Some thoughts
- Thread starter Faithfulservant
- Start date
sure, like 26 year old Cleopatra was married to her brother when she seduced the divorced and married 52 year old Julius Ceasar? They had rules...
As Miss Manners replied when asked what etiquette is, she replied rules that the uppercrust modified anytime the next class down figured it out.
I am not saying any did not have some level of formality and acceptablity in the eyes of those who concerned themselves of such things.
I am saying I believe those that fully complied for a lifetime of said rules were in the vast majority....unless that is, the penalty of infraction is not beating, stoning, slaying, or burning in everlasting fire.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Guys, I think you are talking past each other. Pair bonding vs formal authority ceremony. The first is a natural / animal act, the second is a money maker and means of exercising political control. If you apply the same phrase "marriage" to both concepts, then it is quite possible to be married without being married... 
How long have little girls (for the sake of cultural stereotypes) been longing for the day they say "I do" with Prince Charming or Billy Badass? I don't know the answer.
I don't know when the institution of marriage was implemented. I doubt it was practiced among our cave dwelling ancestors. I don't know if it is a by-product of the agricultural revolution - though that seems to me a possibility. I don't know if it is a by-product of formal / institutional religion, which is not out of the question.
But as long as women have estrus, and men have erections, the two are going to pair bond. That is an organic reaction.
How that came to become an adjunct of religion, I don't have an answer. Psychology is all over the place. Just because someone in Greece or Rome two thousand years ago was in a marriage doesn't mean they (men and women) didn't get a little side action from time to time. I'm not passing judgment here, just stating fact. Formal civil marriage was probably more about power, social status and inheritance, especially among the aristocracy...and why bastard children were sometimes ostracized. I don't think the peasant and slave classes were particularly consumed with these concerns.
I do know in the Roman history I looked into leading up to Constantine and the Battle at Milvian Bridge, one of the Roman Emperors (there were 4 at the time) "sampled" the bride prior to the marriage for a number of his aristocrats. I think it was Galerius but I'm going by memory here.
Point being applying modern sensibilities to historic situations is always going to lead to faulty and erroneous conclusions. It isn't a simple, cut and dried situation, human behavior has always been complex and seldom logical.
Now I need to wipe my feet from the mess I've stepped into...
How long have little girls (for the sake of cultural stereotypes) been longing for the day they say "I do" with Prince Charming or Billy Badass? I don't know the answer.
I don't know when the institution of marriage was implemented. I doubt it was practiced among our cave dwelling ancestors. I don't know if it is a by-product of the agricultural revolution - though that seems to me a possibility. I don't know if it is a by-product of formal / institutional religion, which is not out of the question.
But as long as women have estrus, and men have erections, the two are going to pair bond. That is an organic reaction.
How that came to become an adjunct of religion, I don't have an answer. Psychology is all over the place. Just because someone in Greece or Rome two thousand years ago was in a marriage doesn't mean they (men and women) didn't get a little side action from time to time. I'm not passing judgment here, just stating fact. Formal civil marriage was probably more about power, social status and inheritance, especially among the aristocracy...and why bastard children were sometimes ostracized. I don't think the peasant and slave classes were particularly consumed with these concerns.
I do know in the Roman history I looked into leading up to Constantine and the Battle at Milvian Bridge, one of the Roman Emperors (there were 4 at the time) "sampled" the bride prior to the marriage for a number of his aristocrats. I think it was Galerius but I'm going by memory here.
Point being applying modern sensibilities to historic situations is always going to lead to faulty and erroneous conclusions. It isn't a simple, cut and dried situation, human behavior has always been complex and seldom logical.
Now I need to wipe my feet from the mess I've stepped into...
Last edited:
I believe in the Middle Ages it was because the church were the record-keepers, therefore a 'proof' of marriage if challenged.
Again, as I understand it, in Britain, marriages were 'porch marriages' – not at the altar, only the lord of the manor would get that, the rest would settle for the porch.
That's how I understand it. Largely about ensuring inheritance.
+++
Personally I would introduce the idea of a 'porch wedding' in which the couple are blessed, it's a non-sacramental marriage, and therefore divorce is allowed. Then, after an agreed time period of at least two or three decades, a sacramental marriage can be undertaken, which is irrevocable.
Let's face it, outside of religious adherents, most go in for a white wedding because they want the substance of the thing, not the essence.
I like the 'Japanese way' – you bring your kids up Shinto, because they have all the colourful festivals and processions, then you become Christian and have a white wedding, then you get old and turn to Buddhism for solace ...
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
Guys, I think you are talking past each other. Pair bonding vs formal authority ceremony. The first is a natural / animal act, the second is a money maker and means of exercising political control. If you apply the same phrase "marriage" to both concepts, then it is quite possible to be married without being married...
How long have little girls (for the sake of cultural stereotypes) been longing for the day they say "I do" with Prince Charming or Billy Badass? I don't know the answer.
I don't know when the institution of marriage was implemented. I doubt it was practiced among our cave dwelling ancestors. I don't know if it is a by-product of the agricultural revolution - though that seems to me a possibility. I don't know if it is a by-product of formal / institutional religion, which is not out of the question.
But as long as women have estrus, and men have erections, the two are going to pair bond. That is an organic reaction.
How that came to become an adjunct of religion, I don't have an answer. Psychology is all over the place. Just because someone in Greece or Rome two thousand years ago was in a marriage doesn't mean they (men and women) didn't get a little side action from time to time. I'm not passing judgment here, just stating fact. Formal civil marriage was probably more about power, social status and inheritance, especially among the aristocracy...and why bastard children were sometimes ostracized. I don't think the peasant and slave classes were particularly consumed with these concerns.
I do know in the Roman history I looked into leading up to Constantine and the Battle at Milvian Bridge, one of the Roman Emperors (there were 4 at the time) "sampled" the bride prior to the marriage for a number of his aristocrats. I think it was Galerius but I'm going by memory here.
Point being applying modern sensibilities to historic situations is always going to lead to faulty and erroneous conclusions. It isn't a simple, cut and dried situation, human behavior has always been complex and seldom logical.
Now I need to wipe my feet from the mess I've stepped into...
I've said repeatedly the issue is not about whether some folks are not true within their marriages to whatever marriage vows they take, but about the fact that marriage is an ancient cultural practice in all tribes and nations that originated long before Christian influence.
African tribes had rigorous coming-of age ceremonies, which in the case of Zulu and Xhosa tribes included male circumcision, originating from long before western influence (until Shaka Zulu banned Zulu circumcision in the 19th Century) and African marriages are formal ceremonies -- at least in the vast majority of cases, though there may obviously be exceptions.
Ulwaluko - Wikipedia
Allowing that western influence has obviously had an effect on many African customs including marriage, I don't think most Africans would appreciate being told that their marriage customs are inherited from the west.
Marriage customs in Africa - Wikipedia
3 minutes
@Aupmanyav what about traditional Indian marriage customs amongst different Indian tribes?
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
OK, is there some manner of distinction to be made between a tribal ceremony and a religious ceremony? This you show here, to my eyes, corresponds well enough with Native Americans to emphasize the similarities.
Am I missing something? I recognize a cultural component, I guess I'm trying to sort out whether even the tribal custom dates into pre-history? I would still question whether the custom dates before agriculture, at the same time hunter-gatherers more closely align with what we today think of as tribal.
There are many examples in nature of lifelong mates...swans being the classic example. So the concept isn't even confined to simians or mammals. It is within the realm of possibility that cave dwelling humans, at least some of them, bonded for life...but we have no way to determine that.
And then there is all the psychology over cuckolding...a messy discussion, but very applicable and relevant to this specific topic.
Backing up a bit in my thoughts to agriculture, as people settled into cities and more people crowded into confined spaces, I'm guessing there may have become a need to distinguish "mine" from "yours." This would seem to lead pretty quickly to a concept of property, and wives and slaves were both traditionally in many senses and many cultures considered property. I suppose, thinking in print, this might lead to some need for the community to recognize "this is my wife, leave her alone."
But this is all guesswork with nothing to back it up.
Last edited:
Alright, so the speed limit is 55 but everyone drives 70 ... but we have rules.
Singapore has rules, immediate caning for jaywalking, jail time for chewing gum, thousand dollar fine for spitting, death penalty for drugs ... swift punishment.
Bible imposed rules for adultery definitely changes the flavor of whatever rules are less than eternity in hell dont ya think?
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
Only when someone insists that marriage customs are essentially inherited from religion?* These tribal marriages incorporate the extended family unit, care of the elderly and so on. I would say that marriage is a practical tribal mechanism. There are problems of inbreeding and sexual diseases, as well as inner tribal feuds caused by adultery -- all weakening the tribe and best avoided in a tribal situation?
*Especially from Christian religion
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
I don't think 'civilization' started with our history
www.interfaith.org
THIS is How You Know Ancient Egyptians had a Lost Ancient Technology…
The thread title says it all 19 min
www.interfaith.org
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
I wouldn't think it matters, as long as the union is formally accepted by the community?
Think Asterisk and the Celts
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Interesting there's no female input yet to this...
I'm not familiar with the asterisk reference, but I would think the Celts were more like the Native Americans than not in this matter. I am open to being shown incorrect.
If the father accepts payment for the daughter, then it is a transaction of property, the husband purchases the wife. She is chattel. Historically this is true, as I understand even among African tribes. Native Americans often "stole" a bride, and I have no reason to believe that was limited to them.
I am thinking a shrewd father would hold out for the best offer. The brave haggles with the Chief, and if the Chief is smart he encourages / tries to arrange with the brave most likely to assist his hold to power. Over time this became Kings giving their daughters to select Princes to create Political alliances. This of course is confined to the aristocracy...the peons were left to whatever culture dictated since there was nothing of value a plowboy could offer a King.
No doubt there were occasions of rebel daughters and runaway brides, but by and large this is how it seems to me considering the matter.
I asked because the Chief represents civil authority and the Shaman represents spiritual authority. I also realize often the lines were blurred between the two.
I'm not familiar with the asterisk reference, but I would think the Celts were more like the Native Americans than not in this matter. I am open to being shown incorrect.
If the father accepts payment for the daughter, then it is a transaction of property, the husband purchases the wife. She is chattel. Historically this is true, as I understand even among African tribes. Native Americans often "stole" a bride, and I have no reason to believe that was limited to them.
I am thinking a shrewd father would hold out for the best offer. The brave haggles with the Chief, and if the Chief is smart he encourages / tries to arrange with the brave most likely to assist his hold to power. Over time this became Kings giving their daughters to select Princes to create Political alliances. This of course is confined to the aristocracy...the peons were left to whatever culture dictated since there was nothing of value a plowboy could offer a King.
No doubt there were occasions of rebel daughters and runaway brides, but by and large this is how it seems to me considering the matter.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I'm just fascinated with the evolution of this thread. Really when do women in all of history have a say in any of it. Men have always dictated this aspect of culture even today women get shamed for having too many partners yet men have different standards. I appreciate that I have a say in who I marry at least.
I question this though .. if someone knows the answer. in biblical times lets say in the time of Abraham the father gave the daughter to the husband.. how was it officiated? I wonder when did it become a thing in the church that you have to have it legally binding with the law of the land to be considered married in the eyes of God. How did that happen? Abraham knew Sarah and they were wedded and it was known they were married. But Sarah told Hagar to lay with Abraham so there would be offspring.. yet Hagar was not a wife.. I don't understand the culture obviously. How was that even ok?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Good questions. At the time of Abraham I believe they lived closer to a tribal existence. They kept cattle and lived in tents.
I'm not about to pretend I know.
If I had to guess, Hagar was essentially a concubine, with Sarah's blessing. Since Sarah was OK with it, and polygamy was not outlawed...no harm, no foul. But I don't get to make the rules and I'm looking 3500 years or so in the past with limited information. A couple generations later we have Jacob and two wives Rachel and Leah, and if I recall (it's been awhile) I think Leah's handmaid got involved too...resulting in 12 brothers and at least one sister recorded.
Anybody else care to expand on this?
Last edited:
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,332
- Reaction score
- 833
- Points
- 108
I made some comments earlier... I guess the bride topic evolved a bit after
I was always confused by how there seems to be a "bride price" in some cultures but a "dowry" in others... but I just chalked it up to cultural differences or probably different economic pressures.
My impression from reading the lives of the Matriarchs and Patriarchs in Genesis is, they didn't have what we today would call happy marriages or indeed family lives.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
What was written is the Readers Digest condensed version. However, you do make a good point. Perhaps what constitutes marriage was different then? In hindsight, maybe I've been projecting my own modern sensibilities backwards...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Babies.
Children.
That's where the shift in attitude in more modern times (past half century?) is from; sex became the thing and no longer was it progeny.
How high was the death rate among mothers with miscarriages and stillborns and such two hundred years ago?
Grisly to consider but it was a fact of life, and one that seems to me to apply directly to this discussion.
Children.
That's where the shift in attitude in more modern times (past half century?) is from; sex became the thing and no longer was it progeny.
How high was the death rate among mothers with miscarriages and stillborns and such two hundred years ago?
Grisly to consider but it was a fact of life, and one that seems to me to apply directly to this discussion.