Sex before Marriage

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Thu May 06, 2004 12:00 pm

Antises wrote:Do you know, Alban, of many women from arranged marriages who have been abused or are unhappy in any way?


No, I base my observations on the many articles and documentaries that have been written and shown about it. To rely on personal experience would be folly indeed. And to give you food for thought, there was a documentary on recently soley concerned with the number of murders covered up, where the grooms family were unhappy with the bride, and as she "belonged" to them, she either "disappeared", or "committed suicide". Believe me, this is by no means the first of these types of documentaries that have been shown.

Antises wrote:There is nothing intrinsically wrong with giving/taking advice, as long as it is just advice.


Actually, in this area, there is. By taking advice, the advisor is an outsider looking in. To assume they know more about the individuals' emotions is sheer madness. Similarly, the advisor brings with them a number of preconceptions about what a good / bad partner is, which are then laden on to the shoulders of those seeking advice. In this area, there is no substitute for experience between the individuals themselves. If they are unsure, then try it out for a while and see how the cookie crumbles. It is only the ridiculous idea that always was prevalent in the SES (and many other communities also) that "Living in Sin" is wrong (the name says it all).

Incidentally, things may have changed, but in the bad old days, it was much less about seeking advice. The way it was done was that the senior men in the SES would go to Leon M and express a desire to get married. He would then choose them a girl to persue, while on the other hand, word went down, and she would be pushed towards this man.

Antises wrote: Regarding the SES in particular, I cannot see any personal gain that Mr. Lambie can attain by giving advice, or what evil he may intend.


It is not about personal gain, and I'm not suggesting that he intends any harm. If people want to get married and it is wrong from an outsider's point of view, then the outsider must watch it happen and let the mistake be made. If the marriage works, then the outsider is then forced to reconsider their opinions, if it fails, then the parties concerned have learnt a valuable lesson, which they will take with them.

There is a lot of stigma put on divorce, especially in religion, but it is really just an admission that a mistake has been made. This is far better than living a life of unhappiness.

Antises wrote:I cannot comment on whether the marriage between the male teacher and his pupil was morally acceptable. What I can say is that they are still married, and happily at that, which is quite an achievement considering current rates of divorce.


Actually, these types of marriages happened a number of times and there have been a number of break-ups too. It would be unfair on the individuals concerend to start naming names. However, I am happy to summise that the success of these marriages has been no different to the general success-rate of marriages in this country.

I would love to hear from anyone (especially early-adopters of the scheme) who went through one of these marriages, regardless of whether it is still alive, or dead.

Antises

Postby Antises » Thu May 06, 2004 5:14 pm

Alban wrote:
Antises wrote:Do you know, Alban, of many women from arranged marriages who have been abused or are unhappy in any way?


No, I base my observations on the many articles and documentaries that have been written and shown about it. To rely on personal experience would be folly indeed....


Your point about observing from articles and documentaries agrees with what I have said all along: the few arranged marriages that occur nowadays and go wrong are heavily publicized. You are quite ready to be sceptical of any idea of marriage being based on anything but your idea of love, even while there is no evidence that these articles/documentaries are representative of arranged marriages in general. I know more couples who have had arranged marriages than standard western marriages, and I know many people. Why, then, would it be folly to rely on personal experience? I repeat: none of them have been divorced, and you saying that any problems are covered up (together with sensationalistic articles and documentaries, which, by the way, tend to repeat the same stories countless times) will not convince me that their marriages are anything but happy and loving relationships.

Alban wrote:To assume they know more about the individuals' emotions is sheer madness.


I would go so far as to say that basing your decisions solely on emotions too is sheer madness. Emotion, by etymology, is what moves you away from a standard state. It is a strong instinctive feeling and, more often than not, momentary. The principle of arranged marriages is that if the 5 suggestions given earlier are taken into account, then it is more likely than not that you will be able to have a happy and loving relationship with your partner (note: that's better than 50% of today's marriages). Now since this idea seems so absurd to so many people, and because people like Alban are only too eager to say that the lack of divorces is due to the stigma attached to divorce etc., nobody has bothered to gather any statistics regarding this, which is unfortunate.

"Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."
--Carl Sagan, Cosmos (Blues for a Red Planet)

Alban wrote:There is a lot of stigma put on divorce, especially in religion, but it is really just an admission that a mistake has been made. This is far better than living a life of unhappiness.


I am a strong believer that divorce is, except in exceptional cases (such as fornication or physical abuse), unnecessary and a weak-minded "solution" to a problem. I don't know whether you read my previous message about divorce. Anyway, as I said before,

Antises wrote:It is better that the parents remained married and maintained the semblance of a marriage for the sake of their children. In my view, if parents are not willing to do this, they do not deserve to have children!


It is instinctive of human nature to consider those ideas which are unknown to be unreasonable, but one can only hope that people open their own eyes and discover things for themselves rather than rely on the media. There is no substitution for critical analysis of personal experience.

Guest

Re: Marriages

Postby Guest » Thu May 06, 2004 7:07 pm

mgormez wrote:
Do you have prove or are you firing off what-could-have-beens?



I know the people concerned. I am completely sure it was and is all completely free of the kind of sinister construction some people here have put on it. As for 'proof' - that's not so easy to supply.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Fri May 07, 2004 12:53 am

I find the idea of younger girls being married off to older men, all by arrangment within the SES totally abhorant. None of these marriages can be on any sort of equal footing and to me are not true marriages at all.

As for these marriages "lasting" - rather than showing me that these women are happy, it shows me just how disempowered they are.

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Fri May 07, 2004 12:58 am

Antises wrote: You are quite ready to be sceptical of any idea of marriage being based on anything but your idea of love, even while there is no evidence that these articles/documentaries are representative of arranged marriages in general. I know more couples who have had arranged marriages than standard western marriages, and I know many people. Why, then, would it be folly to rely on personal experience?


If it was just one article or documentary I might be able to accept your point of view. As it is many, then I am far more willing to accept well-researched journalism, than the say-so of one individual who knows of an infinitesimally small percentages of the arranged marriages out there!

Antises wrote:I repeat: none of them have been divorced, and you saying that any problems are covered up (together with sensationalistic articles and documentaries, which, by the way, tend to repeat the same stories countless times) will not convince me that their marriages are anything but happy and loving relationships.


Suit yourself, but not being divorced does not make a happy marriage. If you want to ignore the evidence that is out there then that is your choice.

Antises wrote: I would go so far as to say that basing your decisions solely on emotions too is sheer madness. Emotion, by etymology, is what moves you away from a standard state. It is a strong instinctive feeling and, more often than not, momentary.


What is love if it is not emotion. It is certainly not momentary. Every day, many decisions are made on an emotional level rather than a logical one. This is another area where the SES teaching was in conflict with my own experience. They continually dumbed down emotion (claiming it is a weak state) - probably because it is linked with the individual and is thus difficult to argue against.

Antises wrote:The principle of arranged marriages is that if the 5 suggestions given earlier are taken into account, then it is more likely than not that you will be able to have a happy and loving relationship with your partner (note: that's better than 50% of today's marriages).


Says who...what evidence do you have that these 5 "suggestions" provide any more a stable a relationship than any other. This to me sounds like another of the many things that you are indoctrinated with! I may take a bit more notice of your arguments, if you can give me a representative number (say 1000) of arranged marriages where these principles have been used and marriage was decided upon before any declaration of love was made - then somehow break down those 1000 marriages into the successful and unsuccessful ones.

Antises wrote:Now since this idea seems so absurd to so many people, and because people like Alban are only too eager to say that the lack of divorces is due to the stigma attached to divorce etc., nobody has bothered to gather any statistics regarding this, which is unfortunate.


Maybe there are no official statistics (indeed, I doubt there are official statistics for unhappy marriages in any country), but there has been a great deal of research done, by people wishing to expose inequality and unacceptable behaviour.

Antises wrote:I am a strong believer that divorce is, except in exceptional cases (such as fornication or physical abuse), unnecessary and a weak-minded "solution" to a problem.


All I can say is more-fool you. The longer this clap-trap is spouted in the SES and regurgitated by it's exponents, the more unhappiness will be experienced by those unfortunates who choose to believe it!

Antises wrote:I don't know whether you read my previous message about divorce. Anyway, as I said before,

Antises wrote:It is better that the parents remained married and maintained the semblance of a marriage for the sake of their children. In my view, if parents are not willing to do this, they do not deserve to have children!



That is an extremely short-sighted and naive point of view! I say this because it takes no account of human frailty i.e. the fact that we all make mistakes and we need to be able to rectify them. In your eyes, it is better that parents stay together, unhappy and fighting, for the sake of their children, when there may well be a happy relationships just around the corner for both parties. Exactly what sort of influences do you think you would be giving to the children in that first marriage. And don't be thinking that you can hide that sort of stuff from kids, they are always more perceptive than you think. So what time is an acceptable time to split up? after the kids have left? or is there another reason why you should not even end the misery there?

This is exactly the same sort of stuff that was rammed down my throat all those many years ago (so things haven't changed much), and it took me a while to see it for the rubbish that it is. Please don't take this as a personal attack, but instead see it as another view, that is vastly different from the one that has been fed to you for so long. If you do, and it starts you thinking for yourself (even if you don't agree) then it will have been worth all this typing.

Antises wrote:It is instinctive of human nature to consider those ideas which are unknown to be unreasonable, but one can only hope that people open their own eyes and discover things for themselves rather than rely on the media. There is no substitution for critical analysis of personal experience.


Indeed, there is no substitute for personal experience, but you cannot experience everything. It is for this reason that we all take on board other peoples experiences as we go through life. Similarly, we have to rely on the information given to us, by those whose job it is to get information. As you get older, the trusted sources of information become more numerous and more varied, and thankfully, you start to question some of the deeply held beliefs which you've picked up in your formative years.

Finally, we seem to have drifted onto arranged marriages in general, which was never the intention. What I (and others) were questioning, was the SES practice of pairing up individuals, giving them a few "suggestions" and then expecting them to spend the rest of their life together come hell or high water. Whilst I don't agree with arranged marriages in general, I can see how they are accepted as the norm in some cultures, but I am convinced that the SES flavour is wrong in alien cultures such as our own.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Marriages

Postby mgormez » Fri May 07, 2004 8:45 am

Guest wrote:
mgormez wrote: Do you have prove or are you firing off what-could-have-beens?


I know the people concerned. I am completely sure it was and is all completely free of the kind of sinister construction some people here have put on it. As for 'proof' - that's not so easy to supply.


Alban says it occured more than once and there were break-ups. How many of them do you know and are you stating that they all were from different SES schools and that there never was a teacher-student dependant relationship before marriage?


For all I know you could be the headmaster of St. James, trying to spin and damage-control past events that should have never happened.

I am not saying you are less than truthful, but then, I can never hold you accountable for past utterances you made, because I don't know who made them.
Mike Gormez

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Re: Marriages

Postby adrasteia » Fri May 07, 2004 9:07 am

Guest wrote:I know the people concerned. I am completely sure it was and is all completely free of the kind of sinister construction some people here have put on it. As for 'proof' - that's not so easy to supply.


But is it morally right?
How soon after the pupil left school did they get married?
Maybe it's a happy marriage, and good for them if so, but the point is- did the relationship begin while the pupil was still at school, and was it encouraged by the Ses? (I explained above how I came to the conclusion that the marriage was approved by the Ses)
But as you've said, there is no proof, so I will cease speculating untill I know better. But I'm afraid these are the questions that arise, I suppose they are from knowledge of St. James and the Ses.

Guest

Re: Marriages

Postby Guest » Fri May 07, 2004 5:09 pm

mgormez wrote:
Guest wrote:
mgormez wrote: Do you have prove or are you firing off what-could-have-beens?


I know the people concerned. I am completely sure it was and is all completely free of the kind of sinister construction some people here have put on it. As for 'proof' - that's not so easy to supply.


Alban says it occured more than once and there were break-ups. How many of them do you know and are you stating that they all were from different SES schools and that there never was a teacher-student dependant relationship before marriage?


For all I know you could be the headmaster of St. James, trying to spin and damage-control past events that should have never happened.

I am not saying you are less than truthful, but then, I can never hold you accountable for past utterances you made, because I don't know who made them.


Alban may know more than me. I only know of two couples. I don't think there was ever a student-teacher relationship in either case. The two men were teachers in the boys' school, so they would have been teaching only boys. I can't remember exactly how long it was after the two girls had left school. The two marriages happened at different times, and it was all a long time ago. Both couples have teenage kids now.

There has more recently been a couple who have got married about four years after the girl left school. He was for a while teaching in the boys' school between university and deciding on a different career, but they would not ever have met at school. She was in her last term in the girls' school sixth form when they met through their two families.

As for whether all this was 'encouraged' by the SES, as far as I know it was neither encouraged nor discouraged. I don't think many people would consider their choice of partner was any business of the SES or any one else. (Including us!)

The issue of arranged marriages, which has come up on this board as well, is a separate one. The cases I am talking about were not 'arranged'. There were, for a thankfully brief period, some arranged marriages in the London SES. I was around then, and thought the whole thing appalling. There were some which seem to have been fine, and some broke up. There were only a handful of them, and after a short time the whole dreadful idea was dropped. (Not that I think arranged marriages, in a culture where they are traditional, are a bad thing per se. I have know many people whose marriages were arranged in this way, and they say they are perfectly OK with it. What I thought was so wrong was that all this was being organised, not by the parents, but by Mr McLaren, the then school leader, and that the 'pool' from which choice might be made was so small. It was one of the worst episodes in the history of the SES, in my view.)

And no, I certainly am not the headmaster!

Daffy

On a related subject...

Postby Daffy » Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:13 pm

On a related subject to this thread, can anyone explain why Debenham was so anti-divorce even though he himself got divorced soon after marrying that harridan? (I can't remember her name but she was also a teacher at the schools.)

BTW adrasteia, check your Friends Reunited profile again AFTER logging out - as you probably know, Friends Reunited automatically removes URLs and email addresses, but they don't make their changes visible to you, the author of your profile. Your attempts at defeating their software have only been partially successful!

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:44 am

Point of information: Debenham has never divorced. He married a divorcee.

User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:14 am

To Misty, Katy and any other young person genuinely seeking advice on sex before marriage...

You have three options;

1. Believe what other people tell you

2. Trust your own instincts

3. Do a bit of both

It seems that as people asking what others think you are remarkably opinionated listeners. If you know it all already, why bother asking anyone's opinion? If you accept that someone's else's view of 'the wise' means that they are truly wise, then go for it. Just make sure that you never meet someone who suggests jumping off a cliff is a really good idea!

The thing is, if you wont listen to people who have a different experience then how can you understand them? If you reject everything that you hear because you think what you already have been told is superior then you are shutting yourself off from new experiences. If you cherish ignorance and call it wisdom you will be just like any number of religious zealots that from the earliest times have brought misery, suppression, and war to their fellow human beings.

Of course it is your right to believe what you want to believe and act in whatever way takes your fancy, as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights. That is this country's law. So if it makes you happy to abide by or use as guidance 5 laws/rules/suggestions about how to find a life-long marriage partner then go for it. Millions of generations of young women have gone before you trying to do the same thing. If there was one magic answer then dont you think we would all be doing it by now?

As for sex before marriage - it can work, it can also go very badly wrong - it depends on your level of expectation about the marriage, the partner, your self, which in turn are affected by your family, your community, & your education. Sex after marriage is no more a guarantee of happiness than sex before marriage. The problem is there are a couple of people being very vocal about how bad sex is before marriage when they wouldn't know because they haven't had sex before marriage, let alone been married!

If you are going to dismiss what you dont understand, why ask all those questions?


Anti-ses: You are so full of shit. You have gobbled up wholesale what you have been told, and without living it in the real world you presume to have the opinion that amongst other things, divorce is a 'weak - minded solution to a problem' - how would you know? Oh, I forgot, you dont have to experience life to know about it. And your quote from Carl Sagan, no doubt one that suits you as it is thoroughly 'on message' with the SES. But you dont have to be emotional to fool yourself, you can be just as liable to fool yourself that you are living in the real world when all you are experiencing is a narrow part of it described through other people's words. Go live it. Live what you are so fond of stating is the correct life and see how far it gets you. I dare you. See if you can become self-realised by calling other people weak-minded or any of the other bullshit you have learned wherever, let alone seeing if you can get on with all but the most extreme outside of the SES. See what happens, and when you have lived a bit of you OWN life, re read your own posts. See what a jumped up little SES robot you sound like, and its not even the usefull bits of the SES that youre drivelling, but all the nasty snide, ill-informed nonsense that is slipped to you alongside the other stuff.

You know why you wind me up so much? Because you sound just like I did 25 years ago. Thats how come I know you are full of shit and a fake!

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:58 am

Keir wrote:Anti-ses: You are so full of shit....you are full of shit and a fake!

I'm glad you took the time to make an in-depth analysis of my views :-). Just a post to say I have read your reply, but I fear any reply of mine might sound rude and confrontational (unlike yours?). I won't worry too much: even the great bella has been targeted with condescending comments. Anyway, in your eyes, we (Misty, Katy, myself et al.) have clearly been indoctrinated, although not necessarily having ever joined the SES. If we had succumbed to the SES view of the world, surely we'd have all joined this secret cult?

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:29 pm

I think there is a great difference between belief and knowlege and while I don't have too much of a problem with people believing things, I do have a problem with people telling me that what they believe is The Truth and thereby giving their belief the status of knowlege.

I have an example which I hope will be totally uncontentious in this context. My cousins only speak English but are about to emigrate to a country where the main language is not English. My parents say "You must go on an intensive course before you move, it's only common sense". The firm of experts who have many years of experience in advising people on moving between countries for many years say "There's little benefit in trying to learn the language before you move, save your money, you'll pick up the language more easily once you're there". My mum and dad 'believe'. The experts 'know'. If you test each thing you say against this example you will soon see how much you believe v. how much you know.

What I believe because it has been reported on many occasions is that in many, if not most cultures (including our own) women who sleep around are criticised to a greater extent than their male counterparts, sometimes to the extent of attracting physical retribution (e.g. the woman who was sentenced to stoning by a sharia court for having a baby out of wedlock); that in many parts of the world it is the men that control the women's reproductive rights (or lack of them); that in many parts of the world women are treated as being the property of men; that there are action groups in the UK trying to raise the profile of the problem of 'honour killings' etc etc etc

What the above appears to show is that men are far more concerned about 'sex' than women (though it seems that women frequently mete out punishment for misbehaviour as well - e.g. the bride who disappeared during a trip to visit her family abroad). The question is why? My favorite reasoning is: If a woman knows just how much pleasure they can have then they won't settle for a man who can't provide it unless there are very strong mitigating circumstances. And what's the best way of getting a woman who doesn't now how good sex should be? Hmmm... let's think.... oh yes, of course, a virgin just out of school who's taught that her primary function is to serve men should do nicely...?

What I know is that SES promotes and promulgates this subservient and second class view of women that makes the woman both victim and culprit. SES says that women are emotional and therefore incapable and need an experienced older man to guide them (btw Keir I love your humour sketch, is spot on, I recognise all the characters!). But then the SES says that the women are in control of what men do to them and therefore responsible for the men's actions. So, if I say Yes I'm subverting the man and if I say No and he goes ahead I didn't mean No at all and I'm still subverting him and if he grabs me from behind a bush I'm still responsible because I must have been giving out signals that this is what I wanted...!

What I know is that there was at least one teacher who had a reputation for dating pupils and sleeping with them and then dumping them because they were sluts. Whether the gossip is true or not I don't know but it is true that this was what was said.

OTOH I don't remember ever hearing a teaching saying that men were responsible for how they treated women or that they should take responsibility for their actions where women are concerned.

I also know that it's very easy to make generalised statements about other people's marriages and divorces. And from my own experience I can say without hesitation that staying in an unhappy marriage can be the weak-minded option.

And who can argue that social pressure is not a difficult one to resist - even in the west with it's personal freedoms. Otherwise men would wear skirts without worrying about getting a kicking. Same can be said about the burqa or about SES women not wearing trousers (though this last probably wouldn't result in violence - oh sorry, except that she would of course be advertising her sexual availability and therefore responsible for getting raped if some sicko jumped her on the way home...)

Is sex before marriage wrong? Yes! If that's what they believe. If it's equally wrong for both men and women and both sexes are treated with equal contempt, or lack of it, for indulging their carnal desires. And if both men and women are given equal education as to their rights and responsibilities in a relationship and come to that relationship with equal knowlege and experience.

Is sex before marriage wrong? No! ditto above...

Is sex before marriage wrong? who knows? only the people involved. Otherwise how can you explain successful life long relationships where the partners never marry or marry many years into their relationship.

And, without empirical evidence to show that love based or arranged marriages are/not more successful than each other I think it's a bit of futile argument unless you're prepared to discuss each point of view and accept that what you believe is only what you believe.

Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it so. No matter how reasonable or sensible it sounds.

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:38 pm

Antises

Could you explain how it is that you
Antises wrote:"know more couples who have had arranged marriages than standard western marriages"?

This statement suggests that your cultural background at least is one where arranged marriages are the norm rather then the exception. Also that, if you live in the UK, you might make a positive effort to work and socialise within your own culture/community. In which case it sounds like you might have a very good insight into some aspects of SES even if you were never a member.

RobMac
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:13 am
Contact:

Postby RobMac » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:16 pm

In my opinion sex before marriage is not wrong.

Most religions promote the untruth that not being married somehow demonstrates a lesser commitment or impurity.

Marriage is a religious ceremony wheras sex, normally, is part of a healthy loving relationship.

Research has shown that a common trait of the more intelligent creatures (ie humans, dolphins etc) on our planet is that they seek out joy and happiness.

I therefore believe that to deny yourself a pleasure which is natural based on religious (or cultish) beliefs or teachings is both unintelligent and un-natural.

Is this at odds with the SES's view of the importance of natural law and intelligence as I seem to recall these being constantly repeated by them :-).

I am an agnostic, does that mean that my relationship with my partner and my children or my commitment to them is any less than a believer who is married or that I should not be allowed to have children ?

I am in fact married but simply to protect my children from having to deal with some of the things that I saw other kids go through as a result of their parents not being married. This makes me no more or less likely to stay with my wife than if we had not married.
Last edited by RobMac on Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests