|
|
Post by mick on Sept 12, 2023 14:26:06 GMT
Weddings are so important I went to the wrong church for mine! That was about 55 years ago.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Sept 12, 2023 15:58:51 GMT
Who invented marriage, God or a human? Just asking for a friend The state (supported by the church). Control control... |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Sept 12, 2023 16:39:59 GMT
Who invented marriage, God or a human? Just asking for a friend Probably someone who could make a few quid out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Sept 12, 2023 17:50:17 GMT
Well my own wedding brought out the absolute worst in my mother who hated the idea of us 'living in sin' but equally didn't think my husband-to-be 'deserved' a second marriage, and certainly not in church. But thought registry office weddings were 'common' nad not to be entertained. Basically she was determined to be miserable and unhappy at every turn, torn between wanting to do the least she could possibly get away with while at the same time keeping up with the Joneses and putting on an 'acceptable' event.
My brother's wedding was rather ruined by his new wife's parents barely concealing their hatred of one another.
One friend's wedding was so over the top in the run up...hen do was a weekend away staying at what used to be the North British Hotel in Edinburgh, cocktail making sessions at Harvey Nic's, magician, spa days etc nad then of the 20 people she'd invited along for htat only three were asked to the actual wedding. It's fair to say the evening reception was full of people feeling they'd been kicked in the teeth and bled dry finanically just to boost numbers at strategic points.
Luckily I was living in America when most of my friends got hitched and could safely wish them well without having to attend. Only one really got a tick in a box from me. Nice, short church service, immediate family had lunch at local pub, everyone else piled into a meadow for a bbq, piss up all night playing skittles. That was a good one. The reason I said it was awful was nothing to do with bride/groom or their wedding arrangements, but it just so happened we were camping on holiday at the time and had to schelp back up a muddy field half cut in our finery. Got shouted at for not being quiet enough.
But it's not really 'weddings' that are my problem but marriage. I just think it presents a bad deal for women. Statistically married women are less healthy, less wealthy, less happy, more tired and more likely to experience violence than their unmarried counterparts. Marriage is good for men. Married men live longer than unmarried men. They have more leisure time than unmarried men. The reverse is true for women. I don't think it is a coincidence that more divorces are instigated by women than by men. Men like being married by and large.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Sept 12, 2023 17:50:32 GMT
Who invented marriage, God or a human? Just asking for a friend The state (supported by the church). Control control... Men |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Sept 12, 2023 17:55:04 GMT
The state (supported by the church). Control control... Men Only to avoid being nagged and downtrodden perhaps?...(runs for the hills) |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Sept 12, 2023 18:00:39 GMT
Only to avoid being nagged and downtrodden perhaps?...(runs for the hills) Mmmmm, nooooooo. I refer you to Kate's earlier comment re control. Don't forget it's not that long ago that 'marital rape' wasn't recognised because of course you couldn't 'rape' a woman you were married to. Also, women were until fairly recently expected to give up work on marriage. So no independence. Things have improved on some fronts but I still feel that in general, the main benefits of marriage are being inordinately heaped on the male half of most heterosexual marriages. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Sept 12, 2023 18:05:30 GMT
Only to avoid being nagged and downtrodden perhaps?...(runs for the hills) Mmmmm, nooooooo. I refer you to Kate's earlier comment re control. Don't forget it's not that long ago that 'marital rape' wasn't recognised because of course you couldn't 'rape' a woman you were married to. Also, women were until fairly recently expected to give up work on marriage. So no independence. Things have improved on some fronts but I still feel that in general, the main benefits of marriage are being inordinately heaped on the male half of most heterosexual marriages. Yup. All joking aside wives are not chattels, and as much as I use the battle of the sexes as a source of humour I usually make myself or men as the lesser of the parties. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Sept 12, 2023 18:07:24 GMT
And there are times where men should stand up for equality, pensions, instead of raising the women's age to that of men it should have been reducing the man's age to that of the women.
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Sept 12, 2023 18:37:28 GMT
Only to avoid being nagged and downtrodden perhaps?...(runs for the hills) Mmmmm, nooooooo. I refer you to Kate's earlier comment re control. Don't forget it's not that long ago that 'marital rape' wasn't recognised because of course you couldn't 'rape' a woman you were married to. Also, women were until fairly recently expected to give up work on marriage. So no independence. Things have improved on some fronts but I still feel that in general, the main benefits of marriage are being inordinately heaped on the male half of most heterosexual marriages. So true. I have lived through the discrimination of banks, building societies, wages and salaries, position in the workplace, harassment, some jobs men-only and the glass ceiling in work hierarchy and, of course, the prejudice of a woman's place is in the home caring for hubby and kids. Things have changed, but not completely, yet! |
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Sept 12, 2023 18:41:42 GMT
What's mine is hers, and what's hers is hers as well.
If there weren't any tax breaks for being married, we wouldn't have done it. We were quite happy living together. I'm absolutely horrified by one of my work colleagues who is like a 1950s throwback and still gives his wife an alloted amount for housekeeping, amongst other controlling behaviours.
|
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Sept 13, 2023 8:45:29 GMT
If the standard of dress is less than I expect, never mind, but having said that my pet peeve is concerning the female guests. Unfortunately some of the outfits worn leave very little to the imagination, and I respect their right to wear what they want, when they want and how they want, I feel that they haven't made the right choice if they're having to pull the outfit down because it shows their bottom or up because it's showing their bosom. The wedding should be about the young people getting married been surrounded by their friends, how they dress is up to them just so long as they do not steal the lime light from the Bride and Groom. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Sept 13, 2023 9:35:13 GMT
If the standard of dress is less than I expect, never mind, but having said that my pet peeve is concerning the female guests. Unfortunately some of the outfits worn leave very little to the imagination, and I respect their right to wear what they want, when they want and how they want, I feel that they haven't made the right choice if they're having to pull the outfit down because it shows their bottom or up because it's showing their bosom. Probably get shouted at for this but here goes!
If a person wears a revealing outfit they have no right to complain if other people look at them. Note the word person - I see some youths in hot weather displaying lots of chest and so on. I'm sure that girls look at them.
The above does NOT imply that a person's dress gives others the right to be suggestive, rude, intimidating or anything else.
It's inevitable that folk find (some of) the opposite sex attractive, and it's hard to comprehend the denial of the mode of dress being deliberate to increase that attraction. In part at least. Choice of dress has many components.
At my age I can appreciate beauty - but that's it. Appreciate beauty. I can look at a flower but have no desire to rip it out of the ground. I can admire a picture but I don't want to tear it off the wall. Yes, I can admire a pretty girl and think isn't she lucky to look so good. I have no desire whatever to damage her, insult her or harm her in any way. The assumption that a man admiring a woman is wrong and to assume (as has been done in this thread) that such admiration comes from a 'dirty old man' is especially, pathetically, simplistic and juvenile. I should also say that I can admire the physique or looks of a man as well - but I'm still hetero - equally I wouldn't dream of harming him.
Sorry that this is a bit incoherent. Have other things on my mind.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Sept 13, 2023 10:14:50 GMT
If the standard of dress is less than I expect, never mind, but having said that my pet peeve is concerning the female guests. Unfortunately some of the outfits worn leave very little to the imagination, and I respect their right to wear what they want, when they want and how they want, I feel that they haven't made the right choice if they're having to pull the outfit down because it shows their bottom or up because it's showing their bosom. Probably get shouted at for this but here goes!
If a person wears a revealing outfit they have no right to complain if other people look at them. Note the word person - I see some youths in hot weather displaying lots of chest and so on. I'm sure that girls look at them.
The above does NOT imply that a person's dress gives others the right to be suggestive, rude, intimidating or anything else.
It's inevitable that folk find (some of) the opposite sex attractive, and it's hard to comprehend the denial of the mode of dress being deliberate to increase that attraction. In part at least. Choice of dress has many components.
At my age I can appreciate beauty - but that's it. Appreciate beauty. I can look at a flower but have no desire to rip it out of the ground. I can admire a picture but I don't want to tear it off the wall. Yes, I can admire a pretty girl and think isn't she lucky to look so good. I have no desire whatever to damage her, insult her or harm her in any way. The assumption that a man admiring a woman is wrong and to assume (as has been done in this thread) that such admiration comes from a 'dirty old man' is especially, pathetically, simplistic and juvenile. I should also say that I can admire the physique or looks of a man as well - but I'm still hetero - equally I wouldn't dream of harming him.
Sorry that this is a bit incoherent. Have other things on my mind.
Mick
I agree, but men are being attacked by ultra-feminists for the simple accident of being born a man. These u-f are blaming men for misogyny which in their eyes ranges from looking at a woman to violating and murdering them. I know there are evil men out there who perpetrate the most heinous acts against women, but why tar all men with the same brush. It causes as many problems as it solves. We all have the right to be treated with dignity and respect but the constant bashing does nothing to help. |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Sept 13, 2023 11:29:55 GMT
Mmmmm, nooooooo. I refer you to Kate's earlier comment re control. Don't forget it's not that long ago that 'marital rape' wasn't recognised because of course you couldn't 'rape' a woman you were married to. Also, women were until fairly recently expected to give up work on marriage. So no independence. Things have improved on some fronts but I still feel that in general, the main benefits of marriage are being inordinately heaped on the male half of most heterosexual marriages. So true. I have lived through the discrimination of banks, building societies, wages and salaries, position in the workplace, harassment, some jobs men-only and the glass ceiling in work hierarchy and, of course, the prejudice of a woman's place is in the home caring for hubby and kids. Things have changed, but not completely, yet! Yes, I answered a phone call from our bank and they asked to speak to my husband. He wasn't in so I asked if I could help them, and was told no because he was the primary account holder. I tried pointing out the account was one I'd set up on my own at 15 and that he'd been added to it when we married so if anyone was the primary account holder it was me, but their 'system' wasn't having it. For those talking about being censured for 'looking' at women wearing short bottoms or low tops, all I'd say is there's a difference between noticing, seeing, and even appreciating, and staring/oggling. If the subject of your appreciation is made to feel uncomfortable I'd say you (general you, not specific you) are straying into oggling territory. You (gen. not spec.) may not feel that you are oggling but it's like so many things. I don't feel that clicking my pen is annoying. My autistic office companion finds it impossible to concentrate if I do it. So I don't. My last thoughts are that I'm rather saddened to read a version of 'Not all men...' on here. I really had hoped we'd be above that. We know it's not all men. Just like we know not all men are good at map reading or more spatially aware than their female counterparts, or better drivers or less bitchy. We know. 'Not all men' doesn't do anything positive to help the women who experience discrimination or violence at the hands of the men who are dishing it out. All it does is deflect attention away from the fact that more women experience violence/discrimination based purely on the fact that they are women than men do because of their gender. I know lots of lovely men. I even went so far as to marry one (still think we should have not bothered with that part). But I've experienced sexism, coercive control and sexual violence multiple times in my life, continue to do so. It may not be 'all men' but it's still far too many men. |
|
