No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
im lost as to how you consider it slavery when it's supposed to be a consensual and mutual legal agreement of partnership. keep in mind that in most cases, either party can exit the legal partnership whenever they want through the process of divorce.
if either side does not want the marriage, then sure. but having a dedication to a loved one hardly constitutes "slavery".
See other comment. The issue is actually autonomy not marriage. No one has a right to control another's autonomy. Life is not binary and to make it so is to neglect reality. It is possible to love someone and spend a lifetime with them while never owning their autonomy.
Divorce, at a minimum is a hassle, a scare tactic, and a massive financial and emotional burden that has nothing to do with the partnership. If one needs such leverage, they are stealing the other's autonomy. If someone wishes to leave, they should have every right to leave freely. The imbalance in relationships should be the burden of the relationship not some court arbitration. When the imbalance occurs it should be addressed immediately. This should be a cornerstone of culture. A partnership should never be a leverage point because owning another's autonomy is fundamentally wrong.
So, your actual problem is the legal expense and legal hassles involved in divorce?
Many/most of these are to do with the painful untangling of shared resources and responsibilities that come from sharing a life and resources. Marriage simplifies many things for two people - ‘we own this thing together’ becomes much simpler with marriage. The legal process of negotiating whether 20 or 40 or 50% of the house belongs to partner A is what tends to cause the pain.
No my actual problem, as described, is autonomy. I've yet to see anyone that seems to fully grasp the point I am making. It is a subtle difference.
In writing science fiction for a hobby, I have explored a lot of this recently. I can't say that I have it all figured out or am some kind of expert. I've explored the idea of systems where there are the resources and systems in place to arbitrate without the need for any absolute laws, a place where the guidelines are communicated clearly and a reasonable and just outcome is possible without an arbitrary binary law. With a lot of idealized assumptions glossed over for the sake of conversation, any system that addresses the needs of more people amicably is a better system.
The way marriage is set up presently, it is made for the needs of a majority, but there are many outliers. If you consider this system in abstract, there are 3 people in the marriage; person A, person B and the superior member of the arbitrator as a governing stakeholder. The role of the stakeholder is to uphold a set of complicated laws that may or may not fit the situation of the individuals. In essence, the stakeholder takes away the autonomy of the individual, more or less equally. To our culture, we ignore this loss of autonomy and the neglected outliers. If these types of oversimplified laws were superseded by a system where it is unacceptable to have minority outliers, and the law can flex to the situation in a deterministic, unbiased, and just way, it changes everything about the system and institution of marriage. This is hard to think about in a modern context without a detailed story to explain it by example. The entire system in the present is based on a loss of autonomy. I consider every loss of autonomy to be a form of slavery. That is not to say it is some binary good or bad. It is hyperbole intended to stress a weak spot in present culture. We largely fail to culturally understand how important autonomy is and all the places where we have given it away to others.
I grew up in places where no one had the money to get a divorce, and where it was used as a form of control and abuse. I've seen it making people miserable because of stupid choices they made long before their prefrontal cortex was developed. It mostly harms the people at the bottom.
If you trace back in time, marriage has always had an element of misogyny and loss of autonomy. It was far worse in the past. I think that line of evolving change will continue and people of the future will look at the present much as we do the past. Asking myself how that will play out in the distant future, I believe the answer is a much better social awareness of autonomy. This is the trend line that we are on, and improvements have been made, but those will continue into the future. The present is not some benchmark of perfection.
Firstly, of course many people cohabit very happily for a lifetime, there’s no requirement to get married. They settle their affairs with bespoke agreements property contracts and wills. It works fine for them - it’s just a bit more complex than the standard package that marriage presents , but not a real problem.
Don’t want marriage, but quite fancy the tax benefits? In the UK you can opt for a Civil Partnerships which handles most of the outliers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom
Bottom line -for people who want to get married, there’s marriage. For people who want to formally merge most of their financial affairs and tax obligations, there is civil partnership, for everyone else, there are bespoke legal and financial arrangements and contracts.
No compulsion, no loss of autonomy (other than mutually agreed) and certainly no slavery.
Good, eh?