren't in the marriage aren't living the consequence of said marriage, therefore they have no right to speak.

>The concept of a marraige doesn't exist outside of society.
False. One, there's never only one society, two, an individual can come up with her definition of her marriage that is not what the rest of society thinks. That's what feminists did when they started criticizing marriage, and these individuals formed their own society with their own definition of marriage.
>desperate people do desperate things. Still has nothing to do with what a marriage is
False again. If the cause of desperation is the marriage, your idea of what marriage is - is wrong and must be changed.
>Of course they are, though this actually gets more into government
Not at all. Bad parents who wanted to oppress their daughters with unwanted marriages have been left to die alone in agony as punishment for being bad parents. Bad husbands have been murdered by their wives and innocent wives have been murdered by their husbands who wanted to get rid of them. Anyone is capable of violence if pushed far enough.

>>57479
>Yes, they should, and they always will
Guess you missed the last two centuries of feminist conquests.

>>57485
What consequences to what actions? We're talking marriage and divorce here, why should there be bad consequences at all to a good decision like divorce can be?

>>57487
But they can, and will. You can't just do wrong expect nothing to happen. That's the complete opposite of a society.

>>57488
Three centuries now.

>>57490
Divorce is doing right, not doing wrong. And yes, women have the right to expect nothing bad happen to their person when they divorce, as they are not doing anything wrong. Oppressive people are the ones who should expect consequences for their actions, for example, oppressive families deserve to be abandoned, oppressive husbands deserve to be murdered. And yes, that's a legal defense too, the battered woman syndrome emerged as a legal defense in the 1990s as a result of several murder cases in England involving women who had killed violent partners in response to what they described as cumulative abuse rather than in response to a single provocative act.

>>57486
>That has everything to do with what marriage is and it's intent. The people who live in the marriage decided what their marriage is and what is its intent, no one else. Why? Because those who aren't in the marriage aren't living the consequence of said marriage, therefore they have no right to speak.
Rights don't exist in the absence of government enforcing them, likewise, marriage also doesn't exist without government enforcing it's regulation. Any self-determining qualia of a marriage that doesn't have to do with legal inheritance and reproductive rights has nothing to do with the marriage, only the relationship of the people inside the marriage. Two people that hate each other that are married are still married, two people that love each other that are married are still married. Now, it's possible that, quite like your understanding of marriage, they mistakenly thought it was "an expression of love" or something similar. Instead, they quickly find out that a marriage doesn't really change anything about a relationship to the two people involved, only how society treats them for legal purposes.
>False. One, there's never only one society, two, an individual can come up with her definition of her marriage that is not what the rest of society thinks.
You say that, but if someone in the US attempted to marry 2 women they wouldn't be married now would they? Likewise, you going to some African backwater and getting angry at polygamists would be equally comical. What "is" a marriage is purely defined by society, and no matter which society you go to, anywhere on this planet, the purpose of a marriage involves legal processes for inheritance, and reproduction rights. Anything gained from a marriage after this fact isn't about the marriage, it's about people's feelings about the marriage, which is a completely separate topic.
>Not at all. Bad parents who wanted to oppress their daughters with unwanted marriages have been left to die alone in agony as punishment for being bad parents. Bad husbands have been murdered by their wives and innocent wives have been murdered by their husbands who wanted to get rid of them. Anyone is capable of violence if pushed far enough.
I 100% agree with you, anyone is capable of violence. That has nothing to do with the point I made, you said people who suffer will do violent things, I agree. I then stated the obvious fact it's the governments role to regulate who is allowed to use violence and when. Yes, people are violent, yes, people will do violent things, regulating that violence has little to do with marriage.

>>57492
Getting married to someone who clearly isn't a good person is what's wrong. If you make that bad decision, there will always be a consequence. This is why marriages usually have families involved with each other before any ceremony is brought up. It's up to your judgement to make sure they're a suitable candidate, if you're alone.

>>57492
>Oppressive people are the ones who should expect consequences for their actions, for example, oppressive families deserve to be abandoned, oppressive husbands deserve to be murdered.
I didn't know someone could get married against their will. As far as I can tell both parties have to consent to being in a marriage. Even if one party tricks the other, both will experience consequences for the choices they made getting into the current situation.
>And yes, that's a legal defense too, the battered woman syndrome emerged as a legal defense in the 1990s as a result of several murder cases in England involving women who had killed violent partners in response to what they described as cumulative abuse rather than in response to a single provocative act.
You are correct this legal defense helps them escape any legal consequences of their poor choices, however, the emotional consequences of being abused, let alone murdering someone, will never go away.

If you give your entire center of power to the "oppressors", you have no ability to make moral choices of your own.

>>57493
>Rights don't exist in the absence of government enforcing them
And who forces any government to enforce rights if not the people interested in those rights?

>likewise, marriage also doesn't exist without government enforcing it's regulation
Somalia and other such government-less societies prove you wrong. There's no government there but authoritarian families still sell their daughters for marriage, in fact they can force marriage to be slavery precisely because there's nobody to hold them accountable for their crimes.

>Any self-determining qualia of a marriage that doesn't have to do with legal inheritance and reproductive rights has nothing to do with the marriage
Legal inheritance, separation of property, a private economy and reproductive rights are the first thing feminists fought for during the first wave back when marriage was legalized slavery, and have been continuously fought for since then. We are all building on that.

>If someone in the US attempted to marry 2 women they wouldn't be married now would they?
Mormons marry multiple wives. Mormon communities in the US are full of polygamy to the point they're a hotbed of genetic disorders and I don't see the US government doing anything about it.

>Likewise, you going to some African backwater and getting angry at polygamists would be equally comical
That's what organizations for women's empowerment do and there's nothing comical about it. Their work changes lives.

>What "is" a marriage is purely defined by society
If that were the case the idea of marriage wouldn't have changed thanks to feminist activist protesting against an oppressive definition they did not agree with. Society is made of individuals, and individuals can and do come up with their own definitions, that's how society changes.

>no matter which society you go to, anywhere on this planet, the purpose of a marriage involves legal processes for inheritance, and reproduction rights
For whom does it involve all this is what changes though. In the civilized world it involves those things for the individual, so individual rights are protected and the individual is not abused.

I was raised very Christian and intended to save my V-card for marriage, but threw it away as soon as I found a bf I really liked. I did some thinking and realized that on my theoretical wedding day, I wasnted to have good sex and it wouldn't be good if I had no experience, so no harm in getting some practice in now.
I'm far from getting married but if I did I would want to live with my future husband for a few years and really know if things would work between us before going through with it. Maybe I'm just naive, but I still like to daydream about having a comfy married life, cooking meals and growing a herb garden with a man I love. There's lots of possible negative sides to marriage but my parents had a good one and still go on dates together and love each other, so that gives me some hope for myself.

>>57494
>Getting married to someone who clearly isn't a good person is what's wrong
You still don't get it. A man can be a good person and still not be the right man for you. While he wasn't a bad person at the time of the marriage, he will become a bad person over the course of the marriage, as a result of the irreconcilable differences between you two. How do you propose people foresee irreconcilable differences they could not possibly know existed before the marriage?

>If you make that bad decision, there will always be a consequence
Glad the society I live in doesn't think this way.

>This is why marriages usually have families involved with each other before any ceremony is brought up
That's useless to the individual if the involved families don't care for the individual's interest. Religious families are the best example of this in the US, where families force two people to marry just because it's what the families demand.

>>57496
>I didn't know someone could get married against their will.
You never heard of young people being pressured and blackmailed into marriage by their families? Shotgun weddings are a staple in the backwards parts of the US.

And no, people aren't forced to suffer emotional consequences either. You too must have noticed therapy has become accepted in society.

>>57500
>And who forces any government to enforce rights if not the people interested in those rights?
The people inside the government who want to stay in power. You can have an abortion whether it's legal or not, the only difference is if you'll face negative consequences for your choice. If you happen to be in a country that believes you "have the right to abort" you will not be punished. If you live in one that doesn't, you will be. Notice how in both cases you can do the exact same thing, you always have the choice. The only difference is what consequences you will face.

>Somalia and other such government-less societies prove you wrong.
>Somalia
>government-less

>Somalia is a parliamentary representative democratic republic. The President of Somalia is the head of state and commander-in-chief of the Somali Armed Forces and selects a Prime Minister to act as head of government.[202]
I don't think you understand what you're talking about. Furthermore, Somalia laws are partially based off of Islamic law, so this part
>in fact they can force marriage to be slavery precisely because there's nobody to hold them accountable for their crimes.
is comical. Slavery isn't illegal in Somalia, by definition, that means it isn't a crime. The fact you don't even consider how a country could still allow legal slavery shows how uninformed on the matter. They're allowed to sell their daughters because it is legal to sell their daughters. The government exists and endorses this. Does that mean it isn't horrible? No. Does that mean they're committing crimes? By definition, no, they are not committing crimes.
>Legal inheritance, separation of property, a private economy and reproductive rights
Legal inheritance was already covered in marriage, a private economy has little to do with a marriage, a marriage can exist with or without a private economy, reproductive rights are already involved as I already said, you're not treading new ground with that statement.

>Glad the society I live in doesn't think this way.
Really? You live in a society that will just let you walk away from a contract you signed at any time? From any children you've given birth to? From debts? A society that will let a sexual predator teach schoolchildren? A society that will let a murderer work wherever they want?

>That's useless to the individual if the involved families don't care for the individual's interest.
This assumes the individuals have a better understanding of their own interests. The amount of failed marriages in the West regardless of a religious family being present seems to illustrate individuals don't know what they want either.

>You never heard of young people being pressured and blackmailed into marriage by their families?
They're still choosing to get married. Being balckmailed and pressured isn't an excuse, that just means they're choosing to get married instead of putting up with social consequences. Unless violence is involved, but violence would be illegal regardless of if the marriage was taking place or not. As far as US legal law is concerned, as of the moment, no, a force marriage isn't legal. That doesn't stop forced marriage from being legal in other places though.

>And no, people aren't forced to suffer emotional consequences either. You too must have noticed therapy has become accepted in society.
How do I make this more clear, therapy does not erase emotional consequences. Therapy is one of many ways to deal with them. Others include recreational drugs, alcoholism, religious pursuits, etc. Going to a therapist does not result in magical emotion-be-gone dust showering your head absolving you of the consequences of your choices. Even with therapy, the emotional consequences will stay with you forever. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either trying to sell you something or naive.

>>57512
Meant to reply to >>57505 as well.

>>57503
When are you screencapping this for (you)s on 4chan?
>>57505
>How do you propose people foresee irreconcilable differences they could not possibly know existed before the marriage
By getting to know each other, and not rushing to the altar. A deceitful person is not a good person, and deceit can be seen through with a careful eye. That's why you never turn a blind eye to your lover. If it seems there's no flaws, then someone's hiding something.
>the society I live in doesn't think this way.
That doesn't stop the pain in your heart from betrayal. You can call yourself calm and collected, but you'll feel an abyss if you've been deveived, and who cares about the US? They don't have the religious foundations for marriage anymore. All they think about is money over there.

>>57503
>Non virgin
>White marriage

This needs to stop

>>57512
>The people inside the government who want to stay in power
What those people want doesn't matter, if other people want different those in government will be ousted one way or another. The world is full of revolutions, violent and non-violent.

>in both cases you can do the exact same thing
Only a moid thinks that a safe abortion is the exact same thing as an unsafe abortion. A safe abortion doesn't put the woman's life in danger, an unsafe abortion does. Choice is defined as an individual's opportunity and autonomy to perform an action unconstrained by external parties, therefor "choice" forced by violence, threats of violence, threats of loss of life, loss of health, loss of livelihood or any other act that suppresses another's liberty is not choice. It's oppression.

>I don't think you understand what you're talking about
I think you are being purposely obtuse because you don't want to admit being wrong.

>Somalia laws are partially based off of Islamic law, etc etc
False. Somalia laws are based on western thought, and slavery is formally illegal in Somalia, educate yourself. https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-trafficking-in-persons-report-2/somalia/
You can see the Somali government's efforts documented here. Those efforts are largely useless because islamic groups are the ones who control large parts of the country, making the country effectively government-less. The islamic laws you talk about are those forced by paramilitary groups who are not the official Somali goverment.

>Legal inheritance was already covered in marriage
In a way that wasn't acceptable to women, as it cut women out of their rightful inheritance favoring males instead. Political activism changed that.

>a private economy has little to do with a marriage
A private economy has everything to do with a marriage. A woman who isn't forced to depend on a man to live is a woman who can leave an undesirable situation anytime.

>reproductive rights are already involved
Reproductive rights for women didn't even exist before feminism, so no, they were not "already involved".

>you're not treading new ground with that statement
Of course I am not, I'm only stating what feminist activists did in the past to change marriage into what it is now. They were treading new ground.

>You live in a society that will just let you walk away from a contract you signed at any time?
Yes, it's called divorce in case of marriage contract, leaving in case of employment contract. Anyone who tries to stop me violates my rights, and I will do whatever it takes to defend myself.

>From any children you've given birth to?
Yes, people can leave their unwanted newborns at the hospital or at any other safe place such as fire stations and police stations, or can hand them over to social services and put them up for adoption if the children are not newborns anymore.

>From debts?
Yes, of course. Banks especially have a preferential treatment in this matter because they are considered too big to fail, but rich individuals also have been considered too big to fail and had their debts written off.

>A society that will let a sexual predator teach schoolchildren?
That too, sadly. A consequence, to put it as you say, of being too permissive toward muslims.

>A society that will let a murderer work wherever they want?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/oj-simpsons-lavish-new-life-22206334
That said, prison is supposed to be a process of rehabilitation into society, and not all murder is a crime, (see: self-defense) so you'll have to provide more details than that.

>This assumes the individuals have a better understanding of their own interests
They do.

>The amount of failed marriages in the West regardless of a religious family being present seems to illustrate individuals don't know what they want either
Religious families are still far too present in the West not to matter. That said, individuals who are most likely to divorce are those who marry young, as in teens and early twenties. Of course people that young don't know what they want as they don't have enough life experience. Guess who wants teenagers to marry? Conservative, religious people and conservative, religious families who want kids to marry the first person they have sex with or it's "shameful", that's who.


>They're still choosing to get married.
No they are not. They are coerced to get married. Coercion excludes choice.
>Being balckmailed and pressured isn't an excuse
Yes it is. Not only that, it's also a crime on the perpetrator's part, and it isn't punished enough.

>that just means they're choosing to get married instead of putting up with social consequences
Social consequences such as stalking, discrimination, threats. All illegal but that doesn't stop religious people. Do not minimize them like you're trying to.

>Going to a therapist does not result in magical emotion-be-gone dust
Sounds like you've been to the wrong therapy because that's a creative but accurate way to descrive what therapy does, help people overcome negative emotions and replace them with positive ones. Not that all people need therapy in the first place, lots don't feel bad about divorce/abortion/whatever else because they care about themselves and not what others think.

>>57523
>therapy can just remove negative emotions
lmao