Live-ins go sour, trigger suicides

[Raji Ram]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Renu,

I wonder how the cave men lived! The strongest male would win a female and be with her. But for how long?

Did they live as couple till death or did a stronger male snatch her after a while? How about the children?

May be, the strongest man had a harem for him, like the kings of olden days! :grouphug:

P.S: I hope you know that a group of Burmese had a strange custom of divorcing an unwanted husband by just doing # 1

near the entrance of their house. Then she will be free to go anywhere she likes.

 

[Raji Ram]

............ Society can adopt but it can create children who are much more violent in a society where there are no respect for institution of marriage

:thumb:

 

[renuka]

Dear Renu,

I wonder how the cave men lived! The strongest male would win a female and be with her. But for how long?

Did they live as couple till death or did a stronger male snatch her after a while? How about the children?

May be, the strongest man had a harem for him, like the kings of olden days! :grouphug:

P.S: I hope you know that a group of Burmese had a strange custom of divorcing an unwanted husband by just doing # 1

near the entrance of their house. Then she will be free to go anywhere she likes.

Dear RR ji,

We Indians tend to always think of relationships to last as long as the stainless steel plates we use to eat.

Actually I believe that everything changes...monogamy and marriage just gives temporary stability..more for financial security and less risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Its nothing holy about being in a wedlock...its for selfish reasons we humans get married.

 

[tks]

In our today's "culture", most are ignorant about the essence of what a Vedic wedding means and its significance.

The vision is lost in blah-blah mantras chanted in front of some homam. The focus tends to be on key photo-ops and food.

The various steps involved such as Kasi Yatrai etc have profound significance in terms of how one aligns one's own vision with the Vedic vision of life. Though the backdrop of all these steps is under the umbrella of Hinduism, the principles on which they are based are universal and applicable to all human beings.

In the absence of any knowledge about any of these, a wedding is a hollow activity filled with tedious steps, expenses and social commitment enforced by a government.

Live-ins become an attractive option for those aping the west for all its titillating aspects.

Intellectualization about exploring compatibility via live-ins may sound fine to the mind and further rationalization against wedding is easy to make.

Convenience of live-ins regardless of how it is rationalized is always accompanied by a major price.

Suicides need not follow and may be exaggerated but the society as a whole pays the price for live-in, destruction of marriage as an institution and single (or foster) parent raised children.

The destruction of the institution of marriage has started not by live-ins (which is a symptom) but by large scale ignorance and by a superstition laden society,.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Everybody or life is selfish. One cannot miss the universality in selfishness moderately enlarged. You can attribute selfishness to the exclusive rich, powerful, or those seeking name. Mutual support and sharing of emotions are ingredients of a marriage. Life is a search for unknown and you find some within your knowledge and find many out of your reach. A group of people make a family and the members of the family find affinity within and a very few breakaway and go to America (outside the family). Modern meanings for basic life style do not make life totally anew. Yet human society has been undergoing subtle changes. But if people see through Hubble telescope and call themselves visionaries, surely it is comic strip story.

 

[indianassault]

What is the difference between a live-in and a spouse, except for the ceremony and a certificate?

In Marriages you love. Livins you Gun

 

[auh]

Dear Sir,

Then why a wedding at all? People can meet, mate and part like animals.

At least, they should NOT produce children and mess up with their lives.

I am reminded of what a speaker told in a pattimandram.

Definition of a family:

In 40s: ThAthA, pAtti, appA, ammA, children, uncles, aunts and cousins.

In 60s: ThAthA, pAtti, appA, ammA and children.

In 80: appA, ammA and child / children.

In 2000: appA is one family; ammA is another family: child/ children live in one of these families!

Aasai aruvadhu naal, moham muppadhu naal!

A marriage, as well as a live in, are both man made arrangements. The holiness or sacredness, if you may, comes from the higher call of the couples to understand and respect the arrangement. For those who respect and understand human emotions and its misgivings, a live-in would not be a problem.

Are marriages fool proof now?

1) The couples even if incompatible are tied to life.
2) Most do not resort to divorce if they have a kid and bear the suffering silently.
3) Incompatible marriages gives rise to adultery.
4) Those kids grow up seeing the bitterness in (either of or both of) their parents and draw incorrect conclusions. They might tend to become imbalanced and immature. Or worse, they might imbibe the nature of their parents and contribute to an already sick society.

 

[Raji Ram]

....
1. We Indians tend to always think of relationships to last as long as the stainless steel plates we use to eat.

2. Actually I believe that everything changes...monogamy and marriage just gives temporary stability..more for financial security and less risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

3. Its nothing holy about being in a wedlock...its for selfish reasons we humans get married.

Dear Renu,

1. I am sure it is a very good thinking. :thumb:

2. It is easy to believe that everything changes; but thinking of divorce and remarriage is difficult!

3. Since some holiness is still sticking to the wedlock, the divorces are in this % !

P.S: Now, the West is using squatting stools to prove that Indian way is the best!! :lol:

 

[auh]

However there are few things that do not change. Human emotions do not change with time.

Children need father and mother figures.

People, in any culture do get devastated when they lose the person they love.
To be with someone and seeing them with others is not easily accepted by the human heart even if it is done by the human mind

To understand this one must have personal experience or be with people who have gone through such emotional wounds.

Society can adopt but it can create children who are much more violent in a society where there are no respect for institution of marriage

Marriage is not an instinctive action, but a bond that was accepted, probably by consensus or by force (as humans had the habit of eliminating the opposition) at some point in our evolution.

We are all speaking within the confines of a marriage as our minds are conditioned towards that and are unable to think outside. The thought of girls and boys having multiple partners for sex is a strict taboo in our minds and hence, like it or not, most (of the people who are already married) abhor a live-in due to this very reason. Such minds cannot come to any different conclusion.

Experiences are many and varied and if we were to go by personal experiences, none should marry at all. There are horror stories in marriages that many would be familiar with.

There is no logic in the statement that children who are adopted by society can become violent. By this logic all children brought up in orphanages and other ashrams should be violent individuals now.

 

[Raji Ram]

My answers in blue:

Aasai aruvadhu naal, moham muppadhu naal!

This Asai is NOT the only thing in life; it is ONLY a part of life and the intensity reduces with age!

A marriage, as well as a live in, are both man made arrangements. The holiness or sacredness, if you may, comes from the higher call of the couples to understand and respect the arrangement. For those who respect and understand human emotions and its misgivings, a live-in would not be a problem.

If so, why not a registered marriage, if the expenses are to be cut off! At least abide by the law!

Are marriages fool proof now?

NO! Hence the divorces are increasing! :sad:

1) The couples even if incompatible are tied to life.

Divorce is no more a stigma! :nono:

2) Most do not resort to divorce if they have a kid and bear the suffering silently.

Not always! Divorces happen even with grownup kids. I observe that many guys settled in the U S of A
are more tolerant and see that the wife is always the boss of the house, to avoid divorce! :hail:

3) Incompatible marriages gives rise to adultery.

Only incompatible marriage? Even the happily married couple do adultery - it depends on the desire and / lust!

4) Those kids grow up seeing the bitterness in (either of or both of) their parents and draw incorrect conclusions. They might tend to become imbalanced and immature. Or worse, they might imbibe the nature of their parents and contribute to an already sick society.

:lol: Dear Sir, Do you think live-in couples will produce more mature children?

 

[auh]

If so, why not a registered marriage, if the expenses are to be cut off! At least abide by the law!

Let people do what they like and let us not judge. What can be possibly illegal in two consenting adults agreeing to live in? Let us not forget that law is subject to change and it is only a reflection.

Divorce is no more a stigma! :nono:

I am not sure what you imply by this. Do you mean that couples can just marry and divorce if they do not like each other?

Do you think live-in couples will produce more mature children?

Answers are not always in the extremes. Maturity is decided by many variables, and marriage is not a necessity.

 

[Raji Ram]

Divorce is no more a stigma means girls easily file divorce cases, if they find an incompatible partner!

Even in brahmin's circle, divorces and remarriages happen more frequently than before.
As I wrote earlier, our ambis are careful to obey their partner and lead a happily married life! :couch2:

P.S: My green flag is NOT for the live-in culture.

 

[tks]

Marriage is not an instinctive action, but a bond that was accepted, probably by consensus or by force (as humans had the habit of eliminating the opposition) at some point in our evolution.

We are all speaking within the confines of a marriage as our minds are conditioned towards that and are unable to think outside. The thought of girls and boys having multiple partners for sex is a strict taboo in our minds and hence, like it or not, most (of the people who are already married) abhor a live-in due to this very reason. Such minds cannot come to any different conclusion.

Experiences are many and varied and if we were to go by personal experiences, none should marry at all. There are horror stories in marriages that many would be familiar with.

There is no logic in the statement that children who are adopted by society can become violent. By this logic all children brought up in orphanages and other ashrams should be violent individuals now.

We are NOT ALL speaking from the confines of a marriage and conditioning. As a young student I chose to live in a coeducational hostel (dorm). Obviously I cannot share personal experience here. I have large number of friends in live-in situations from those days - many of these arrangements have evolved/dissoved over time.

Understanding basics of human emotions and the order of human life requires abilities for abstract thinking if there is no opportunities for one to have direct experience.

Most mammals and certainly children are born totally dependent on parental figures for its survival. The roles played by father and mother is distinct in this order of life.

Children raised in single parent household and those raised in foster parental care suffer immensely. Exceptions do exist but by and large there are emotional wounds which *sometimes* force some to choose life of crime in far higher proportions.

Marriages today often takes place without having a purpose in life or with an understanding as to what such an institution is about from the perspectives of universal principles . In such cases those marriages of convenience are no different than live-in situations.

 

[auh]

Most mammals and certainly children are born totally dependent on parental figures for its survival. The roles played by father and mother is distinct in this order of life.

Every being probably needs parental figures to survive - for basic needs. Not necessarily "a parent".

Children raised in single parent household and those raised in foster parental care suffer immensely. Exceptions do exist but by and large there are emotional wounds which *sometimes* force some to choose life of crime in far higher proportions.

This is due to the fact that today, love is seen as something that should arise and touch within families. Others become outsiders. Strangers. In this aspect, marriage is a great crime.

Marriages today often takes place without having a purpose in life or with an understanding as to what such an institution is about from the perspectives of universal principles . In such cases those marriages of convenience are no different than live-in situations.

Life itself is without any purpose. Why do we care about edifices that are artificial and become burdensome?

 

[sravna]

Relationships is one of the factors that can decide quality of living. In my view all major relationships should have purpose, stability and needs to be taken seriously. Any of these lacking breaks relationships and ultimately your quality of life. A wife or a husband is an important relationship through which you can potentially learn a number of desirable things that can elevate your mind. The key word is "potential". It is up to one to use the potential of what marriage can offer and benefit from it.

 

[tks]

Every being probably needs parental figures to survive - for basic needs. Not necessarily "a parent".

This is due to the fact that today, love is seen as something that should arise and touch within families. Others become outsiders. Strangers. In this aspect, marriage is a great crime.

Life itself is without any purpose. Why do we care about edifices that are artificial and become burdensome?

There is a reason for usage of the phrase 'universal principles' in this discussion. If that is not understood or perceived as to how it applies to the discussion then all subsequent points will make no sense.

Parental figures is from the perspectives of a child which will attach itself to anyone playing that role. Parents, on the other hand have a natural bond to their biological children, ready to do anything most often for their offspring. Even a penguin finds its offspring in a crowd of thousands of other penguins and their babies to go and feed. Such a bond is necessary in this creation for the survival of most mammals including humans. Parental figures in some cases appointed by a society such as foster parents or Ayyas etc do shower kindness but the bonding is rarely that strong.

Emotions such as love , anger , desire, lust etc are not engineered by a society or learnt from others. It arises without our control. The only thing that is possible is our action/reaction to any such emotion. For example aping the west may arise in a heart of a person and intellect can justify all kinds of reasons. The reaction is the justification, the emotion arising is not in a person's control.


There is a technical term for the bolded part and such similar conclusion. It afflicts all human beings and is not not an insult. The technical term loosely translated is ignorance or Avidya to be more precise. Even to recognize that it is Avidya is a challenge for most people.

 

[auh]

There is a reason for usage of the phrase 'universal principles' in this discussion. If that is not understood or perceived as to how it applies to the discussion then all subsequent points will make no sense.

Parental figures is from the perspectives of a child which will attach itself to anyone playing that role. Parents, on the other hand have a natural bond to their biological children, ready to do anything most often for their offspring. Even a penguin finds its offspring in a crowd of thousands of other penguins and their babies to go and feed. Such a bond is necessary in this creation for the survival of most mammals including humans. Parental figures in some cases appointed by a society such as foster parents or Ayyas etc do shower kindness but the bonding is rarely that strong.

Emotions such as love , anger , desire, lust etc are not engineered by a society or learnt from others. It arises without our control. The only thing that is possible is our action/reaction to any such emotion. For example aping the west may arise in a heart of a person and intellect can justify all kinds of reasons. The reaction is the justification, the emotion arising is not in a person's control.


There is a technical term for the bolded part and such similar conclusion. It afflicts all human beings and is not not an insult. The technical term loosely translated is ignorance or Avidya to be more precise. Even to recognize that it is Avidya is a challenge for most people.

I think we are meandering from the original intent but just to be precise - The cause/reason of all manifestations/creations is considered to be a "Leela" of Brahman. What is this leela? And what is this purpose? Scholars who think they are well versed about it and conclude otherwise may clarify their stand.

Regarding the topic - I am not disputing that parents' affection is unnecessary. Just that it is not a sole factor for emotional maturity. In fact those offsprings that are shown too much affection by their parents may turn out to be extremes in character.

We cannot compare animals as they have different instinct patterns. They have no differentiation of father/mother/brother/sister etc and will mate between themselves once they attain age. Moreover, the feeding pattern of most animals would be only to protect the child until it is able to take care of itself. It does not attach itself to them and decide their mating partner !

A parental figure has a role to play, indeed, but it comes with its own limits.

A live-in is a preamble to marriage. For those who are comfortable with live-ins they should be free to do so. And for those who prefer that a marriage is THE way, so be it. The world is a large enough place to accommodate differing views. Only requirement is an wise head.

 

[tks]

1. I think we are meandering from the original intent but just to be precise - The cause/reason of all manifestations/creations is considered to be a "Leela" of Brahman. What is this leela? And what is this purpose? Scholars who think they are well versed about it and conclude otherwise may clarify their stand.

2/ Regarding the topic - I am not disputing that parents' affection is unnecessary. Just that it is not a sole factor for emotional maturity. In fact those offsprings that are shown too much affection by their parents may turn out to be extremes in character.

We cannot compare animals as they have different instinct patterns. They have no differentiation of father/mother/brother/sister etc and will mate between themselves once they attain age. Moreover, the feeding pattern of most animals would be only to protect the child until it is able to take care of itself. It does not attach itself to them and decide their mating partner !

A parental figure has a role to play, indeed, but it comes with its own limits.

A live-in is a preamble to marriage. For those who are comfortable with live-ins they should be free to do so. And for those who prefer that a marriage is THE way, so be it. The world is a large enough place to accommodate differing views. Only requirement is an wise head.

Item 1: There is no need to bring a term that is remote. Ignorance (Avidya) is centered on a person and so it is possible to recognize that and not some supposed action of a remote entity and its supposed actions.

Item 2: If Item 1 above is due to 'Life having no purpose' then all other analysis and conclusions are also without purpose ! For those that think life may have a purpose (and are open to that possibility) , can understand that biological bonding expressed in variegated manner in this creation. This bonding is essential to the survival of the offspring especially in mammals. In humans, both parents bonded to a child is needed for its growth physically and emotionally

 

[auh]

Item 1: There is no need to bring a term that is remote. Ignorance (Avidya) is centered on a person and so it is possible to recognize that and not some supposed action of a remote entity and its supposed actions.

Item 2: If Item 1 above is due to 'Life having no purpose' then all other analysis and conclusions are also without purpose ! For those that think life may have a purpose (and are open to that possibility) , can understand that biological bonding expressed in variegated manner in this creation. This bonding is essential to the survival of the offspring especially in mammals. In humans, both parents bonded to a child is needed for its growth physically and emotionally

That there is ignorance is not an established principle in itself ! At best, it is a hypothesis. Nothing more. To build complex structures on a weak basement is not a sound application of mind.

Things exist and we continue to be. That is all we now know. In that context, let us not be in a great hurry to chastise other forms of relationships.

 

[tks]

That there is ignorance is not an established principle in itself ! At best, it is a hypothesis. Nothing more. To build complex structures on a weak basement is not a sound application of mind.

Things exist and we continue to be. That is all we now know. In that context, let us not be in a great hurry to chastise other forms of relationships.

The idea of waiting for someone else to establish the ignorance of a person itself is ignorance .... A symptom of this is the world view that life has no purpose!

 

[auh]

The idea of waiting for someone else to establish the ignorance of a person itself is ignorance .... A symptom of this is the world view that life has no purpose!

The moment somebody evades a question (and that too by a wrong inference) is that time one knows that there is no purpose in that discussion.

 

[sravna]

Dear auh,

Setting a purpose and achieving it helps us progress. We progress because we learn something from it. The highest purpose is the therefore acquisition of knowledge. The lowest is seeking mere pleasure. Marriage provides the setting for this learning and acquiring a number of good qualities just as any major relationship does and so helps us become a better person.

I do not know what is the purpose of a live-in but to me it seems that it does not provide the setting that marriage does.

In addition, there are serious social consequences due to negligence of the interests of children.

Marriage is a well thought out and time tested practice. But because of the overall moral collapse of the society people are not choosing marriage at least in western societies and I am sure they will realize their folly sooner or later.

 

[tbs]

hi

MARRIAGE IS NECCESSORY EVIL....BUT LIVE IN NOT NECCESSORY REQUIREMENT...

 

[prasad1]

Srvanaji,
What is purpose of marriage? Do explain?
To me marriage and live-in are one and the same. One the paper and the other does not.
Supreme court has ruled that Live-in is same as marriage.

 

[sravna]

Dear Prasad,

Marriage signifies three things:

1. The relationship is with the opposite sex
2. The relationship is long term
3. The relationship has a purpose

When a relationship is long term we have to make a number of commitments and honor them. This makes us take responsibility. We need to acquire the quality of give and take. This makes us less adamant. And there are other good qualities that we learn and acquire. This is true of any major relationship , Each being long term and with a purpose and we learn different responsibilities and acquire more desirable qualities.

The above are possible only when one is in a long term commitment in a relationship. Of course not everyone has a happy marriage. But one should not blame the practice. All noble institutions were built with a purpose and it is up to us to make use of them.