Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person (2016) | Hacker News Reader

Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person (2016)

nytimes.com

137 pointsbookofjoe202 comments

The framework given in the first paragraph (which both I and de Botton reject) is fundamentally wrong because marriage is not something you "do", it's something you make. One of the foremost requirements going in to a marriage is that both partners understand this. You will marry the right person if you change your axioms.

de Botton kind of alludes to this here but in a wordy and deeply pessimistic way, but I don't think that's a good framing for it.

> It might sound odd, but pessimism relieves the excessive imaginative pressure that our romantic culture places upon marriage

> Romanticism has been unhelpful to us; it is a harsh philosophy. It has made a lot of what we go through in marriage seem exceptional and appalling.

I disagree, contrary to what he says a Romantic (in the literary sense) view always allows us to be flawed, because it always contains room for redemption. Thinking that marriage will be some kind of perfect union is rationalist thinking, like designing a system of gears. Thinking of marriage as union of two people who work together for something greater that both can share the fruits of is irrational thinking we need and can easily intuit. We're just really good at shunning this kind of thinking, these days.

In the end we both agree, he says: "Compatibility is an achievement of love; it must not be its precondition." I just think his framing here is needlessly pessimistic and dismissive of the romantic forces, and probably a terrible way to approach most of life's difficulties, never-mind marriage.

> because marriage is not something you "do", it's something you make.

This is a bold assumption that will not hold in many countries and regions that consider marriage as something that is "done", especially if the act that proclaims it as "done" it's performed in the presence of some holy man, in a holy building, and if the marriage is, in any way, legally or morally "irreversible" or impossible to effectively unmake even for strongest and most plausible reasons to do so.

Such rules, counter-intuitively, make it much harder for marriages to be happy. If a marriage is "done", then there's no point in trying to "make" it - whether it means to make it better, make it worthwhile, or even make it happen with someone better-suited for the role.

Is this an evidence based opinion? I am trying to find evidence myself -- but my memory is that religiosity is well correlated with marital satisfaction. If you have something that supports the opposite conclusion I would be interested in reading it.

Just a single point of data here, since I come from a rural, highly religious Catholic part of Eastern Europe. Multiple marriages in my family (not my parents', luckily) were broken despite a lot of self-proclaimed religiousness among the people in there.

On a second thought I assume it is because poverty, alcoholism, and family traumas (ranging back to WW2 and UPA/UIA raids) are all common in the lands of my origin, and religiousness becomes more like another drug and less like an actual, sane belief system.

I disagree. The irreversible nature makes the case for "making" it (work) stronger.

I'm reminded of GK Chesterton, in Heretics: "Posting a letter and getting married are among the few things left that are entirely romantic; for to be entirely romantic a thing must be irrevocable."

Except for the people who made a bad mistake and chose someone they would be better of not being married too.

It is precisely the sanctity of marriage in those cultural expectations that pushes you to keep making something. I a marriage is irrevocable, you better do your best to "make" it good. In a culture of disposable marriage, there is little reason to invest deeply in building, since the whole thing can be torn down in a second.

Ignoring beliefs for the moment.

Personally I’m of the opinion that historically marriage is Disease control.

Imagine life with no medication or testing. Keeping marriage “pure” is a way to keep people healthy.

Any society that didn’t follow this would have a lot of STDs. The stricter a society the healthier the people.

Hence why so much social pressure developed.

Lots of Jewish practices have to do with health and sanitation.

Long list of things that makes a person “unclean” for X days.

I see many Parallels with Covid. It is creating new traditions that could last generations.

Someone coughs, they are “unclean” for 14 days. Social rules are completely different now.

Modern medication changes the game drastically. Lots of things are no longer a death sentence.

>Long list of things that makes a person “unclean” for X days.

Is there further reading for this?

Off the top of my head, Numbers 19 applies for caring for the dead: https://biblehub.com/niv/numbers/19.htm

Menstruation is in Leviticus 15: https://biblehub.com/niv/leviticus/15.htm

... in fact, most of Leviticus is about "clean" vs. "unclean".

the book of Leviticus? Its the 3rd book of the Torah/Old Testament of the Bible. A lot of it is there and would be where I would start.

Very detailed rules are laid out for quarantining lepers, menstruating women, men who experienced nocturnal emissions, etc. Start with Leviticus 13, it's not hard reading (depending on how archaic the translation is).

Not exactly about a number of days, but Deuteronomy 23:12 instructs those going to battle to carry a shovel so they could bury their excrement and not leave it exposed in the camp, lest God abandon the camp and not defend them from their enemies. (After all, God is holy and poop is not).

I highly recommend reading the original literature and not a secondary source. The way the text weaves reasonable ideas with superstition, threats of abandonment and punishment with messages of hope is a fascinating window into the way people thought in another time and place.

I recall a lot of mentions of cleansing rituals. Including a way to make an antibacterial soap. Been awhile, so I may have some details wrong.

Becoming sick was near equivalent to being a sinner, so good hygiene and righteousness had some overlap.

Follow these rules, you won’t get sick. Got sick? You didn’t follow the rules.

Harsh reality, but a harsh time.

> Ignoring beliefs for the moment.

Same.

> Personally I’m of the opinion that historically marriage is Disease control.

While I don't disagree that this is a benefit, marriage isn't necessary for this to occur - only fidelity. Plural marriage would work just fine in this context, as would polygamy/polygyny.

Marriage is, at its root, a means of ensuring the generational transfer of wealth: it means that the person who possesses capital in the society (typically the man) can pass their wealth on to their children. It also provides some assurances to the legally subordinate partner that they will not be destitute should the other die or abandon them.

I don't think it's about disease control at all. I don't believe AIDS was around back in biblical times and the other STDs had to rank near the bottom of concerns 5000 years ago. Besides, many other cultures practiced marriage.

In my mind marriage developed as an adaptation to large civilizations. Whereas we once lived in roaming nomadic tribes, and fluid small groups (as can be observed in some remote tribes today), I think once agriculture flourished and towns started to outgrow the individual it became necessary for something like the nuclear family to develop. With families belonging to clans and clans belonging to city-states.

You're making a lot of assumptions about Covid and long term effects. The Spanish flu was many times deadlier and yet it did not change anything once it faded out several years later, things went back to normal.

Also inheritance rights (and to a degree ownership of and responsibility for children) in cultures where property ownership is for men [0]. In the absence of a way to know for sure who your children are, your children are deemed to be those your wife gives birth to in the course of your marriage.

A child you may have outside of marriage, no matter how obvious it is that it's yours, is illegitimate; not legally considered. Suddenly, adultery on the part of your wife is a very big deal indeed, and all the various other effects this has.

Obviously things have changed in many societies now, but historically this was a very big one.

Surprisingly recent, perhaps. See Trimble vs Gordon, of 1977.

[0] And others too, but very strongly pronounced in these cultures.

Or just the opposite. You can take advantage of the situation knowing they won’t leave.

I can only really speak in much detail about Christianity and Judaism but this is a pretty big misinterpretation of how marriage is supposed to work in both of these religions. While both are generally against divorce they also specify guidelines for how one should behave in a marriage. These guidelines are ways that a marriage is "made" over time.

I would imagine that this holds for other religions as well.

I'm not that familiar with arranged marriages, but what bits I have seen in for instance documentaries suggests that the couple gets a lot of advice about making the marriage work, emphasis on the work.

So at least for that segment, it may very much look like something that is 'done' but the reality hits once the well-wishers go home.

Simon, once again, wise beyond his years. I love watching this young man and his new family grow together.

The extremely high failure rate indicates it is either a flawed concept entirely, or people are going about it completely the wrong way. If you had a computer that only booted, or a car that only started, 40% of the time - you wouldn't say, well.. the system is ok - sometimes it works out!

Still, it is encouraged on every front. Venerated by society, and financially subsidized by the state. Yet when its failing, very little good advice available. I've found most marriage counseling to be very unhelpful. Designed to save something (that maybe be shouldn't be saved) with really weak aphorisms that don't get to the psychological depths needed to explore WHY we do the things we do, attract and even unconsciously desire chaos and failure, etc..

But married couples too often lose the fact that it's about the relationship first. More important than the house, the cars, even the kids. People forget that everything started with two people and two people only. They stop having compassion and being kind to one another. They stop having sex (so important), that feeds the relationship. The relationship is a living thing. If you starve it, it dies.

A minority of people account for the majority of divorces. Not that many people are doing it wrong.

41% (the divorce rate for first marriages), while technically a minority, is still quite a lot of people. I wouldn't go so far as to say "not many" are doing it wrong.

A cursory review of cultural and “critical” output of the past few decades shows a consistent onslaught on the institution of marriage. While difficult to quantify, it seems reasonable to consider the significant (if not critical) impact of these factors on the erosion of the institution of marriage.

I think what has had a far larger impact on the divorce rate has been the fact that women now have choices. They frequently have their own careers and finances, which makes it much easier for them to get out of bad marriages.

You could view this as making it easier to quit, or as making it easier to escape abuse (I suspect it's a little bit of both), but I think that the effect of feminism and (greater) equality in the workforce is a more significant contributor to the divorce rate than any cultural attacks on the institution of marriage.

Edit: it's less immediately obvious, but I think that feminism and equality have also had the same liberating effect on men. Marriages can be just as emotionally abusive for men, and if your wife has her own career you're less likely to be ostracized for "kicking her to the curb", which makes leaving a bad marriage easier. Long term, this can strengthen marriages. If you know they can leave, you'll likely work harder to make them want to stay.

Of course this was a significant factor. But even your reposte here is symptomatic of the fact that the society at large was not offered a 'positive' development of the institution of marriage in context of social and financial liberation of women. It's been decades of specifically highlighting the 'family' as a 'problematic construct'.

Or cultural norms change over time. Like the institution of marriage in the West, which is now based on romantic feelings and nuclear families. Whereas in the past it was for political, financial or religious reasons, with there being extended family around in the context of living in the same village for life.

To quote Paul Atreides when he became fed up with Fremen customs, "Ways change!".

I can quote from I Ching [Book of Changes] regarding change as the invariant element. This change was ideologically driven by an elite subset of society. Certainly not an organic development, in my opinion.

[p.s. Did we read the same Frank Herbert? My Frank Herbert highlighted the fact that "the ways" in Arakis were influenced by an occult group called the Bene Gesserit ..]

[p.s.s.: https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Missionaria_Protectiva -- point being societal 'change' is almost always subject to organized control, internal or external.]

The statistics about marriage failures are misleading. They are biased by the fact that people who divorce tend to have multiple marriages. People who are bad at being married make it look bad for everyone.

If you look at the statistics for first marriages the picture is less depressing. Also, the rates have been improving and people getting married today have much better odds.

>If you look at the statistics for first marriages the picture is less depressing

Sort of depending on where you are in the world. Statistics for First Marriages is still quite depressing in many developed places, especially in cities.

I think the failure rates of marriages are more related to the strong economic incentives to marry when it is not "the right time." You forgo a lot of disposable income by staying single and this can be the main drive to get married.

And then on the other hand, rearing a child seems to have become more expensive as a percentage of worker output than it used to be as that output is extracted by things like rent.

> The statistics about marriage failures are misleading. They are biased by the fact that people who divorce tend to have multiple marriages.

They are also biased because many unhappy couples won't divorce for various reasons.

This should be the top comment. Not even a truism, cliché or a platitude, the entire article is actually based on a misrepresentation of the facts.

Why has this become so common? I remember the first time I read something similar thinking “Interesting, but that’s weird, it doesn’t match up with my life experience. I must live in a perfect little butterfly bubble of some kind.” Then I read an article which explained the statistics in more detail. Ahh.

So, why did this author write this article? Do they not know the statistics? Maybe they read some of the many earlier articles which make the same bad assumption and decided to build on that bad assumption - but without looking at the actual data?

Statistics don't lie but liars use statistics. Is that what happened here? Maybe. Maybe the author was just lazy. Who knows. But it does seem like a huge number of stories begin with a title and brief introduction, then 3 or 4 conservative or liberal platitudes sprinkled in, each of which are so general they misrepresent reality and hide useful and actionable facts.

Maybe its more a house of cards.

Age of marriage also makes a huge difference. Under 25 has much higher rates than over.

And the parent's comment is also true: if you get divorced then chances are you'll get divorced again, e.g. Liz Taylor's eight marriages.

The statistics are useless. They tell you nothing about the percentage of unhappy marriages. Only the ones where it was convenient enough to be able to separate. There is also huge cultural stigma against divorce in most places. This is why cities tend to have higher divorce rates - it's more socially acceptable.

First marriages end 50% of the time [1], which doesn't seem that great. It's 67% for 2nd and 73% of 3rd. Given the large number that never remarry, the 2nd and 3rd order effects don't really add much to the overall rate.

>the rates have been improving

Maybe because record few people get married, and those that do, do so at record high ages [2].

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-intelligent-divo...

[2] https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sc...

> 40% of the time

It's more subtle than that. If you dig into the data, you'll see it's closer to "100 marriages this year, 50 divorces -- omg half of marriages end in divorce!"

This is only true if there were zero existing, previous marriages before this year.

The more common trend now is that people just aren't getting married, likely in small part because of this mathematical+reporting malpractice. When you convince people something usually fails, they don't bother trying.

> If you dig into the data, you'll see it's closer to "100 marriages this year, 50 divorces -- omg half of marriages end in divorce!" This is only true if there were zero existing, previous marriages before this year.

Ok, but your objection is only true if there were zero divorces in previous years. If the divorce count is half of the marriage count for the year every year, then it is indeed half.

Not if the delta of both counts decrease, which is exactly the point the person you replied to already made. Divorce lags marriage by definition, since you can't get divorced without getting married.

There is a math interpretation error, but it isn't that.

The actual error is that some people keep coming back. Most people don't get a divorce, but some people skew the numbers by getting 2, 3, 4, or more divorces.

> If you had a computer that only booted, or a car that only started, 40% of the time - you wouldn't say, well.. the system is ok - sometimes it works out!

This is an unfair comparison because the standard for a marriage succeeding is a lot higher than for computers or cars. If I bought a car or a computer and it and had only a 60% chance of failing to last until I'm 80 years old I'd consider that fantastic.

But a marriage that fails after ten years is counted as part of the 40% failure rate.

Cars don't come with a guarantee that it will last until you're 80 though. You go over a certain mileage, you're counting down the life of your car.

On the other hand, marriage is touted as this perfect "till death do us apart" deal.

Should weddings be sold like cars? With "your mileage may vary" and "you will have many marriages throughout your life?" Maybe then I'd agree with your logic.

> Should weddings be sold like cars? With "your mileage may vary" and "you will have many marriages throughout your life?" Maybe then I'd agree with your logic.

Sure. Mortgages come in 15 and 30 year sizes, and child custody is util they're 18.

Call it a 20 year sizing, after that you figure out whatchu need to split up and then think about the next steps.

Why not just calculate the average duration of a marriage instead? Of course this is biased against people who marry late in life but at least the meaning of the number is easy to understand. A 40% failure rate can mean practically anything.

It's not financially subsidized in Canada. My wife and I pay several thousand more in taxes than if we were roommates.

I've always thought that was a great disincentive to marriage if one were logical.

This is curious: are you filing jointly or separately?

In general, filing jointly typically results in either the same or lower taxes. I'm not sure under what conditions under which it would be higher.

https://turbotax.intuit.ca/tips/does-being-married-affect-yo...

> The extremely high failure rate indicates it is either a flawed concept entirely, […]

Are you sure? Maybe the flaw is the notion that the marriage partnership should be expected to last for life. There are real reasons why some personal partnerships benefit from a legal framework that allows for division of labor and joint decision-making powers.

> Designed to save something

A therapist shouldn't be trying to save anything here, they should just help the couple digest their own feeling and get to where they really need to be, remaining as a couple or not

It's worse than that.

If the goal of marriage is simply to stay together (rather than, say, to stay together and for it to actually be beneficial for those involved) then yes 60% of marriages are failures and 40% success.

But if the goal is more ambitious, then at least 60% of marriages are failures. Maybe the remaining 40% stay together for religious reasons, a misplaced sense of pride, for the benefit of children rather than spouses, etc.

I'm not so cynical to say 100% of marriages "fail" in this sense, but I'd wage it's a lot higher than 60%. And you might be a lot more worried about those marriages that fall into the "stayed together but bad" category, as they'll include abusive and exploitative relationships.

Agree.

I feel a little bad about this post. It's not inaccurate but it reads too negative, or maybe bitter (I'm not).

Everyone says - well, you'll be unhappy either way wrt marriage. But it seems to me those who don't get married are much happier - some in relationships, some not. But I would still personally like to get married, I think... so I guess I want these stats to be untrue, or for there to be an escape - "people keep marrying unwisely" etc.

Maybe the premise that "marriage is [meant to be] forever" is what is flawed,

Ahh, the burden of Anna Karenina principle, "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"- Leo Tolstoy

"We need to swap the Romantic view for a tragic (and at points comedic) awareness that every human will frustrate, anger, annoy, madden and disappoint us — and we will (without any malice) do the same to them. There can be no end to our sense of emptiness and incompleteness. But none of this is unusual or grounds for divorce."....

"Romanticism has been unhelpful to us; it is a harsh philosophy. It has made a lot of what we go through in marriage seem exceptional and appalling. We end up lonely and convinced that our union, with its imperfections, is not “normal.” We should learn to accommodate ourselves to “wrongness,” striving always to adopt a more forgiving, humorous and kindly perspective on its multiple examples in ourselves and in our partners."

Juxtaposed against the dig at "holy texts" in the first half of the article, the proposed philosophy in this article is literally the core tenant of Christianity. All are imperfect, sin has corrupted relationships, the path to salvation is selflessness and sacrifice, embodied by Christ's sacrifice for us. Christians cannot live this out, garnering a bad name for the broad religion as a whole, but again, as humans, that's sort of the point. Grace is given to those who accept it which further propels them towards giving themselves up and extending grace to others. It's a daily, hourly exercise pictured most frequently and accurately in marriage.

> The proposed philosophy in this article is literally the core tenant of Christianity

I think you mean tenet.

> the path to salvation is selflessness and sacrifice, embodied by Christ's sacrifice for us.

To anyone who considers Christianity in context, it is almost entirely unremarkable, coming as it did some 96,000 years into humankind's rich history of co-operation, compromise, and community, and with much of it borrowed from other places.

It contains few novel ideas or suggestions. For example, the maxim of reciprocity ("Do ut des" -- colloquially known as "The Golden Rule") is likely an example of simultaneous invention: many Christians seem to believe that, until Moses, it had escaped humanity's attention that treating others as you wish to be treated is a sensible basis by which to organise a collective of people, but it is simultaneously visible and documented in multiple ancient traditions which predate Christianity and are spread across the ancient world.

This might be useful context in considering the author's intentions when writing.

Christ's morality is quite different from the golden rule and much more radical. "Turn the other cheek" is not the golden rule.

Yes, it's pure masochism.

Some sources suggest "turn the other cheek" was actually advice to peasants to force the upper classes to treat them like equals. It supposedly meant (according to some sources) something like "Make them hit you on the other cheek, like they would their equals." Not "Let them hit you again like you like it like that."

Social stuff is heavily dependent on context and the words of Jesus were two millennia ago in a context we scarcely understand.

This is totally correct! Jesus actually said

> If someone hits your right cheek

which would have necessitated a backhanded slap with the right hand (left hand wasn't used for anything much besides wiping one's butt), which means the slap is from someone who considers themselves to be the better of the person they're slapping. Turning the other cheek would indicate that you're their equal and striking an equal resulted in a heavy fine.

Each of the amazing zomg radical ideas Jesus outlines in Matthew 5 are actually loopholes to get people into serious trouble.

Social hacking.

The hot new thing, 2 millennia ago.

If you just read the passage in context, it's clear that the interpretation you're referring to is completely off base:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=citation&b....

It's controversial, to be sure. I did state "some sources" say this.

The article I would like to post here is no longer online, but here is a discussion of it with other sources cited and some people saying "That's utter BS" and others saying "Yeah, that's what I was taught ages ago.":

https://www.metafilter.com/156154/A-third-way-Non-violent-pr...

> Christ's morality is quite different from the golden rule and much more radical. "Turn the other cheek" is not the golden rule.

I did not mean to suggest that the golden rule is the core of Christianity, although it's certainly one facet of Christ's teachings which people erroneously consider to be novel. I offered it as one simple example of something within Christianity which is borrowed from elsewhere, and which is also wholly unremarkable.

FYI, turn the other cheek is not what Jesus said. He said:

> If anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to them your other cheek also.

I was a Christian for a long time and the sort of mistake you’ve just made really does vitiate the faith’s proponents. Quick summary (Walter Wink would be spinning in his grave): left hand only used for wiping butt. Not for anything else. Right cheek slapped = back-handed slap with right hand. It’s not an attack, it’s a rebuke. Therefore turning the other cheek is a means to challenging the slapper as an equal.

It’s the opposite of what you think it is: it’s sticking up for yourself and using the law to get the better of someone. Ditto the “go the extra mile” (any Roman could have any Jew or Gentile carry something for them for one mile, but no further — with a penalty if they did). Can’t remember the bit about the shirt off your back but it’s also a way to fuck with people.

I'm not sure if you are a Christian or not but if you really believe that you have a personal relationship with an almighty being, I can't comprehend how you would not really be sweating the details on what he said during his time here on earth, and trying to understand it in its proper context.

> Christ's morality is quite different from the golden rule

You seem to be at odds with OP in a way that makes me believe you may be a Christian. OP talked about Christianity, which I would consider to be the synthesis of the teachings, texts, and traditions of Jesus and the early Church. You are specifically talking about Christ’s teachings only, which is suggestive of someone who believes in Jesus as mythical hero, since very few secular scholars would feel comfortable prescribing to Jesus the views offered in the synoptic Gospels without heavily caveating the gospels’ own complex origin story.

Nonetheless:

1. I don’t want to presume anything of anyone reading this, so I will state the obvious: there is a secular consensus that Jesus existed in history. By which we usually mean: a person known as Jesus was at large in the same parts of the middle east as the Bible conveys during approximately the same time period, and he was likely a Jewish preacher (possibly a Rabbi), who was executed and ultimately his followers eventually formalised Christianity approximately a generation after his death, which eventually overtook pantheism, Mithraism and a host of other cults to become the prevailing religion in Rome a few hundred years after Jesus’ death.

2. The synoptic gospels were written between 40-100 years after the death of Jesus, and contain accounts of Jesus’s deeds which can be simply split into: legend (things we know cannot be true), contradictions (things the various books disagree amongst themselves about), theological copypasta (bits which are the same but which seem obviously lifted from different sources — e.g. Marcan priority sees the gospel of Mark written first, and the authors of Matthew and Luke drawing from Mark + a non-canonical source called the Q document).

3. Legend is a loaded term, so: large parts of the story are clearly legend. The massacre of the innocents is totally invented, as is the ridiculous census requiring Jesus’s parents to travel 200km to Bethlehem (all elements contrived to fulfil Jewish prophecy), as is his birthday (not mentioned in the Bible but 25th December is borrowed from Sol Invictus). Clearly to anyone who does not believe in fairy tales the immaculate conception and Christ’s miracles were also invented, and there is some evidence to suggest that some of his miracles (esp. Lazarus) were crafted to fit archetypes in other traditions. Ditto the immaculate conception and the notion of the “rises after death” God.

4. The only parts of the Bible that you can really read much into are the actual teachings, and that narrows the field enormously (particularly when the authors do this brilliant trick of repeatedly telling us people’s reaction to Christ’s teachings, but not the teachings themselves. “Everyone was super impressed!” “Oh what did he say?” “Errrr…”).

5. There are a few different interpretations of the teachings, ranging from “psychiatric disorder” (I’m not joking! There is a school of thought that Jesus had borderline personality disorder or something), to “magician” with much in between. The most compelling one to me is “apocalyptic preacher”. Most of the writings of the early Church and the behaviour of the early Christians indicate that they truly believed that the world was going to end, and apocalyptic cults were in vogue at the time.

6. So now we get to the morality of the man. Let’s see…

• Scapegoatism. He preached and encouraged a belief that people need not atone for their sins themselves. Pretty ghastly stuff. As Christopher Hitchens said, even if you served my prison sentence for me, you couldn’t absolve me of the crime itself on a moral level. It’s by this scapegoatism that we know Christians must accept that Hitler, murderer of 6 million Jews and Roman Catholic, is very possibly in heaven, whilst Bill Gates — agnostic atheist who has done as much for mankind as anyone you’d care to mention — is destined for hell. But, the good news is for our argument that whilst this is obviously utterly immoral and disgusting, the idea of sins being cast on to symbols of purity is by no means novel. It is present in many traditions and religions, and predates Christianity. As does the notion of the "dies and rises again" superhero.

• Beatitudes. Lots of people inexplicably consider these to be fairly radical. The concepts and morality within are echoed in Buddhism (which, uncomfortably for “JESUS WAS TOTES RADICAL!” fanbois, predates Jesus by centuries), and of course the Old Testament (he’s basically just remixing Psalms ffs — “For though the LORD is high, he regards the lowly, but the haughty he knows from afar.“) but if you subscribe to Marcan priority it’s a bit sad to see that in Mark the reaction is so bad that Jesus says “Lol tough crowd, nobody is appreciated in their hometown”, when everyone is like “????”, and when the story is repeated in Luke he still sheepishly says that, but the reaction of the assembled congregation becomes “omg radical huge this guy is incred!!!” — a likely interpolation unfortunately. So people didn’t consider it especially radical when he said it, and it’s all stuff from other religions and texts. (You have a really, really hard time ahead of you if you’re going to try to claim that an illiterate Jew who lived for 30 years nearly 100,000 years into mankind’s existence had anything especially interesting to say.)

• Turn the other cheek. As discussed above, this is widely misunderstood. It wouldn't have been that radical for Jesus to be a pacifist. Most of the Old Testament is either God saying "BE NICE TO EACH OTHER FFS" or "Ugh OK let's kill them all but only because I said so" (uncomfortable scene where he has bears kill teenagers for mocking a bald guy notwithstanding).

• Universal judgement and coming apocalypse — everyone at the time had a big hard on for apocalyptic cults, so this is not novel. He tells his followers to sell all their stuff which I guess is pretty radical? In the same way as Scientology pursuing years-long vendettas against apostates is ‘radical’? (I.e. it’s totally fucking immoral?)

• Obviously he calls a Canaanite woman a dog and was pretty dickish towards Samaritans (even a charitable interpretation of the “good” Samaritan must be balanced against Jesus telling the bois to not spread the word to Samaria at all (or any Gentiles), but I expect you’re not looking for examples of him being a radical douchebag and just examples of the novelty of what he said, right?

Anyway, fast forward the 50-90 years we need to get to any written accounts of Jesus which aren’t the hilarious bundle of contradictions we find in the synoptic Gospels, and where we would hope to see the impact of Jesus and his mega radical ideas… and you get to Josephus and the Antiquities & Tacitus. In terms of proving Jesus the Radical, the first mention of Jesus from Josephus is pretty good for your cause:

> About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

The bad news is that literally nobody considers this to be authentic. It looks like it’s from several hundred years later, when Jews were trying to really boost Jesus’s street cred. It may as well be written in red crayon over the original text, it's so obviously fake.

The other two references are just “Jesus was this dude’s brother” type things. No indications of his radical nature. Tacitus mentions that he was executed and that Christians were antagonising Jews and cheesing people off.

There are multiple other sources which suggest that Christians were agitators in Rome and generally not well-liked, but it’s fascinating that for all the radical wisdom Jesus allegedly preached, he made very little impact on those around him until he was the subject of significant posthumous interpolation and rewriting.

Folks who try to draw conclusions about Jesus’s teachings in the year 2020 really need to consider them in the context in which they were written (you can’t know whether or not he said it, so view them through the lens of “person writing to try to perpetuate a religion for some reason in the year AD 50”. It makes things a lot easier.

Jesus didn't say or do anything interesting, let alone anything suggestive of his being God. Very open to being shown areas I'm wrong if you're comfortable rooting your analysis in the proper historical context.

Who has suggested that the golden rule is a novel aspect of Christ's teachings? Christ himself provides a citation for it.

Walter Wink's interpretation of "turn the other cheek" is kooky and obviously wrong. You could only think otherwise if you'd never read it in context in the Sermon on the Mount. Luke doesn't even bother mentioning that it's the right cheek in another report of a similar statement by Jesus.

I am not a Christian myself, though I don't see what difference it makes here.

> Who has suggested that the golden rule is a novel aspect of Christ's teachings

You could Google this. Christianity.com[1]

> One of Jesus' most famous and impactful teachings, the Golden Rule can be found in the Bible verses Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31

> Walter Wink's interpretation of "turn the other cheek" is kooky and obviously wrong.

Let's pretend for a moment that I grant you that. It doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely nothing novel about the notion of pacifism or "love thy neighbour".

Perhaps given that you've ignored the other 3,000-odd words I provided in evidence of the inanity of Jesus you might offer us a quick summary of why you think his teachings were so radical?

> You could only think otherwise if you'd never read it in context in the Sermon on the Mount.

Not sure I follow the logic here. I've read it in context. I would assume that Walter Wink did too. That rather undoes your argument, so I'm sure there must be a way to reframe it more meaningfully. (E.g. "You could only think otherwise if you don't understand X, Y, and Z about the prevailing culture of the time.")

> Luke doesn't even bother mentioning that it's the right cheek in another report of a similar statement by Jesus.

I assume that you subscribe to Marcan priority and don't contest that the author of the gospel of Luke worked 15-30 years after Mark, using Mark + Q as source.

It's hard to understand how much you know about this topic (particularly as you've ignored and failed to engage with much of the substance I've offered and have instead offered generalisations without any corroboration), so apologies if this is teaching you to suck eggs: one way to consider Luke is as a more optimistic rewrite of Mark. He's significantly less interested in details, and significantly more interested in narrative.

For example, consider Mark's description of the crucifixion (Jesus is silent, despairing, surprised, questions/curses God), and then read Luke's description of a prayerful, talkative Jesus who knows that this is all part of the plan. He pardons the criminals and tells them they'll hang out in paradise.

Another example: Mark does not talk about the virgin birth. He begins with Jesus as an adult. Matthew quotes Isaiah when he discusses this obviously apocryphal part of the story (i.e. making it the fulfilment of a Jewish prophecy, just like he does when he hilariously has Jesus simultaneously riding a donkey AND a colt), but Luke doesn't talk about it as a prophecy at all.

There is an appreciable evolution of the gospels as distinct books written for distinct phases of the early Church. I think it is fair to consider Mark to be a somewhat more realistic and detailed portrayal of Jesus than the later gospels, and by the time the final gospel (John) is being written, the apocalyptic message of Mark is clearly not coming to fruition, and the entire text needs to be rewritten heavily. But either way it's not really in support of your point that the heavily editorialised rewrite of Mark by the author of Luke omits one detail. You can see here[2] that such concessions to simplicity are a frequent problem for the author of Luke.

I'm happy to keep discussing this but I think it would be sensible to re-frame the discussion in simpler terms:

1. What do you consider Jesus's teachings to be (helpful to stick to the gospel of Mark and/or John if possible)?

2. What do you believe to be radical about them?

> I am not a Christian myself, though I don't see what difference it makes here.

Because generally Christians are alone in believing that Jesus had anything interesting to say. Most scholars can't even figure out what the Bible wants us to believe that he said given the hopeless rewriting, editing, and mythologising.

[1] https://www.christianity.com/christian-life/what-is-the-gold...

[2] https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/luke-6.html

You write a lot and go off on a lot of tangents. I'll try to keep this brief.

The christianity.com page just says that the golden rule is one of Christ's most famous teachings (which I guess it is), not that it's original. And what does it quote Jesus as saying? "...for this sums up the Law and the Prophets". Anyone who's skimmed the Bible can tell you that Jesus didn't invent the golden rule out of nothing. If people haven't even read the Bible, are their views on the originality of Jesus's teachings worth paying attention to?

Marcan priority only underlines the point. Luke obviously didn't pick up on the right hand having any special significance. And he was much better placed to judge such alleged cultural subtleties around directionality of slapping than we are.

> You write a lot and go off on a lot of tangents.

That's certainly true! One reason for this is that you present literally nothing of any substance to engage with, or to indicate any sort of understanding of the topic we're discussing. Another is that we're literally discussing what I perceive as your lack of appreciation of the context, criticism, and apologetics of the synoptic gospels: I'm certainly more than capable of waffling, but this level of exposition wouldn't be required if you were actually engaging with the questions and points raised ;)

A quick summary of our discussion -- hopefully you think I've been fair in representing your contributions:

Me: [Christianity] is almost entirely unremarkable [...] it contains few novel ideas or suggestions. One example: many Christians believe the golden rule to be novel, but it isn't.

You: Christ's morality is quite different from the golden rule and much more radical. "Turn the other cheek" is not the golden rule. (Translation: Turn the other cheek is a canonical example of Christ's teachings, and is novel.)

I assume you are using 'radical' to mean that it was a new and unusual idea. If not I don't really see any basis for your reply in the first place.

We should note here that I use the golden rule as an example of Christianity, not Christ. You seem to be distracted by the fact that Christ said it with a citation and it therefore is self-evidently not novel. My point is different: it's one of the few concrete ideas suggested by the Christian faith, and it's just an axiom of every organised group of people, predating Christianity significantly.

Me: 1) Clarification: I use the golden rule as an example, because many Christians erroneously believe the golden rule to be novel. 2) The scholarly consensus on the passage you cite as being a good example of Christ's radical morality is frequently misunderstood. 3) I think you're probably a Christian because you say "Christ's morality", which is an excruciatingly uncomfortable phrase given the ambiguous genesis of the synoptic gospels and the heavy emphasis which early Christians placed on mythologising and legitimising Jesus. 4) Nonetheless we can discuss the morality prescribed to Christ by the authors of the gospels and see that it is not anything one would view as anything more than immoral today, and 5) We can infer from the contemporary reaction to Christ (very muted, and requiring centuries of rewriting and editing before it became popular) that few who bothered to write about him in the years immediately following his death considered him to be an especially radical figure.

That takes us up to…

You: Who believes that the golden rule is a novel aspect of Christ's teaching? Jesus himself provides a citation for it. The interpretation Wink offers of "turn the other cheek" is obviously wrong. Luke's re-telling of this event supports this.

So far so good I think?

I'll quickly deal with your latest bad faith (ha!) reply:

1. I think trying to speak your language ("Christ" instead of "Christianity") has gotten me into trouble, but I've cleared it up above. Hopefully you can now move on to address the far more significant points and maybe actually contribute some exposition on your belief that Christianity contains novel ideas.

2. "If people haven't even read the Bible, are their views on--" rare to see no true Scotsmen alive and well in 2020. But in any case: yes, if Christians erroneously believe something (e.g. that Christianity created the golden rule) then they are still Christians, and their views on the originality of Jesus's teachings are worth paying attention to as an indication of just how confused most people are about the novelty of Christianity.

3. "Marcan priority only underlines the point." Yeeeeah. I mean I've provided you another citation which shows that the author of Luke (or the person who translated it from Aramaic to Greek) was pretty casual when discussing literally the same passages as you think Wink is wrong on ("extra mile" means something literal). I get that you think he's guilty of eisogesis but it seems like quite a basic misunderstanding of contemporary (to mean: the last 100 years) gospel scholarship if you think that Luke's author omitting something Mark's author included actually adds to the authenticity of Luke's version.

I'm super happy to keep talking to you because you seem genuinely interested in this area, but it really is time for you to answer the questions I outlined in my previous post.

I don't think Luke misunderstood what Mark reported Jesus as saying. I think he omitted 'right' because it wasn't central to the point. That seems the simplest explanation, and I don't see anything in your comment that provides a more compelling alternative.

I don't particularly care if there are some Christians who erroneously think that the golden rule originated with Christ or that it's unique to Christianity. If this bothers you, please go talk to them about it, not me.

If you reread the thread, you'll note that I never actually claimed that Christianity contains "novel ideas". (I think it probably does, but I'm no expert on the subject and will not try to defend that position here.) Maybe this misconception is what is leading to you introducing lots of irrelevant material.

> I don't think Luke misunderstood what Mark reported Jesus as saying. I think he omitted 'right' because it wasn't central to the point. That seems the simplest explanation, and I don't see anything in your comment that provides a more compelling alternative.

Do you really believe that to be the simplest explanation considering the authorship of Luke, its position in the canon, the unusually heavily fragmented and interpolated nature of the papyri our translations come from, the additional 20 yrs of oral tradition it went through from Matthew, the fact that it frequently contains content which is not only uncorroborated in the other gospels (red flag) but also directly contradictory to them?

I’m trying to think of a single secular scholar working today who would treat Luke — glossy, editorialised, written to persuade a later audience of different things to earlier gospels, still being revised well into the second century — as being accurate on the details in this regard. Do you know of any?

> I don't particularly care if there are some Christians who erroneously think that the golden rule originated with Christ or that it's unique to Christianity.

I can appreciate that you don’t like the answer to the questions, but when you ask “Who has suggested the golden rule is a novel aspect of Christ’s teachings” and “If people haven’t read the Bible are their views on its teachings worth paying attention to?” it seems really truculent to criticise the answering itself. Pick a lane dude.

> If you reread the thread, you'll note that I never actually claimed that Christianity contains "novel ideas". (I think it probably does, but I'm no expert on the subject and will not try to defend that position here.) Maybe this misconception is what is leading to you introducing lots of irrelevant material.

Ah I get it now! When I wrote my original comment to say that there’s nothing novel in Christ’s teachings and you replied to say that Christ’s morality is “much more radical” than I had outlined, and that "turn the other cheek" is different to the maxim of reciprocity, you were… agreeing with me? Got it ;)

To me, it seems like a very simple explanation that 'right' got omitted in Luke because it's not central to the point being made. One does not have to believe that Luke had no agenda of his own, or that Luke's sources were complete and fully accurate, to believe this explanation. Of course, it may not be literally 'Luke' who is responsible for the omission; the point is just that it seems to be a simple editorial change that occurred at some point in the history of the text(s) because it had no material effect on the sense of what Jesus is saying. You've not actually pointed to any evidence that casts doubt on this simple explanation.

All this is a bit of a tangent though. Even without taking Luke into consideration, Wink's interpretation is outlandish when you read the passage in context. If we're going to talk about agendas and ulterior motives, it seems to me that Wink himself is the one who is most amply furnished with those. He was trying to paint Jesus as an advocate of his particular approach to nonviolent resistance. And in doing so, he arrived at an interpretation of the text that (to my very limited knowledge) has no precedent, even among theologians who lived in societies that were culturally much closer to 1st century Palestine than ours.

>it seems really truculent to criticise the answering itself.

The point of my question was to determine whether anyone had seriously made the claim that the golden rule originated with Christ. So much has been said about Christianity by so many people that you can attribute almost any wild claim about it to some random idiot or ignoramus. But it seems highly unlikely that anyone would make this claim who has even read the Bible passages where Jesus commends the golden rule.

>Ah I get it now! When I wrote my original comment to say that there’s nothing novel in Christ’s teachings and you replied to say that Christ’s morality is “much more radical” than I had outlined, and that "turn the other cheek" is different to the maxim of reciprocity, you were… agreeing with me? Got it ;)

No, I was saying that Christ's morality is more radical than just the golden rule (i.e. it is more extreme and more difficult to adhere to). I did not say that it was novel. I have no very strong opinion on the extent to which it is novel. As an aside, it's not clear to me that the novelty of Christ's ethical maxims is even a central tenet of Christianity. Focusing on the novelty of Christ's teachings makes more sense if you are a non-Christian who is evaluating his intellectual contribution as an ethical teacher, rather than a Christian who sees him as the saviour, the son of God, etc. etc.

What you seem to be purporting as a 'simple' (and previously: 'the simplest') explanation seems to me to be complex in comparison to other possible explanations.

I summarise your argument as: "The autograph author of Luke omitted the word 'right' from their account of the Sermon on the Plain because it was not central to the point Jesus was making. Whilst I do not believe that the message of Jesus is substantially altered between the Sermon on the Mount (which includes the word) and the Sermon on Plain (which omits it), anyone who uses the inclusion of this word or other details present in SM and omitted from SP to argue for that the message had a narrower social focus than Luke's editorialised version is wrong."

I presume a few stipulations: SM and SP are two accounts of the same sermon or sayings, written for two totally different audiences, and likely reliant on Q. The SP is an 'epitome' or summary rather than an attempt at an exhaustive recreation of the contents of the document. The inclusion of the word in Matthew's account lends credibility to the fact that Jesus was believed to have said it and that the Q document included it, and the omission of the word from Luke's account does not diminish the likelihood that he said it. These are unremarkable points.

My position is as follows: the simplest explanation for the omission of the word is a transcription error or a later redaction by someone other than the autograph author of Luke, the argument you are having with Winks (via me) is a microcosm of the scholarly consensus around Luke (Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher with a narrow social focus who debated interpretations of local Jewish law in detail, and seemed OK with violence, not -- as Luke would have us believe -- a man who believed himself to be God, knowingly founding a new religion and espoused a message of pacifism) which is at odds with your view, and the position you hold (that we can look to Luke for a more accurate reflection of the thrust of Christ's teachings) is circular (Luke's interpretation of Christ's teachings is both the most widely pervading interpretation and the least compelling from a historical and sociological perspective).

A bit more detail:

The simplest explanation for the omission of the word is unintentional omission. Very common by Bible scribes and nearly always human error.

Until the middle ages, when we see a kind of 'Cambrian explosion' of manuscripts (95% of all extant manuscripts are from after the 9th Century), scribes were barely literate. There are 5600 surviving Greek manuscripts, with in excess of 200,000 differences between them. Many of them are fragments, so goodness knows what the number would be if we had each codex and scroll in full. (This all changed when reasonably educated monks started doing the work.) There are more differences between the manuscripts than there are words in the gospels.

Scribes would often miss out a word, or even an entire line as they laboured to transcribe a document (often in a language they lacked proficiency in). These omissions are more common with words which do not change the meaning of the text (like δεξιὰν, which is the word you're inexplicably fixated on), and unfortunately because of the nature of the formalisation of the gospel canon and its means of transmission being oral history for a very long time, there are likely thousands of words missing from all extant manuscripts which creates the misleading impression that they were never included to begin with. Some we can infer, and some were inferred by later scribes.

It's also possible, and I would argue more probable than the prevailing text of Luke being accurate in its omission, that a later scribe simply omitted the word. P75 is the only extant papyrus to contain the verses we're discussing, but the scribe omitted personal pronouns (as well as Luke's hilarious interpolation of Christ's agony at Gethsemane -- whoosh! Gone! -- and John's parable of the adulteress. Recent graphological analysis dates P75 to the fourth century, which makes it far younger than originally thought.

Similarly P45 (which picks up one verse after the verse we're discussing) is riddled by such omissions. EC Colwell's withering assessment is that it omits "adverbs, adjectives, nouns, participles, verbs, personal pronouns—without any compensating habit of addition. [The scribe] frequently omits phrases and clauses. He prefers the simple to the compound word. In short, he favours brevity. He shortens the text in at least fifty places in singular readings alone. But he does not drop syllables or letters."

So the two most significant early papyri for the of Luke, and the _only_ early papyrus which includes the actual verse we are discussing, both make a habit of omitting words and verses. So if we're to believe that SM and SP are two reflections of the same event, likely sourced from the same documents (Q for Matthew, and Q and Matthew for Luke), we have to pick: do we take Matthew's far more expansive and detailed word for it, with multiple early and later corroborations of the text (24 total, including one which is certainly second century and a handful which straddle second/third century), or do we consider Luke's summary 911 total, of which all are third century or later, and most are heavily fragmented) to be accurate, in spite of the paucity of manuscripts with which to cross reference?

When you consider the original Greek, it's not an especially contentious proposition. There are many omissions in the gospels where the word considered to be 'omitted' (e.g. an adjective) would radically alter not only the meaning of the sentence, but also necessitate a different form of the noun than appears in the manuscript. (The inverse is also a helpful way of detecting omitted words: when a declension is used which is only required if a specific form of a word was also supposed to be present.)

Matthew:

> ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα σου

> rhapizei eis tēn dexian siagona sou

> shall strike on the right cheek of you

Luke:

> τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα

> typtonti se epi tēn siagona

> striking you on the cheek

If you change Luke to:

> τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα

We're simply changing "tēn siagona" ("the cheek") to "tēn dexian siagona" ("the right cheek"), which is how it appears in Matthew. The entire way which Luke rewrites SP is in general interesting. Here's Matthew:

> ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλ’ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα σου, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην·

> I however say to you, not to resist the evil person. Instead, whoever you shall strike on the right cheek of you, turn to him also the other;

and

> καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον·

> and to the one willing you to sue and the tunic of you to take, yield to him also the cloak.

Luke combines these into one more elegant verse:

> τῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα μὴ κωλύσῃς.

> To the one striking you on the cheek, offer also the other; and from the one taking away your cloak, also the tunic do not withhold.

But, as Winks and others point out, we start to see him corrupting native praxis and idioms in the manner of a foreigner ill acquainted with the region. "Living on a wing and a prayer" would become "existing on a prayer and a wing" to Luke.

It's certainly plausible that Luke did not understand the cultural significance of the word. He was, after all, a man from a different part of the world, writing a generation after the fact, having by his own admission not witnessed any of the events. The bet you're making is analogous to betting that a Frenchman transcribing and interpreting a speech made by a German politician from 100 years previously is going to be a nuanced understanding of the cultural mores.

Finally, you've tried to dodge the issue of Luke's authorial intent, but it's important. Luke wrote for a Gentile audience. Matthew for Jews. Mark for Romans.

It seems like you might be aware that Luke deliberately smoothed some of the sharp edges of the earlier gospels (to the point of being totally brazen in places. As Guignebert wrote, "A hagiographer of [Luke's] type never bothers much about common sense in inventing the circumstance he requires."), but Luke frequently displays a lack of understanding of the society about which he writes. He frequently summarises a lot of Jewish tradition when Matthew goes deep on detail, or omits important context altogether.

A good example is his treatment of the Pharisees. Whilst Mark and Matthew share meaningful discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees over the traditions of oral law, Luke skips it altogether, either because he doesn't understand or doesn't see the relevance. But to scholars reading Mark and understanding the various early creeds of Christianity, it's plain that Luke and John are the final couple of kids in a big game of telephone. Luke is not fearful of Judaism as Matthew and Mark were, so his gospel contains some of the stern criticisms and pointed remarks of Mark and Matthew, whilst also praising them or ignoring them at points which are divergent with the other accounts. To Jesus, and anyone writing about the life of Jesus in the region, the Pharisees were an authoritative shadow hanging over everything. Not understanding that, or ignoring that in order to reframe Jesus's teachings, certainly makes Luke an easier and more universally applicable read. But it makes it further from Christ's message, not closer to it. It's never more apparent than in the beatitudes. Matthew says "Blessed are the poor in spirit," but Luke redacts and rephrases to "Blessed are you who are poor."

The writers of the gospels had to overcome the significant incongruity of Jesus the human apocalyptic preacher, making no claims of divinity, believing that the end times were just around the corner (Mark), and the fact that the world did not end, and Jesus was executed. This is why we have the prophecy-fulfilling claptrap of Matthew and Luke: it's all apologetics written years later, and largely at odds with the explicit mission of the earliest and most historically accurate gospel: to ensure adherence to the old law.

It's almost unequivocal that Luke's gospel is a better reflection of the message of Jesus as we know it today. That's because Luke to some extent invented that message. But for anyone thinking about the gospels, it's very tough to ignore the author's serious lack of understanding of the context and times about which he writes, and it makes claims that we can ignore the meaning contained within the expansive and detailed passages Luke rewrites fanciful in the extreme.

Finally, on the novelty of Christ's teachings: a frequent claim of the gospels is that what Jesus taught was divinely inspired (Jesus himself claims this in John 7), and the reaction of those who hear him is often of a people persuaded by his ideas.

Anyone considering Christianity's claims is of course interested in the novelty of its ideas. If Christianity were at least the first time we saw a self-evidently great idea being preached and adopted by the masses, it would lend some credence to the idea that Jesus was divinely inspired. In the absence f his saying anything novel, we have the tawdry claims of miracles and abiogenesis. Lots of frills, but zero substance.

The problem is that marriage is really a necessary evil for Christianity, and a required one if you wish to engage in sex at all. It won't exist in heaven (jesus said we shall be as the angels there), and Paul outright says that its better to be unmarried to serve the kingdom of God.

The issue with this kind of view is that without the divine commands, why get married? Why have to deal with wrongness at all? And you kind of see the issue with secular people now, who choose other values over opportunities to exercise grace, as you put it.

I have to disagree with you here, but I am reformed, not Roman Catholic so I may have different beliefs than others you've come across. Christians believe marriage was established by God in the beginning of time. The ten commandments and other laws contain laws particularly for married individuals. Christ presided over a marriage in the New Testament. Paul gives advice in Ephesians as to how husbands and wives should treat each other. Paul's advice in Corinthians is related to his status as a lifetime single, fully devoted to spreading the gospel as an apostle of God, and I think it gives relief to those who don't find a partner in life. I don't think it's appropriate to single out this one section to stand as the Bible's entire stance on marriage. The other examples provide the biblical view that marriage is a gift from God, intended, as all things were, to reflect His glory back to Him. As for marriage in heaven, I don't know enough about the theology around the New Heavens and New Earth to say, but I know marriage is intended to be a picture of Christ and His Church and we will ultimately be "married" to Christ in eternity. Constantly praising and in awe of His Glory. So considering that, I would say there is no longer the need for the covenant of earthly marriage.

Alain de Botton suggests marrying someone even if they are unideal and accepting their foibles, but what if instead people choose to remain single? He writes:

> The person who is best suited to us is not the person who shares our every taste (he or she doesn’t exist)...

Me, I spend most of my free time consuming literature, films and music. Trying to assimilate as much of the canon as I can is what drives me; the beauty in art makes life worth living. If a person doesn't share my tastes and isn’t willing to sit with me during all these moving and emotionally rich experiences day in and day out, then that means that they don’t share my life, and that seems like a bad foundation for any relationship. I do miss companionship, but I would rather stay single than enter into a marriage that would be an exercise in mutual frustration or force me to give up that which gives my life meaning and purpose.

As there is less social pressure to marry today and people now have boundless access to media, I suspect that many other people will reach the same conclusion, even if the hunger for companionship or childraising at any cost means that such insistently single people might remain a minority.

> enter into a marriage that would be an exercise in mutual frustration or force me to give up that which gives my life meaning and purpose

If you have only a single interest and/or taste (like you imply here), it shouldn't be very hard to find someone with 100% overlap with you. After all, if they enjoy entertainment then they share your every taste. I think it is safe to assume that Alain de Botton writes for what he feels is "most people". Most people have interests outside of entertainment.

To me art is almost the opposite of entertainment. Art is supposed to challenge us to grow, entertainment is a way to kill time. Big difference, but missed by a lot of people today.

Yup. This is the difference between high art cinema and entertainment films. I think a lot of people see films that are generally seen as art (such as Wes Anderson films, Lost in Translation, Spike Jonze's Her) as 'pretentious' because they don't see cinema as something that can be taken seriously and are looking for something else out of films. To them, seeing a film ask something of them is bizarre and uncomfortable, like being asked by a performer to come up on stage.

Art can be a form of entertainment. One thing that art definitely is not is a thing that needs to have more gatekeepers.

> I think it is safe to assume that Alain de Botton writes for what he feels is "most people"

He also wrote "How Proust Can Change Your Life", which may or may not be for "most people"

It might be more accurate to say that he writes about what he feels is the human experience, which of necessity is specific to him. After all, he can't really know what other people feel and think.

Wow what huge expectations (edit: which is fine btw, just probably inhibiting to a relationship). I respect my wife, am amazed at what she does on instinct and emotion (compared to my incessant need to validate choices rationally) and learn from that every day. This was not something I could have ever foreseen (so among the things one doesn't know one doesn't know). She is great with the kids and as a result they are nice kids (one can learn a lot from nice kids). I actually like that she's not into scifi it gives me some alone time. We also bicker sometimes, her communication can be quite imprecise and my ability to quickly determine context correctly is limited. I guess I'm good a picking that one possible way of misinterpreting her.

Is she my perfect mate (meaning the best there is on the planet)? Very probably not, I would certainly like to tweak some things here and there (I want more sex, she wants more romance, the standard chicken and egg story. I guess that's why they tell you to keep working on your relationship).

Is the search for a potentially better mate worth the pain on me, her and the kids? No. I'm happy and can do most things I want. I appreciate that she wants the same life as me (a rural house near nature), we certainly agree on how we want to raise the kids, I find her attractive physically and have learned to appreciate her strong will (over time). I guess the big things are important, don't let the little things get in the way of happiness, and keep working at it ;)

Remember: Happiness = Reality - Expectations

I feel like you summarized my life.

I have four areas I think of relationships in; physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual.

We don't have to align perfectly in any or all areas, but there has to be activity and I do have a belief that people have a minimum they can tolerate in any one of those areas.

I think expectations are well... expected. It's just that some are socially obvious and others are unique to the individual. Willing to navigate these as a partner (or any relationship at different levels) provides a connection for doing this "better together".

> Wow what huge expectations

If "I want someone who has the same cultural taste as me" in terms of films etc. is "huge" then I guess we should just marry at random.

I was reacting more to "if a person doesn't share my tastes and isn’t willing to sit with me during all these moving and emotionally rich experiences day in and day out", especially the "day in and day out" part.

That said, if I would limit my mate choice to someone who likes the same films as me I'd be setting myself up for a lonely life ;) (especially since I am already not the best at approaching women I'm interested in (or at least I wasn't, some 20 years ago).

Ah, ok, I see, sorry if I came across accusingly. Think my tone was a bit harash.

Did you find someone? How did you do it, given how shy you say you are/were?

Np :)

Its a long story but involved first developing a friendship and months of fighting feelings of loosing control until giving in and replacing the fear of rejection by a fear being abandoned and being jealous as a result. Actually it is a miracle she became my wife later on... We first met in a bar, our friends knew each other. We went swimming weekly with a small group of friends and started doing more and more together. It was the time of the first sms text messages, what a time that was, now I almost feel old...

Thanks very much for sharing. You know, that does sound quite romantic after all :-D

Wondering (as for myself too), what is the goal behind consuming/assimilating?

Is it an end in itself, for oneself?

Is it a way to have more/more elaborate exchanges, conversations, relationships with other people? Other people which may share some of the same interests, but may also have others, and other perspectives to bring in the conversation?

> I spend most of my free time consuming literature, films and music. Trying to assimilate as much of the canon as I can is what makes me feel alive and in touch with the beauty of the world. Consequently, if a person doesn't share my tastes, then that means that they don’t share my life, and that seems like a bad foundation for any relationship. I do miss companionship, but I would rather refrain from entering into a marriage than into a marriage that would be an exercise in mutual frustration or force me to give up that which gives my life meaning and purpose.

Perhaps I'm unique in this sense, but for me pursuing my own self-satisfaction has never left me feeling that happy or fulfilled. In fact, I suspect it's what fueled my depression throughout most of my twenties.

I always thought if I had enough money, or if I started a successful enough business maybe I'd be happy. But every time I achieved a goal I always felt more empty and confused. I might feel happiness for a little while, but then I needed something else and so the struggle started again.

Something I slowly started to realise in my late twenties was that these goals of mine gave me some surface level meaning, but the deepest meaning came from doing things for others, especially those I love.

I think this is what a lot of people misunderstand about children and relationships today. It's very hard to find deeper meaning from an enjoyment of literature or music. I'm not saying these thing can't bring enjoyment or enrich your life, but they don't typically give someone a reason to wake up in the morning either.

Today people too often think that partying, casual sex or other selfish pursuits will make them happy, but I suspect it has the exact opposite effect. Finding someone who isn't perfect but who you can love and dedicate yourself to, or having children and giving everything you can for them, these are things that can bring us true meaning.

I agree, in short I think there is a very important and underestimated difference between joy and happiness, fun and satisfaction. I think indeed they are even at odds with each other.

It comes back in many aspects of life, i.e., the entertainment industry, the smartphone industry (maybe any industry?) aims to bring you fun, a short-lived positive emotion. What brings you happiness (a long lived positive feeling of satisfaction and peacefulness of mind) is perhaps difficult to discover and deeply personal.

That really resonates. I'm where you were ~10 years ago. But another perspective is that, i try to become successful or develop hobbies to make other people proud of me. I get up in the morning to surprise people or see them respect me. Similar goal to what you've described, but with a slightly different emotion. Yes art and sport and computers make me happy but I can also share them with other people and make them happy.

Yeah but that doesn't mean rush to have kids right...? Because then the best path would be to have kids at like 25, which prob isn't the best way to happiness.

I suspect that the best way to happiness is not to seek it. All the people I know that married young and had kids at 20 years old didn't do it because they thought it would make them happy, they did it because they don't use "happiness" as the north star that guides their decisions. They are from a different culture and religion and have a different value system, one that doesn't consider an action's impact on their happiness to be a winning argument for or against.

Are they happy? I don't know, and it doesn't really matter because it isn't really the goal, but if I had to guess I'd say they're happier than I am.

I don't think I'm the first to realize that happiness visits those who stop looking for it. The challenge is that you have to really stop looking, not pretend to ignore it while you constantly peek over your shoulder to see if it isn't just about to finally show up.

Yeah, you're right.

I guess there is a fine line between "just do it" and "measure twice, cut once".

Of course you can just put your head down and follow the traditional path, and end up fine - with kids, house, etc. But was that the path best for you? Was it the most fulfilling path? Shouldn't overthink that, but also should spend some effort to think about it.

Uh, yes? 25 is certainly not ahead of schedule for having kids. By 30 there start to be physical risks.

Not for a guy. Plus you can marry girls like 3-7 years younger.

25 is not a young age at which to start having kids. If there's stable household income and essential needs are being met, by all means, have kids at 20 if that's what both partners want.

> Finding someone who isn't perfect but who you can love and dedicate yourself to, or having children and giving everything you can for them, these are things that can bring us true meaning.

That certainly seems to be conventional wisdom. I wonder how often it's true? (edit: 40% divorce rate, etc.)

Maybe some people find, or struggle with, meaning more than others? Maybe there's multiple meaningful paths through life?

> Today people too often think that partying, casual sex or other selfish pursuits will make them happy, but I suspect it has the exact opposite effect. Finding someone who isn't perfect but who you can love and dedicate yourself to, or having children and giving everything you can for them, these are things that can bring us true meaning.

That's just some gibberish that married people say; or people who were looking for reasons to live and are later trapped in a marriage trying to explain their existence.

I picked the former and I have a reason to wake up every morning: Doing the former.

A word of caution: this belief may be true, but it’s radioactive. Potential partners can smell it from a mile away. They may not be consciously aware of it, but they’ll smell it. The personality component of attractiveness for men has a lot to do with already feeling fulfilled in your solo activities. No one wants to feel like you are looking to make them a load-bearing structure in your psyche. Some are okay with being used for sex under the right circumstances, but vanishingly few will consent to be used for meaning.

At least, I think this is why I’m single.

> No one wants to feel like you are looking to make them a load-bearing structure in your psyche.

I think you are correct, but I don't think this is exactly what kypro is getting at. expecting to gain fulfillment by investing effort in a relationship is not a turn-off to most people. expecting fulfillment from a relationship while putting forth minimal effort is indeed toxic and will repel people.

> Potential partners can smell it from a mile away. They may not be consciously aware of it, but they’ll smell it. The personality component of attractiveness for men has a lot to do with already feeling fulfilled in your solo activities.

I would generalize this further. people can sense when another person is significantly needier than they are (having or not having fulfilling solo activities is a subset of this). outside of very specific (eg, parent-child) types of relationships, people hate this.

> At least, I think this is why I’m single.

without knowing much about you, I would guess that you're single for the same reason as most single people who want a relationship: mismatched expectations and/or not meeting and talking to enough new people. timing is very important, and the timing will be wrong for most people you meet.

It seems to me that neediness is exactly the belief that other people are essential to your life satisfaction and fulfillment. What do you think it means?

Not the OP but I think neediness is more than that. It's a mismatch between how much you someone need other people for their life satisfaction and fulfillment and how much that same person is willing to invest in the relationship.

So not all people who believe that other people are essential to their life satisfaction and fulfillment are necessarily needy, the ones who are are those who do not give back...

Not everyone is the same, so I doubt being married and having children is what brings true meaning to everyone. Maybe a majority of people feel that way, at least at some point in their lives? But I'd caution against generalizing to everyone. People do have different motivations in life.

You might be glad to know that both my wife and I have been happily “assimilating the canon”, with as much furious energy as before we were married. In spite of the fact that our tastes don’t overlap 1:1. In fact I’ve been introduced to more of the canon through our heterogenous tastes.

At risk of being flippant, you're overvaluing media and art over actually living life. Where do you suppose art comes from? More from life than from looking at other art.

Consumption.

If your life is defined by consumption, you’re not adding anything to the world, which is where most people experience meaning.

Maybe you’re planning to consume now and create later. Marriage is all about creation.

> If your life is defined by consumption, you’re not adding anything to the world, which is where most people experience meaning.

I disagree!

It's not a life I would choose to live, but as you might guess from my username I absolutely see value in consumption.

If GP desires to live a life defined by consumption, by all means, they should do so. Regardless of how "adding to the world" is measured, the capital that GP controls will be transferred to the people producing the content GP consumes - people who are by definition "creators".

If it makes GP happy to be primarily a source of resources for the creative class, I see no social negatives to that behavior.

Almost by definition, they must be adding something to the world to acquire that capital —- so they’re definitely adding something to the world.

I didn’t mean to suggest it’s a social negative. I only meant to suggest they’re defining their meaning by an odd side of the equation.

> isn’t willing to sit with me during all these moving and emotionally rich experiences day in and day out

I'm incredibly sad for you. Do you have a theory as to why you must be a passive observer to emotionally enriching human experiences, instead of being a participant in creating them yourself?

I was going to post that I am married to my wife because we share the same high-level goals in life and want to walk that path together, supporting each other along the way. That is certainly true.

> even if the hunger for companionship or childraising at any cost means that such insistently single people might remain a minority.

... then I got to this part. The fact is, raising a family is very much core to our relationship; it's the "high-level goals in life" that I referred to above.

Intuitively, I am very confident that my marriage would make sense and be equally fulfilling if we could not have children or didn't desire them. Objectively, I can't actually make that assertion because my own perspective is so influenced by the fact that family is so central to our lives that I'm not confident I could anticipate what it would be like without that shared desire.

What I can say is that my marriage is something that I rely upon every day, and that the effort that I and my wife expend making and keeping it healthy is very much worth it.

you will probably never find someone who has the exact same taste in literature, film, and music as you do. in my whole life, I've met only a couple people that share my taste in movies, tv, or music, but never someone with the same taste in all mediums. this doesn't necessarily preclude having a fulfilling relationship with someone though. there are plenty of people out there that are into film, music, and/or literature; they just won't have the exact same taste as you. if you're willing to let them pick some of the time, you could have a great relationship. weirdly enough, it can also be great to date someone who is totally apathetic towards your passion. I dated a girl in college who just didn't care about music at all. it was fantastic; I played whatever I wanted all the time! in some ways, it can be easier to date someone with mostly orthogonal interests.

in my experience, relationships are a lot more "practical" than we like to think. stuff like how your daily routines mesh together tends to matter a lot more than sharing each other's deepest passions. the meaning of "a clean house" can be much more impactful than the meaning of "a good film".

> But though we believe ourselves to be seeking happiness in marriage, it isn’t that simple. What we really seek is familiarity — which may well complicate any plans we might have had for happiness. We are looking to recreate, within our adult relationships, the feelings we knew so well in childhood. The love most of us will have tasted early on was often confused with other, more destructive dynamics: feelings of wanting to help an adult who was out of control, of being deprived of a parent’s warmth or scared of his anger, of not feeling secure enough to communicate our wishes.

This doesn't universally applies to all marriages. Obviously, you will find out more about your partner's flaws by actually marrying them, but you will also discover positives you didn't know about (especially in times of trouble), and you will both naturally change over time, perhaps in a way that makes your relationship stronger, sometimes leading to 'caring and swearing'.

If there are differences of opinion or taste or interest, the trick is to develop coping strategies (implicit or explicit) that are acceptable to both parties. It also helps to realise, at the outset, that you are agreeing to spending the rest of your life sleeping at the wrong temperature.

Source: been married for more than 30 years.

This is a flaw in nearly any pop-psychology article. They find a perfectly valid trend, and then write without subtlety or nuance: "When x happens we [all] think y." Well, that's obviously silly ... some people may act the way the article describes, but obviously people are different, and are operating under a number of different incentives and pressures.

>but obviously people are different, and are operating under a number of different incentives and pressures.

Most people are not that different... I'd say, from my experience, there's a limited number of stereotypes most peoples lives/character etc falls into, and most of the variation is in lesser details...

Sorry -- I get what you're saying, and we run into the problem that "different" can be a pretty vague term. 100% agreed that when thinking about measurable traits and bell curves, most people are pretty similar. (I'm not sure as of writing this, but I wonder if there are any human traits which do not have a normal distribution?)

When a pop-psychology article makes an overly-broad generalization, I suspect you can encounter a few reasons for this:

- The majority of people fit the trend described in the article, however the raw number of people in the minority is large enough a very large number of people feel the article does not accurately describe them.

- Alternately, the basic premise may be too broad to be meaningful. Imagine two introverted people -- do they think of themselves a similar? Maybe one likes sports, and the other video games. Or one is a rock climber, while one a computer programmer. Whatever. They may not define themselves as similar, even though they both share the trait of introversion. As noted in my original post, what's missing here is the nuance. If instead this article was a dry scientific paper about "measurable specific traits and the similarity in parents and children with regard to mate choice" (or something like this) then we would avoid this problem.

If there are only two stereotypes then the article fails to cover half of them. It only gets worse the more stereotypes there are.

They have technology to solve the sleep temperature thing now. I don’t want to shill, but a quick search will find you some options. I finally picked one up during this California heat wave without AC and it’s a godsend.

Active or passive cooling?

> They have technology to solve the sleep temperature thing now

My comment on temperature was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that one might actually have to make some long-term compromises.

(In fact, I am now better able to sleep in a warmer room that I would have liked when I was younger)

It's so true though! My husband and I have compromised so that we are both dissatisfied with our bedroom temperature.

Wow... Just wow. It's rare to see such a bitter, negative, and defeated take on marriage put to print.

Just so you know, this person is wrong. You absolutely can marry the right person, and people do it all the time. But if you do it before learning how differently your partner thinks compared to you (we often just assume that the other person thinks the same way as we do, and then judge their actions based on how WE would react), or if one or both of you tries to pretend to be something you're not, you'll be in for a lot of troubled waters and disappointment ahead.

Marriage, like any relationship, is about communication, openness, and trust. And even then, you have to put work into the relationship to keep the foundations strong. For every little thing that you don't with full certainty know where you stand with your partner, your relationship is weakened. And that's only resolved by open and honest communication about who you really are, for better or for worse. You are a TEAM. An effective team knows the strengths and weaknesses of every single part, and uses those to reach its goals.

The earlier in a relationship that you deal with these issues, the better it will be.

If you still feel poorly about marriage, I suggest the following video by Dr John Gottman on making relationships work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXX8wzvT7c

Edit: Please please please ignore the downvotes on this comment and watch the video! At worst it won't change your mind, but it could change your life, married or not!

> You absolutely can marry the right person, and people do it all the time

TFA begins by building the strawman that marriage is about finding the person who is "perfect for you". There is no one perfect for you - not even yourself, which is why people grow.

Marriage is about finding the person who shares the same core values and goals, and who is willing to work with you to build a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I think this article misses the purpose of marriage: Family.

I didn't marry my wife in pursuit of happiness. I married my wife in pursuit of family. We're building something greater than both of us, out of love, respect, and companionship.

In my experience, the people I know who don't "get" marriage tend to see it as nothing more than a legal codification of a live-in girlfriend/boyfriend. It appears the author sees it much the same way. Seen from the family perspective, marriage is so much more than just a long-term boyfriend/girlfriend.

Why do you need marriage in order to create a family? ...Other than for the legal codification of it.

Well wanting and raising children is A reason to get married, but it's far from the only reason.

For some, “family” reduces to “children.” In this case marriage does not mean much. It’s sufficient to marry a competent and trustworthy friend or colleague. And to maintain colleague/friend levels of emotional and physical distance from that person except when actively trying to conceive.

For others, “family” starts between husband and wife. You build a loving home with each other, then add children to it.

If you have read "Blink" by Gladwell, he points to work by a sociologist who can, with incredible accuracy, predict whether a marriage will last 15 years--in a matter of 15 minutes. While watching a live feed of a conversation between couples, they will be prompted to discuss something arbitrary. The researchers are looking for emotions and intentions. They have found that emotions pointing to disrespect and disdain are the highest factors for marriage failure.

Western culture might have things backwards. It is not love first, commit second, respect third. It is more accurately respect first, commitment second, and love third. Love being in the 'eros' sense. The primary feeds the secondary feeds the tertiary.

Kind of a strange article with the implication that we've got a wide selection of people willing to marry us and the challenge is to choose the best one.

I really only ever found one person I wanted to marry and I married them. We have similar tastes, we have similar values, and they challenge me at an intellectual level.

If the author feels like that is the wrong criteria - well I'm not sure what the alternative is. There just aren't a lot of other people I want to spend every waking day with.

> maddening children who kill the passion from which they emerge

Whatever ups and downs my marriage may or may not have, I would change nothing whatsoever when I look at the amazing children we have produced together.

Statistically having minor children has been shown to make people less happy.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-...

I’ve never had to deal with raising small children - I have two stepsons for whom I’ve been their only father since they were 9-14 (now 18-23). But they were already mostly self sufficient by that time. They were at the fun age. Not the helpless baby stage where they couldn’t do anything for themselves.

The helpless baby stage is over in the blink of an eye. For me they start getting fun once they can smile and laugh, which is often in the first six months.

'Happiness' studies show up now and again and I've got to say that I've always found them suspect. The polling, the questions, the conclusions are so fungible that I find it hard to believe that there's any value in them.

Satisfaction is a more interesting measure and isn't necessarily reflected in questions of how "happy" you are. I bet a poll would find that start-up founders are less happy than people with stable jobs at large corporations. Does that prove anything about whether or not someone should do a start-up?

The entire presupposition that we're supposed to be little happiness optimizing robots always struck me as completely bonkers. I'm pretty sure it's something designed to sell more soap or greetings cards.

I know a couple people who won't think about people 'that way' if the person is in a stable relationship. For me it was hit-or-miss.

Do you think if you included people who were unavailable because they were taken or you were taken, would that number increase?

In the anonymity of the internet I am not going to pretend that I've never wondered about relationships with people who are unavailable, or despite my own unavailability. It is certainly possible to find people attractive whatever one's personal situation.

I still can't say I've found a better match.

Buyer's remorse is a real thing, and at some point it's far more important that you trust that you made the right choice than for some third party to approve of your decision 'objectively'.

Knowing this makes it into a kind of moral hazard to continue to press you for more information, so I will simply close with 'Congratulations'.

The purpose of marriage is not and has ever been to be happy all the time. If you view love and marriage as about a transaction where the output must always be happiness, then you're setting an impossible standard. The author presupposed that marriage is about feeling really good all the time, well - most of us are going to hit hard times at some point. If you're so selfish as to believe your partner must always increase your own happiness - you're going to have a really bad time dealing with the realities in life. You might even be such a narcissist that you map your own failings onto the other person and decide they are 'wrong' when you're really a stubborn, selfish, unlovable hedonist.

Agree it's not about happiness. It's about fulfilling needs, complementing each other.

And even if your marry the “right” person, no one stays the same. In a few years, you’ll both be different. Marriage and Time changes all things.

This is why the foundation of marriage is a commitment. Love is a choice, not a feeling.

> Love is a choice, not a feeling.

Romantic love is not a conscious choice. It's hormonal.

Sounds like you've never been in love.

> Sounds like you've never been in love.

Sounds like you've never been married. ;)

Of course I'm not talking about hormonal attraction/desire. But that's the whole point. If you base a marriage on hormones, it's going to be very starting when you wake up one day and the hormones are gone. What happens then? You break up and move on to the next temporary hormonal ride? Or you realize that hormones come and go, and the only thing that you can you truly promise is a commitment. True love, a love that lasts, the only love that really matters, is a choice.

Haha touche!

Want to correct you on something - which you might find uplifting. "Love" is hormonal, and at first is indeed the intense desire and attraction that you're thinking of. That stage lasts for about 6-18 months and is caused by a couple of hormones, which inhibit critical thought (love is blind, etc) and cause separation anxiety.

After that period, those hormones fade (the honeymoon ends) and often a new hormone is released, which is more of a "long-lasting bond" hormone, that contributes again to separation anxiety. That hormone can go long-term, and I guess is an important part of shared child-rearing.

So, first point is that the hormones aren't all about lust or intense attraction, but also about bonding and long-term relationships.

The next, rather lovely, point, is that the process that leads to you "fall in love" in the first place can actually re-occur during your relationship, so you can have more honeymoons later in life. I think that's wonderful.

Returning to the choice... I think you need both head and heart, both the conscious commitment and realism you're espousing but also the spark. That's why I'm very keen on exiting the honeymoon period before making any decisions, and equally keen on "if it doesn't feel right, don't do it."

You might choose not to go with a spark, that could well be a legitimate approach, but I don't know how well that works - you're going to be fighting your hormones all the way if you meet someone else and have feelings about them you've never had for your current partner. Professionals tell me that that spark matters.

No one can be tailor-made for anyone else. Marriages are never-ending journeys of greater understanding and sacrifice I believe. That's what makes it both tough and rewarding. However staying single is also perfectly fine. There should be no imposed group-think that everyone is required to hitch-up or reproduce. Especially not when the survival of our species is not threatened by our sparse numbers these days.

One of the comments on the original article is spot-on:

> Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. Sometimes your hard work pays off, sometimes it doesn't. Marry a partner, someone with the same values and same dreams, someone you can be yourself with, someone you can count on no matter what, someone who makes you laugh, someone you can cry with, someone who overlooks your flaws while helping you to better yourself, someone you can grow old with. This is how loves matters.

So basically an article where someone with relationship issues writes off all marriages because obviously we are all only attracted to what is least good for us.

I really don't understand the use of this sort of writing.

> I really don't understand the use of this sort of writing.

I don't think you understood the writing at all, if you think the author wrote off all marriages. The article is in favor of—and in support of—marriage.

> I don't think you understood the writing at all.

That's probably true.

I got married at 23 to a girl I'd known for all of a year and a half, and we've been happily married for eight years now.

So whatever perspective this author is coming from is probably by definitions something I'm unfamiliar with.

Married at 21 here - we met at 14 and started "dating" almost immediately. We moved out of our parents' houses and in together and promptly survived the utter destruction of both of our educational plans. We married at 21, had our first daughter at 25 and second at 30.

We're 36 today and our relationship is stronger than it has ever been.

If I had to do it over, I would have proposed in high school and gotten married before heading to college, even if that meant using a Justice of the Peace and upsetting our families.

Marriage didn't solve all my problems - but it did put them in perspective.

Interesting - and a big outlier in my experience.

Question that would make you a non-outlier: are you or your partner very religious?

Good question.

I would say "No... but actually yes." I know, not helpful.

My wife and I are strong Christians, without question, but in a lot of ways we're not "traditional" Christians. I was raised Catholic but fell away from the Church when it was apparent how difficult it was going to be to have my marriage recognized by them. It just didn't matter enough to me to be worried about it.

I'll have to think about this more before really being able to speak on it in detail, but I think "religiosity" in our case is more of correlation than causation.

I asked because childhood sweethearts don't usually work out - people change too much in their 20s, I think.

The exceptions tend to be strongly devout Christians. I'm not sure why, but perhaps it's the support from their church community? There's a certain amount of peer pressure, but also genuine cheerleading going on there. I was brought up Christian and I do think the community side of church-going can be a net positive for many people.

>I really don't understand the use of this sort of writing.

It's aimed at the NYT's audience: rich, white, liberal urbanite milliennials who don't care about starting families and who would rather read crap that feeds their confirmation biases.

Last I checked, reddits redpill was almost 2 million subscribers big. That is to say, sleeping with as many women as possible while not marrying, or possibly having kids while not marrying and not cohabitating, is subreddit I last checked on reddit with almost 2 million subscribers.

We all tend to change time passing. Me and the person married 15 years ago are most definitely two different persons today. So marriage is an effort of will to be renewed each day. Children can help as they may strengthen your will to stay together in their interest. Economics have a major role too. If the couple is well off together, this may help too. I think humans are not born to be monogamous, but they have been (poorly) programmed to accept that by religion and society.

I really like Wait Buy Why's take on "How to Pick a Life Partner":

- https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/pick-life-partner.html

- https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/pick-life-partner-part-2.html

And the follow-up of sorts, "The Marriage Decision: Everything Forever or Nothing Ever Again"

- https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/09/marriage-decision.html

I think it takes a super pragmatic (maybe to the point of being un-romantic) approach to dating and finding a partner, including many "litmus tests" of sorts. I know at least one person who has written a "relationship design document" (classic PM move) outlining what matters to them in a relationship, citing sources like this as well as lived experience.

I also enjoyed reading Esther Perel's "Mating in Captivity": https://amzn.to/3lho4gP, which discusses the tension between eroticism and stability (what it takes to get into a relationship vs what it takes to stay in a relationship).

I do agree with the premise that "humans are flawed and you'll be accepting that both you and your partner are human" as well as "you will need to invest in your relationship to make it work".

(2016)

http://archive.is/aa6wF

Thank you.

Fortunately, the developers of the NYT website were kind enough to use JS-based nag, which means it's enough to disable JS (one click in uBlock Origin) in order to read the article.

“ We’re all seeking that special person who is right for us. But if you’ve been through enough relationships, you begin to suspect there’s no right person, just different flavors of wrong. Why is this? Because you yourself are wrong in some way, and you seek out partners who are wrong in some complementary way. But it takes a lot of living to grow fully into your own wrongness. And it isn’t until you finally run up against your deepest demons, your unsolvable problems—the ones that make you truly who you are—that we’re ready to find a lifelong mate. Only then do you finally know what you’re looking for. You’re looking for the wrong person. But not just any wrong person: it's got to be the right wrong person—someone you lovingly gaze upon and think, “This is the problem I want to have.”

I will find that special person who is wrong for me in just the right way.”

—Andrew Boyd

The video by the same author https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuKV2DI9-Jg

> We need to swap the Romantic view for a tragic (and at points comedic) awareness that every human will frustrate, anger, annoy, madden and disappoint us — and we will (without any malice) do the same to them. There can be no end to our sense of emptiness and incompleteness. But none of this is unusual or grounds for divorce.

I appreciate the author's optimism, but there is indeed a threshold of consistent patterns of anger and frustration that warrants divorce. Some people are just very good at seeming reasonable in certain circumstances; human beings are some of the cleverest organisms around.

Most people marry the wrong person, but I feel it wouldn’t matter if these marriages also allowed for an auxiliary partner on the side who could fulfill the needs not met by the first partner. Many relationships improve when a partner has an affair they can use as an outlet, as the objectives for each relationship are made clear and appear much more reasonable to satisfy.

Unfortunately the world is full of jealous, vindictive individuals that are emotionally under developed, and are preconditioned by generations of systemic monogamy to attack and shame anything that entertains such polygamous notions.

I think there used to be more of a tacit understanding and silent acceptance of this.

Don't ask don't tell basically. It doesn't fit the ideal that your inner and outer life should be in accordance. It's what makes americans envious of the french and their infamous 5-a-7pm window, and how normal people imagine romance and commitment between the hereditary wealthy.

Those arrangements still rely on concealment though, the hurt of proven infidelity is often all too real (regardless if you're french or not). Societal norms no longer encourage or condone willful ignorance.

Marriage has become the exception and not the rule for couples I know. The few people I do know who are married take responsibility for their own happiness as individuals and expect their wives and husbands to take responsibility for their own as well. They are individuals with a private friendship, they are not a unit or a completion or extension of each other. It's not placid, but it has been stable.

The breakups happen almost invariably when one person holds the other responsible for their the happiness they are responsible for themselves, because that person has stopped being responsible for themselves, and it breaks the trust they have developed together. It's a breakdown of trust and respect, and that's why they get so nasty and irreconcilable. Marriage is a pre-modern institution in a post-modern society, so I can see why most people I know seem to avoid it.

Just wait for the pendulum swing. Modernity has a real under appreciation for the value of the institutions that naturally arose within almost all human societies.

Sometimes the time for a thing has passed. Sometimes the genius of a thing is only appreciated in its absence.

Maybe modern marriage is mostly useless because people are quick to head for the exit, instead of feeling a sense of loyalty and responsibility to their partner. Without that, I agree, it’s not much of a partnership.

Or maybe the modern divorce rate is so high because it's socially acceptable now, and previously people remained in miserable or abusive marriages.

How have the children of these couples fared?

Brilliantly, so far among the examples I can think of. n=5.

> take responsibility for their own happiness

On the list of things that are impossible exists an entry around trying to make other people happy. Literally nobody else can make you happy - only you can make yourself happy.

> They are individuals with a private friendship, they are not a unit or a completion or extension of each other

I am friends with my spouse, but we are also a unit in the sense that we are capable of acting in different cooperative ways to accomplish a single goal whether that's on the macro level of managing finances or a micro level of handling an emergency like a kitchen fire.

I would agree we don't "complete" each other in that we're both complete human beings without the other one - but we do extend each other and broaden each other.

> The breakups happen almost invariably...

The happiness ownership problem is a critical one, but it's not the sole root cause. A common related issue in relationships that I see is when one person wants to be infantilized by the other who ends up playing "the adult" - and that's not functional for anyone involved.

Another critical problem is the inability to meaningful communicate - I once had a pair of friends breakup, only for both of them to complain to me that the other one was never interested in having sex...

But it's a fools errand to narrow down the causes of relationship failure to a finite list.

I'd argue the myriad reasons aggregate up into finite categories. Trust and respect are definitely basic ones. You can develop and exercise how you trust and respect people, or these can be fragile, and their tolerances and resiliency can be mismatched, but among others, I'd assert these have predictive power in the persistence of a union. There are no conditions, as people just do what they do, but if the effect of relating does not yield these, I'd bet against it.

On the other hand, trying to be happy without close relationships is fighting an uphill battle against some of the oldest and deepest systems in your brain.

“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

― Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

People were marrying the wrong person 100 years ago. They just didn't divorce because they couldn't or because the church told them they'd get booted out of the community if they did. No matter if your spouse was abusive, you were married and that's that.

It's still like that in lots of places, unfortunately.

Love is about grace, acceptance, and patience. It’s about serving the other person. It’s about forming a team where each other’s weaknesses are the other’s strengths.

The author seems like a depressed nihilist. The “everyone will disappoint you” vibe is toxic, a little immature, and selfish.

Finding the "right" person for marriage is pretty selfish. Be the right person. Try to strive to be the best person you can be and give grace when issues happen. Issues will happen. How you respond to them will result in the outcome of happiness of marriage.

> The marriage of reason was not, in hindsight, reasonable at all; it was often expedient, narrow-minded, snobbish and exploitative. That is why what has replaced it — the marriage of feeling — has largely been spared the need to account for itself.

I gave in and watched Indian Matchmaking, where they talk about marriages (what we'd call arranged marriages) and love marriages (what we'd call marriages). What was presented in the Netflix show was pretty sensible: it's like tinder but each profile comes pre-vetted by your family, so as to avoid issues with the in-laws.

While some parts of the show seemed a bit antiquated (and sexist), the underlying philosophy of "marriage is between families too" seems like a good idea.

> marriage is between families too

I think that's highly culturally dependent. It may be the case in India, but I know someone (an American) who got married ten years ago. His family and his wife's family met at the wedding, but never before or since. There's no bad blood between them, they just don't know each other and have no reason to talk. I suspect this is common in most of the Anglosphere.

Having read a bit by Alain de Botton I am left wondering why I did, and with no desire to read more. Something in his tone reminds me of what Nora Ephron said of Brendan Gill's: shall I compare me to a summer's day.

He's also a psychotherapist, so one of the primary jobs he has to fulfill is developing a positive internal voice in his clients, and damned if he sounds like a Mr Rogers for adults at times because of that.

Hey it's 2020, apparently a lot of us are reading whatever Alain puts out because we need it, not because we strictly think we're at a point in life we feel like we've reached success and deserve the cheery voices in our head now.

As a guy in his 20s, I am more interested in the precursor to marriage: how do you find interesting people and form relationships? Of course, the issue of marriage is a very important one, but to me (and, I suspect, to many HN readers), the more pressing question is how to form romantic relationships to begin with. Any HN readers wanna chime in with advice for us young'uns?

So in effect this says more about how uncritical modern people are of themselves and others than it does anything about the practice of modern marriage, that many many people blindly march into relationships and commitments they don't fully understand but regardless pursue an abstraction of.

Reifying that from the situation of marriage, this is true in a number of domains in life.

If you are in an abusive marriage or one that permanently prevents happiness for you, get out. If you have kids, that goes double, not least because you don’t want to be an example to your kids of how to lead a resigned or down-trodden existence.

I've said a lot in this thread that's positive toward marriage, and am generally a very "pro-marriage" person.

I completely and wholehearted agree with this.

If your marriage is not a source of strength for you, you need to find a way to make it that. If your partner tears you down emotionally, you're being held back. If your partner physically harms you - get out. Now. Do whatever it takes, up to and including walking out the door without knowing what you're going to eat or where you're going to stay.

Also top of mind- "Why you will revive an article from 4 years ago..."

The most important thing IMHO in marriage is similarity of household habits; if you cannot tolerate certain everyday habits of your partner (being too messy, too cheap etc.), you won't be able to live together.

We tend to marry the person who is willing to marry us.

2016 piece by Alain de Botton.

The success depends on how much both value marriage itself

Unpaywalled:

https://archive.vn/aa6wF

This is why everyone needs a therapist and as a couple you need one too. I definitely married the wrong person.

I married the right person

Joke's on them, I refuse to marry.

I don't understand why we need to divide along tribal lines over this issue. Some people choose to be single and others seek out marriage, knowing the risks. There are unique problems concerning marriage. It does not need to be an us vs them scenario.

I was making a joke based on how the article starts out implying that everyone cares about getting married. "And yet we do it all the same..."

Marriage has its roots in slavery. Not many people realize this today. Traditions have changed it on the surface, but deeper the effects are the same. So there can never be a right person to become a property of.

Citation, please.

Slavery - well, chattel slavery - is the legal ownership of another person. You can't own something that doesn't exist, so slavery logically must therefore recognize the existence of the individual. In the antebellum US, slaves couldn't legally marry because they did not control their own legal person.

Marriage is the creation of a new legal and social entity from the dissolution of the individuals entering into it.

I'm male; my wife is female. In the sense that I "own" my wife, she "owns" me. In truth, it's slightly more subtle: we have decided to minimize the distinction between ourselves as individuals. Making a traditional marriage work requires enormous trust in both directions.

Any source for this statement?

Sources can be found in the footnotes of the below link.

"If we go back and take a look at the earliest written records that we currently have of human civilization — the ancient Mesopotamian texts — it becomes clear that marriage was very similar to slavery; marriage law looked a lot like property law. This is described in a lot of details in the Code of Hammurabi. You just have to consider the fact that the Akkadian words describing a husband (be-el as-sa-tim) mean “owner of a wife” to realize that, just like a slave, a wife was considered to be a man’s property. A woman had to address her husband with “master” or “lord” just like a slave addresses his master or a subject his king. And to this day there are still cultures where the words used to describe a husband literally mean “owner of a wife.” Consider that in the bible, when god decides to create a woman, he does so to create a “helper” for the man, later adding that “man shall rule over woman.” In the ten commandments, a wife is also listed among the properties of a man (a woman was considered first to be the property of her father, and after marriage her husband). In some verses in the bible the Hebrew words that describe a married woman, or a wife, literally mean “woman with a master.”3

So a woman became the property of a man upon “marrying” him, and was sold by her father in a way comparable to slavery. The future owner of such a woman would have to pay her father the price he requested for his daughter and a contract was made detailing the terms of the transaction.4 This is where the traditions we still have today in certain cultures around the world come from, where the parents of the bride are given money and presents in return for their daughter. These traditions are simply the remnants of the original sales transactions of antiquity, where the daughter was sold to her new owner or husband." https://blog.kareldonk.com/why-getting-married-is-a-very-bad...

"Deeper the effects are the same" - total nonsense.

Relationships are like democracy or racism. There's no end goal. It's never over. It will never be "solved". It's something you have to continuously work on or else you will lose it.

So thinking just because you have elections you've "solved" democracy is naive. You have to be vigilant in order to keep those elections.

Thinking just because you've elected a leader or minority status that you've "solved" racism is naive. By not constantly reflection on your own thoughts and actions and being wary of the thoughts and actions of those around you, it is easy to let it creep back.

And thinking just because you've gotten married that you've finalized a relationship is the most naive thing. If anything, it's a commitment to work more, not less at maintaining the relationship, because the consequences for breaking it are more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com