I married a great girl. 33 years now. She got sick. 24 hours I held her hand in the hospital. I was afraid to lose her. It turned out ok. She is my girl.
Have you ever thought that when we say "I will always love you" that it is not referring to an emotion? I'm thinking about the Hebrew "Agape" love meaning: "Unconditional love that is always giving and impossible to take or be a taker." Agape love is not dependent on what we have, it is only what we choose to give--and what we choose to give is acknowledged as an act of love by the receiver. Marriage vows, to me, are not about love, but commitment. It is a commitment to give love even when emotions don't match. And if both parties are doing this selflessly, then I personally find it difficult to be unhappy with the other. You guys are excellent speakers and have some very good points about how we treat divorce and marriage, but I do disagree with your basing marriage on an emotion. When this is the case it seems to me that the marriage is about having a partner, and not being one. If you have a response I would love to hear what you have to say!
Joshua Coleman I agree. Marriage isn't about "love", or what we call love. A relationship or marriage based solely or mostly on "love" is bound to fail.
Jézabel Poirier You are right up until about 200 years ago at which point we started asking for romantic love from the same institution that used to be predominately about class, property and male dominance. Not bound to fail-- check out Arthur Aron's research on long term relationships where the couples brains still exhibit the same physiological signs as new couples in love even after 20 years. Everyone else is just pretending.
+Jeff Millard "...where the couples brains still exhibit the same physiological signs as new couples in love even after..." What';s your point? I'm not saying """being in love"""; will mean that a relationship will fail; I'm saying that a relationship (or marriage) based essentially, or completely, on "love" will fail. I never said that being """in love""" is an obstacle to a marriage or relationship, on the contrary. But it shouldn't be its main component. That couples are still "in love" after 20 years proves nothing. If they are still together, it's not because they're "in love", but because they are compatible. Compatibility should be taken into consideration and be of much higher importance than "love". The problem is when """love""" is present, but not compatibility and work/efforts. I.e. when love is the MAIN or ONLY basis of a marriage, or relationship. That's when it fails. And this is simply common sense that a marriage or a relationship won't persist over time without copatibility and work. Then again, there's a difference between what we usually call love, i.e. "romantic" love or lustful love, and unconditional love. Still, what will determine if you your relationship becomes a relationSINK is not love, but compatibility. And compatibility is not determined by love but on values, lifestyle, dreams/goals/projects, ideas on family, etc. And by the way, not all new couples are "in love", because some people (thank God) understand that this feeling is not something to base a relationship on. It is also true that love can GROW over time. Which is how it should be for a more successful marriage.
+Jezabel P Silva Uhm No... Just because people are together for 50 years does not ensure compatibility... just tolerance. People in jail for 50 years aren't there just cuz the like it. Lots of things keep people in marriages that are not fullfilling-- kids, religion, fear. etc.
+Jeff Millard if they are still together, they are compatible, to a greater or a lesser extend. It also means that there is work involved; if they weren't willing to work on their marriage, they'd divorce, as it is legal nowadays to divorce for any or no reason at all (unfortunately). I don't know why you're bringing jail into this. People choose to be married, and remain married of their own will. There is no law or guardian that forces them to stay married. People however don't choose to go to jail, and are forced to stay in it for the duration of their term. So what's your point?
While I can't say there are never any reasons for divorce, I simply cannot agree whatsoever with the arguments presented in this talk. To me, these are 2 ppl who have failed marriages, and are trying to use academia as a gauze for their own hurt. I don't judge them, but sometimes wounded people have a way allowing their personal failures to blossom into disillusion. We're human. Personally, I think the true reasons behind many failed marriages can be boiled down to two things: 1) Many ppl do not wisely pick a lifetime companion. I see this so often. So many ppl do it because they feel they're ready and want to get started on their 2.5 kids, some are more in love with romance than with their partner, etc. I think our superficial culture has influenced us to make incompatible choices. 2) We are also a NOW society. If we want something, we want it now. If we have a problem, we want it now. The emotional aspect of marriage has ebbs and flows, ups and downs, high notes and low notes, exciting turns and terrible twists, but if two people are committed to ride them out, love is strengthened. I have thought about divorce several times for what are now to me silly reasons. I'm 13 years into this gig, and I'm so glad I didn't give in to those rocky moments. My marriage has taught me so much. It has highlighted my weaknesses as well as my strengths, my selfishness as well as my selflessness, my pride as well as my humility, my shallowness as well as my profoundness, my immaturity as well as my maturity, my impatience as well as my patience, etc. etc. I am challenged by my husband and he by me. And every day, and I mean every day, we have to make a conscious effort to grow together.
The thing about your reasons behind failed marriages are sometimes the reasons marriages succeed. Even if you don't wisely pick a lifetime companion and are more in love with romance, sometimes just staying with someone long enough will cause that to change (The mere-exposure effect). I also believe it's because of our NOW society that people are so proactive in trying to fix any problems in their relationship and express discontent as soon as possible (given they haven't cheated already of course).
Divorce is destructive. The perfect marriage is two imperfect people unwilling to give up one another. Be a person of your word. Your partner trusted your word to build a future with you. Honor your word. Don't run from your problems. Be patient and pray for breakthrough.
This is exactly what I needed to hear, esp the levity. I’m considering divorce and am riddled with guilt about it. My therapist reinforced my guilt, perhaps inadvertently, so this made me feel validated and at least like I’m not going insane
Divorce is always a traumatic experience for children. It can make you feel like you dont belong to anything because you are between 2 households. A parents job is to let the child know it will never divorce the child and NEVER leave it when it does something mistake.(Sorry for my english)
You think divorce is traumatic for a child? Try a child staying with parents who hate each other or heaven forbids with a parent who thinks its okay to use the rest of the family as their emotional outlet.
Yes, making love is complex, living is complex too... but neither of them should stop you from doing what you get only once, your life! Doesn't means you get a pass to hurt someone else or not feel compassionate about but staying happy is something that counts and one should live to make it count!!
All I hear in this ted talk is just bitter, jealous and clearly unhappy divorced couple. Go tell yourself whatever you want but accepting that you made wrong choices and grow from it is better than to blame everyone and everything else.
They try to sound smart but the logic used is awful and not objective or valid. Staying together for better or worse, etc. etc. till death is reasonable if you understand that leaving your partner during troubled times that CAN be overcome is what it means. It doesn't mean stay for reasons like the person becomes a huge drug addict for multiple years, starts murdering people, is found to be a pedophile, is physically or mentally abusive, etc. It means that if they cheated, became depressed for a year, abused substances for a period of time, etc. and then they genuinely admitted failure and worked to repair the relationship, that you do that. If problems are genuinely physically or mentally damaging to their partner or children AND the person isn't willing to do something about it in a reasonable amount of time, then you should leave. The point is, you only leave when you absolutely have to, not just because things are hard and uncomfortable. They are a partner and you HELP your partner, not abandon them in times of trouble. People get depressed, people sometimes mess up and get addicted to something, sometimes people are weak and cheat even though it's awful to do, etc. People are fallible. If you can't agree to getting through hardships in life with your partner, then you really shouldn't be their partner married or not. You wouldn't even be considered a best friend. A best friend even stays through the stupid you do. Can't be better than a best friend? Then you aren't a good partner to have. You are fair-weather friend at best. Anyone that thinks that the lady in Sleepless in Seattle should leave her fiance for someone else because "true love" doesn't understand love or morality. It is the same reason you wouldn't leave a marriage for someone else. Same morality reason. ... Just horribly invalid logic used in the arguments presented in this video. This should NOT be a Ted Talk. I'm ashamed that TED Talks allowed this to be done under their name.
In my experience people staying together when they shouldn't is much more common than people not staying together when they should. If someone wants to leave I'm sure they have good reason to, it's people feeling obligated to stay which is more often the issue and is the subject this video is addressing.
Wow. You have a lot of time on your hands. Not to be judgemental, but responsive to your comment; the diction, tone, humor, intelligence, Witt and stigma-free fortitude from this talk is incredible. Maybe we say two different talks? Beautiful Astro and Danielle. Jennifer Monahan
@@jennifermonahan6235 yeah I agree with you ... these are two different talks, but on a commonality I think, both say that one should pursue the concept of marriage as far as they (sh)(c)(w)ould to have a world of happiness together. But (when)(if at all) it becomes pertinent that the dissolution of the marriage needs to be done, the same people should not be hesitant to do so; keeping in mind that the goal is still to have the world of happiness with enough compassion on both ends.
I enjoyed hearing you both here as well as on the People's Pharmacy. I bought your ebook and found it thought provoking and helpful. I think that many people have been very unkind to you in their comments. As I contemplate divorce or dissolution I want you to know that your work has helped to put this subject into clearer perspective for me.
I enjoyed it, we need to question this contract and certainly before we pass on that belief to others. Research marital contracts in various situations/religions. If this contract was working we wouldn't need family law. Many comments on here seem to be from Holy Cows. Respect that others have the right to be true to themselves and find their own way in life...as do you.The point is we need to show respect and support for others in that situation.
I think this talk is a comfort blanket for damaged people. My parents managed to stay happily married and I've been brought up in a stable household. The whole idea of mocking and belittling this is pretty disgusting to me.
Congrats ! this is a very interesting talk . Approaching a current social issue that many are just reluctant to talk about . Your ideas are clear and helpful . thanks for sharing !!!
Authentic, lasting love, is a decision and an action. It’s not a feeling. Feelings come and go, feelings aren’t facts. Making and professing a decision to unite oneself to God to care for another human being each and every day, regardless of how one FEELS, until death, is what real love is. What they’re referring to is a selfish love, jump ship if you don’t “feel” loving any longer. That’s not real love, that’s not even a marriage. It’s an arrangement based on selfishness.
Marriage is the noblest contract between a man and a woman, the marriage covenant is so supérior it can't be compared to a mere contract; doing so reduces Love to a contract, like a lease on a car.
I don't know if you have studied contract law, but in any other situation, marriage could not be a legally binding contract. What contract is there that you can only fulfill by dying? This "noble" construct was invented about 1000 years ago, and the institution has never quite recovered.
A lot of these comments are saying the whole speech is based off emotions and the speakers are saying you can quit when you want. I didn’t hear that at all. I think they’re saying we need to get rid of the harsh criticism of people who get divorced, be there to support each other, and also that divorce doesn’t affect kids as much as we think it does (not sure if I agree with that part. Did I hear a different speech?
All right to divorce will be confronted with a reason to stay in union. But in all situation we should think of justice more than pleasure because there could be a lot of arm done to childs in the name of pressure.
I disagree with their analysis of Sleepless in Seattle. There is a good reason why we would feel very differently about the plot if Annie was already married. If married couples split every time they found someone better, then marital and relationship chaos would ensue. Imagine a woman who is married to a nice and conscientious man. She likes her husband but then she finds a new man who is 3% better. Should she divorce her present husband and go after the +3% man? What if that man then separates from her because he found a new woman who is 5% better. Now she wants to go BACK to ex-husband. But he might not want her now because he's afraid she'll leave him again in the future. You can see that this game of always trying to find someone better will lead to absolute relationship chaos.
It's what happens anyway though. Women have it a bit different though since if they have any desire for having kids, they have to make their decision fairly early in life.
Then why did these two get married? If they disagree with the marital vows and they think the vows are unreasonable or illogical, then they should have cohabitated instead.
+MisterKorihor I know right? I think it's because this is simply aimed at making people of divorce feel less guilty about there choices socially. Less questioning/understanding the underline moral or logical structures of the idea of marriage and inserting any forum of reasonable strategy or conclusion too it.
It may be that the laws over most places give greater recognition to the married couple over live-in couples, even more benefits - while the intention of staying together would be the same regardless of marriage or live-in, no couple should have to lose out on legal recognition because they chose to not engage in something that they feel hold no greater value than their actual relationship. Of course, people perpetuate traditions because it is easier to go with the flow while understanding the flaws instead of outright rejecting some tradition because it is illogical.
Crap like this only adds to the epidemic of divorce. Danielle, the Wednesday Addams costume and stiletto-spats, zipper boots, look rediculous on you. They'd work fine for a comedy movie but not so much for a TEDX Talk.
What drugs are u guys on? seriously this is so counter productive. U might as well start preaching the essence of committing suicide when life throws you some challenges.. #TEdPlz
Do you have recipe to make that drug???...i'm not even shure if i still remember how to make meth properly ;-) Now on more serious side... if those two are together again and IF they are GENUINELY happy, and it will last, i find that F**ING AWSOME, now that is something worth writing book about/researching some more ;-)
The thought of suicide has got many a man through dark times. If people understood the pain of divorce, under present societal norms, then they would work on their relationship. Also if we were to teach children about abuse, perhaps they would spot the abuser before marrying her/him..
Yay....at last an opportunity for me to put my idea out there...yippee😀 Let's have 10yr contracts...mmm not v romantic...but realistic, and committment enough to build something of 'last' for childrens' security. But not v rom😕 Ah-ah!...got it...😃! Lets bring back 'till death do us part', but let 'death' mean death of the marriage. New vows 'Do you person A take person B to be your lawful wedded spouse?' 'I do' 'Do you person B take person A to be your lawful wedded spouse?' 'I do' 'I now pronounce you married, you may kiss' *aahhhh moment.... (note how these vows suit all gender combinations!)* 'And in 10yrs time you are to present yourselves to renew these vows and if one or both fail to show, it will be deemed that the marriage has died and you shall get back what you have put in.' What 'put in' is not just the cash. 10yr timeframe makes you look forward. Get back what put in, means you benefit from building, without fear of losing... sorry to inform you that divorce is now seen as a cynical exercise, about 'taking to the cleaners' and weaponising children for that gain... These vows are about the paradigm of abundance and security which builds love rather that the present mode of scarcity and fear of losing, which destroys love due to distrust. Workplace childcare will facilitate men re child custody, women not losing out, means more 50/50 settlements and increased possibility of reconcilliation before final divorce decision, or at least reduce acrimony, children must benefit from this.. How do I know this would work I ran it past a family lawyer and the lawyer replied 'you'll be doing me out of a job'.. That said, I don't want to shackle people compulsorily for 10yrs no matter what, divorce can still be initiated, but the 'get back' clause is still of benefit to both parties. 10ys has a psychological effect...also may help someone who wants to leave...but can't bring themselves to 'push the button'... Please comment.... We have had political revolutions The Industrial Revolution The Information Revolution This is the start of what history will record as THE FAMILY REVOLUTION, Not for flags Not for ideals But FOR LOVE!!!! LETS DO IT DEMAND IT FIGHT FOR IT...
Worst TED talk thus far, because it is simply wrong. These two appear to me like they wanted to justify their own life choices, specially when they question causality. "All" birds fly. Penguins are birds, but they do not fly, so? Over 78% of all prison immates are kids run by single families. But forget about statistics. Divorce occurs because people do not have a good relationship. Nobody in a happy marriage gets divorced. So, there is conflict. And conflict between parents is NEVER good for children. Therefore, forget statistics, divorce is ALWAYS bad for children. Is it worse than being in a loveless marriage? That is a different question. We are not talking about lesser evils. And, by the way, divorce also reflect on the quality of choices of the people getting married. The simple question is: Who chose to marry that other person?...then wait for the lame excuse carrousel to kick in.
When tech nerds apply their problem-solving skills to human affairs they usually do it in a reductive and unrigorous way- like they are the first ones to ever grapple with these thoughts.
I don’t know what society you live in but what I see is women encouraging other women to get divorced so they can reclaim their freedom and telling them how wonderful their post divorce life will be. Think of movies like Eat, Pray, Love or Marriage Story that lionize divorce for women. Where is the cow for that? How many of these women end up crying on TikTok?
This is foolishness. At some point, we have to stop putting on the plastic crown from dress up time and declaring the world is the way we want it to be because it makes us feel good. Eventually, we die. And all of this never-ending dewey-eyed middle-school self-obsession will turn to dust with our bones.
Yea thats what I thought this was... Notice how important it is to them to take the gilt off themselfs when it comes to how children are effected. Sorry but if you made the choice to have kids when dose the realistic responsibility of accepting that your dreams/happiness come second to the children YOU DECIDED to bring into the world.
Well... I am not sure that gilt (sic) has anything to do with it. The dilemma is really is divorce better than having the children grow up in a toxic relationship? I don't think there is any way to prove this.
My life would certainly have been better had my parents divorced muuuuch earlier. This story is about defusing the social stigma of divorce. If for no other reason its an important talk...
I don’t know about this one. This sounds like two divorced couples trying to confirm their bias. Do you really wanna know what the number one reason for divorce is? Marriage. So don’t get married.
I married a great girl. 33 years now. She got sick. 24 hours I held her hand in the hospital. I was afraid to lose her. It turned out ok. She is my girl.
Lucky you. She's good. You are good 👍
Have you ever thought that when we say "I will always love you" that it is not referring to an emotion? I'm thinking about the Hebrew "Agape" love meaning: "Unconditional love that is always giving and impossible to take or be a taker." Agape love is not dependent on what we have, it is only what we choose to give--and what we choose to give is acknowledged as an act of love by the receiver. Marriage vows, to me, are not about love, but commitment. It is a commitment to give love even when emotions don't match. And if both parties are doing this selflessly, then I personally find it difficult to be unhappy with the other.
You guys are excellent speakers and have some very good points about how we treat divorce and marriage, but I do disagree with your basing marriage on an emotion. When this is the case it seems to me that the marriage is about having a partner, and not being one. If you have a response I would love to hear what you have to say!
Joshua Coleman I agree. Marriage isn't about "love", or what we call love. A relationship or marriage based solely or mostly on "love" is bound to fail.
Jézabel Poirier You are right up until about 200 years ago at which point we started asking for romantic love from the same institution that used to be predominately about class, property and male dominance. Not bound to fail-- check out Arthur Aron's research on long term relationships where the couples brains still exhibit the same physiological signs as new couples in love even after 20 years. Everyone else is just pretending.
+Jeff Millard "...where the couples brains still exhibit the same physiological signs as new couples in love even after..."
What';s your point? I'm not saying """being in love"""; will mean that a relationship will fail; I'm saying that a relationship (or marriage) based essentially, or completely, on "love" will fail. I never said that being """in love""" is an obstacle to a marriage or relationship, on the contrary. But it shouldn't be its main component.
That couples are still "in love" after 20 years proves nothing. If they are still together, it's not because they're "in love", but because they are compatible. Compatibility should be taken into consideration and be of much higher importance than "love". The problem is when """love""" is present, but not compatibility and work/efforts. I.e. when love is the MAIN or ONLY basis of a marriage, or relationship. That's when it fails. And this is simply common sense that a marriage or a relationship won't persist over time without copatibility and work.
Then again, there's a difference between what we usually call love, i.e. "romantic" love or lustful love, and unconditional love. Still, what will determine if you your relationship becomes a relationSINK is not love, but compatibility. And compatibility is not determined by love but on values, lifestyle, dreams/goals/projects, ideas on family, etc.
And by the way, not all new couples are "in love", because some people (thank God) understand that this feeling is not something to base a relationship on. It is also true that love can GROW over time. Which is how it should be for a more successful marriage.
+Jezabel P Silva Uhm No... Just because people are together for 50 years does not ensure compatibility... just tolerance. People in jail for 50 years aren't there just cuz the like it. Lots of things keep people in marriages that are not fullfilling-- kids, religion, fear. etc.
+Jeff Millard if they are still together, they are compatible, to a greater or a lesser extend. It also means that there is work involved; if they weren't willing to work on their marriage, they'd divorce, as it is legal nowadays to divorce for any or no reason at all (unfortunately).
I don't know why you're bringing jail into this. People choose to be married, and remain married of their own will. There is no law or guardian that forces them to stay married. People however don't choose to go to jail, and are forced to stay in it for the duration of their term.
So what's your point?
While I can't say there are never any reasons for divorce, I simply cannot agree whatsoever with the arguments presented in this talk. To me, these are 2 ppl who have failed marriages, and are trying to use academia as a gauze for their own hurt. I don't judge them, but sometimes wounded people have a way allowing their personal failures to blossom into disillusion. We're human. Personally, I think the true reasons behind many failed marriages can be boiled down to two things: 1) Many ppl do not wisely pick a lifetime companion. I see this so often. So many ppl do it because they feel they're ready and want to get started on their 2.5 kids, some are more in love with romance than with their partner, etc. I think our superficial culture has influenced us to make incompatible choices. 2) We are also a NOW society. If we want something, we want it now. If we have a problem, we want it now. The emotional aspect of marriage has ebbs and flows, ups and downs, high notes and low notes, exciting turns and terrible twists, but if two people are committed to ride them out, love is strengthened. I have thought about divorce several times for what are now to me silly reasons. I'm 13 years into this gig, and I'm so glad I didn't give in to those rocky moments. My marriage has taught me so much. It has highlighted my weaknesses as well as my strengths, my selfishness as well as my selflessness, my pride as well as my humility, my shallowness as well as my profoundness, my immaturity as well as my maturity, my impatience as well as my patience, etc. etc. I am challenged by my husband and he by me. And every day, and I mean every day, we have to make a conscious effort to grow together.
The thing about your reasons behind failed marriages are sometimes the reasons marriages succeed. Even if you don't wisely pick a lifetime companion and are more in love with romance, sometimes just staying with someone long enough will cause that to change (The mere-exposure effect). I also believe it's because of our NOW society that people are so proactive in trying to fix any problems in their relationship and express discontent as soon as possible (given they haven't cheated already of course).
Bravo. Great comment. I 100% agree with NOW culture. It is something that is being used to destroy our whole society.
Divorce is destructive. The perfect marriage is two imperfect people unwilling to give up one another. Be a person of your word. Your partner trusted your word to build a future with you. Honor your word. Don't run from your problems. Be patient and pray for breakthrough.
Right on!!!
Domestic violence is a different ball game a lot of pro-marriage people may not have exposure to or understand
This is exactly what I needed to hear, esp the levity. I’m considering divorce and am riddled with guilt about it. My therapist reinforced my guilt, perhaps inadvertently, so this made me feel validated and at least like I’m not going insane
Wishing you love an light - listen to yourself, you already know the answer deep down inside of you.
Wow this was so beautiful! THANK YOU for this! I wish I had heard it a few years ago! I was bullied by the HOLY COW.
Love is not only an emotion, but also a verb
And a noun and an ideal and and and
How many words for snow do Eskimos have???
One word: refreshing. Two more: thank you.
Can't believe there are so many disagreement cows in the comments. Love your work Astro.
Divorce is always a traumatic experience for children. It can make you feel like you dont belong to anything because you are between 2 households. A parents job is to let the child know it will never divorce the child and NEVER leave it when it does something mistake.(Sorry for my english)
Excuse me dear
You think divorce is traumatic for a child? Try a child staying with parents who hate each other or heaven forbids with a parent who thinks its okay to use the rest of the family as their emotional outlet.
Yes, making love is complex, living is complex too... but neither of them should stop you from doing what you get only once, your life!
Doesn't means you get a pass to hurt someone else or not feel compassionate about but staying happy is something that counts and one should live to make it count!!
To making it count!
All I hear in this ted talk is just bitter, jealous and clearly unhappy divorced couple. Go tell yourself whatever you want but accepting that you made wrong choices and grow from it is better than to blame everyone and everything else.
They try to sound smart but the logic used is awful and not objective or
valid.
Staying together for better or worse, etc. etc. till death is reasonable
if you understand that leaving your partner during troubled times that
CAN be overcome is what it means. It doesn't mean stay for reasons like
the person becomes a huge drug addict for multiple years, starts
murdering people, is found to be a pedophile, is physically or mentally
abusive, etc. It means that if they cheated, became depressed for a
year, abused substances for a period of time, etc. and then they
genuinely admitted failure and worked to repair the relationship, that
you do that. If problems are genuinely physically or mentally damaging
to their partner or children AND the person isn't willing to do
something about it in a reasonable amount of time, then you should
leave. The point is, you only leave when you absolutely have to, not
just because things are hard and uncomfortable. They are a partner and
you HELP your partner, not abandon them in times of trouble. People get
depressed, people sometimes mess up and get addicted to something,
sometimes people are weak and cheat even though it's awful to do, etc.
People are fallible. If you can't agree to getting through hardships in
life with your partner, then you really shouldn't be their partner
married or not. You wouldn't even be considered a best friend. A best
friend even stays through the stupid you do. Can't be better than a best
friend? Then you aren't a good partner to have. You are fair-weather
friend at best.
Anyone that thinks that the lady in Sleepless in Seattle should leave
her fiance for someone else because "true love" doesn't understand love
or morality. It is the same reason you wouldn't leave a marriage for
someone else. Same morality reason.
... Just horribly invalid logic used in the arguments presented in this
video. This should NOT be a Ted Talk. I'm ashamed that TED Talks allowed
this to be done under their name.
Their logic is fine. I challenge you to refute it. Marriage is easy to deconstruct, although I don't see why they got married at all the second time.
In my experience people staying together when they shouldn't is much more common than people not staying together when they should. If someone wants to leave I'm sure they have good reason to, it's people feeling obligated to stay which is more often the issue and is the subject this video is addressing.
Wow. You have a lot of time on your hands. Not to be judgemental, but responsive to your comment; the diction, tone, humor, intelligence, Witt and stigma-free fortitude from this talk is incredible.
Maybe we say two different talks?
Beautiful Astro and Danielle.
Jennifer Monahan
@@jennifermonahan6235 yeah I agree with you ... these are two different talks, but on a commonality I think, both say that one should pursue the concept of marriage as far as they (sh)(c)(w)ould to have a world of happiness together.
But (when)(if at all) it becomes pertinent that the dissolution of the marriage needs to be done, the same people should not be hesitant to do so; keeping in mind that the goal is still to have the world of happiness with enough compassion on both ends.
I enjoyed hearing you both here as well as on the People's Pharmacy. I bought your ebook and found it thought provoking and helpful. I think that many people have been very unkind to you in their comments. As I contemplate divorce or dissolution I want you to know that your work has helped to put this subject into clearer perspective for me.
I enjoyed it, we need to question this contract and certainly before we pass on that belief to others. Research marital contracts in various situations/religions. If this contract was working we wouldn't need family law. Many comments on here seem to be from Holy Cows. Respect that others have the right to be true to themselves and find their own way in life...as do you.The point is we need to show respect and support for others in that situation.
I think this talk is a comfort blanket for damaged people. My parents managed to stay happily married and I've been brought up in a stable household. The whole idea of mocking and belittling this is pretty disgusting to me.
Congrats ! this is a very interesting talk . Approaching a current social issue that many are just reluctant to talk about . Your ideas are clear and helpful . thanks for sharing !!!
Authentic, lasting love, is a decision and an action. It’s not a feeling. Feelings come and go, feelings aren’t facts. Making and professing a decision to unite oneself to God to care for another human being each and every day, regardless of how one FEELS, until death, is what real love is.
What they’re referring to is a selfish love, jump ship if you don’t “feel” loving any longer. That’s not real love, that’s not even a marriage.
It’s an arrangement based on selfishness.
Marriage is the noblest contract between a man and a woman, the marriage covenant is so supérior it can't be compared to a mere contract; doing so reduces Love to a contract, like a lease on a car.
I don't know if you have studied contract law, but in any other situation, marriage could not be a legally binding contract. What contract is there that you can only fulfill by dying? This "noble" construct was invented about 1000 years ago, and the institution has never quite recovered.
I found this very helpful :-)
That was so helpfull thank you so much for sharing.
Thank you! Loved this video.
Glib, facile, and insincere. These people deserve to be partnered to each other
A lot of these comments are saying the whole speech is based off emotions and the speakers are saying you can quit when you want. I didn’t hear that at all. I think they’re saying we need to get rid of the harsh criticism of people who get divorced, be there to support each other, and also that divorce doesn’t affect kids as much as we think it does (not sure if I agree with that part. Did I hear a different speech?
All right to divorce will be confronted with a reason to stay in union. But in all situation we should think of justice more than pleasure because there could be a lot of arm done to childs in the name of pressure.
I disagree with their analysis of Sleepless in Seattle. There is a good reason why we would feel very differently about the plot if Annie was already married. If married couples split every time they found someone better, then marital and relationship chaos would ensue.
Imagine a woman who is married to a nice and conscientious man. She likes her husband but then she finds a new man who is 3% better. Should she divorce her present husband and go after the +3% man? What if that man then separates from her because he found a new woman who is 5% better. Now she wants to go BACK to ex-husband. But he might not want her now because he's afraid she'll leave him again in the future. You can see that this game of always trying to find someone better will lead to absolute relationship chaos.
It's what happens anyway though. Women have it a bit different though since if they have any desire for having kids, they have to make their decision fairly early in life.
Wow this is amazing
Then why did these two get married? If they disagree with the marital vows and they think the vows are unreasonable or illogical, then they should have cohabitated instead.
+MisterKorihor I know right? I think it's because this is simply aimed at making people of divorce feel less guilty about there choices socially.
Less questioning/understanding the underline moral or logical structures of the idea of marriage and inserting any forum of reasonable strategy or conclusion too it.
It may be that the laws over most places give greater recognition to the married couple over live-in couples, even more benefits - while the intention of staying together would be the same regardless of marriage or live-in, no couple should have to lose out on legal recognition because they chose to not engage in something that they feel hold no greater value than their actual relationship. Of course, people perpetuate traditions because it is easier to go with the flow while understanding the flaws instead of outright rejecting some tradition because it is illogical.
@@r.p.2341 I guess it's a matter of integrity. Should one be honest and miss out on legal perks--or be dishonest.
Astro and Danielle was bored and decided to make a few bucks out of their divorce. Not so inspiring to be honest...
yeah marriage that's what I'm talking about
great talk! loved it!
Crap like this only adds to the epidemic of divorce.
Danielle, the Wednesday Addams costume and stiletto-spats, zipper boots, look rediculous on you. They'd work fine for a comedy movie but not so much for a TEDX Talk.
Very harsh, not hard to be kind and could have complimented her
What drugs are u guys on? seriously this is so counter productive. U might as well start preaching the essence of committing suicide when life throws you some challenges.. #TEdPlz
+Dizi Hyperz Pseudo intellectuals
Do you have recipe to make that drug???...i'm not even shure if i still remember how to make meth properly ;-)
Now on more serious side... if those two are together again and IF they are GENUINELY happy, and it will last, i find that F**ING AWSOME, now that is something worth writing book about/researching some more ;-)
The thought of suicide has got many a man through dark times.
If people understood the pain of divorce, under present societal norms, then they would work on their relationship.
Also if we were to teach children about abuse, perhaps they would spot the abuser before marrying her/him..
Yay....at last an opportunity for me to put my idea out there...yippee😀
Let's have 10yr contracts...mmm not v romantic...but realistic, and committment enough to build something of 'last' for childrens' security.
But not v rom😕
Ah-ah!...got it...😃!
Lets bring back 'till death do us part', but let 'death' mean death of the marriage.
New vows
'Do you person A take person B to be your lawful wedded spouse?'
'I do'
'Do you person B take person A to be your lawful wedded spouse?'
'I do'
'I now pronounce you married, you may kiss'
*aahhhh moment....
(note how these vows suit all gender combinations!)*
'And in 10yrs time you are to present yourselves to renew these vows and if one or both fail to show, it will be deemed that the marriage has died and you shall get back what you have put in.'
What 'put in' is not just the cash.
10yr timeframe makes you look forward.
Get back what put in, means you benefit from building, without fear of losing...
sorry to inform you that divorce is now seen as a cynical exercise, about 'taking to the cleaners' and weaponising children for that gain...
These vows are about the paradigm of abundance and security which builds love rather that the present mode of scarcity and fear of losing, which destroys love due to distrust.
Workplace childcare will facilitate men re child custody, women not losing out, means more 50/50 settlements and increased possibility of reconcilliation before final divorce decision, or at least reduce acrimony, children must benefit from this..
How do I know this would work
I ran it past a family lawyer and the lawyer replied 'you'll be doing me out of a job'..
That said, I don't want to shackle people compulsorily for 10yrs no matter what, divorce can still be initiated, but the 'get back' clause is still of benefit to both parties.
10ys has a psychological effect...also may help someone who wants to leave...but can't bring themselves to 'push the button'...
Please comment....
We have had political revolutions
The Industrial Revolution
The Information Revolution
This is the start of what history will record as
THE FAMILY REVOLUTION,
Not for flags
Not for ideals
But
FOR LOVE!!!!
LETS DO IT
DEMAND IT
FIGHT FOR IT...
Worst TED talk thus far, because it is simply wrong. These two appear to me like they wanted to justify their own life choices, specially when they question causality. "All" birds fly. Penguins are birds, but they do not fly, so? Over 78% of all prison immates are kids run by single families. But forget about statistics. Divorce occurs because people do not have a good relationship. Nobody in a happy marriage gets divorced. So, there is conflict. And conflict between parents is NEVER good for children. Therefore, forget statistics, divorce is ALWAYS bad for children. Is it worse than being in a loveless marriage? That is a different question. We are not talking about lesser evils. And, by the way, divorce also reflect on the quality of choices of the people getting married. The simple question is: Who chose to marry that other person?...then wait for the lame excuse carrousel to kick in.
projection much, huh
The Jewish Ketubah does explore what happens in different circumstances.
When tech nerds apply their problem-solving skills to human affairs they usually do it in a reductive and unrigorous way- like they are the first ones to ever grapple with these thoughts.
Very good point.
I don’t know what society you live in but what I see is women encouraging other women to get divorced so they can reclaim their freedom and telling them how wonderful their post divorce life will be. Think of movies like Eat, Pray, Love or Marriage Story that lionize divorce for women. Where is the cow for that? How many of these women end up crying on TikTok?
NEVER MARRY
no children for you
@@LAUREL5785 My parents didn't marry and I am still here, doesn't work like that and you can't tell people what to do
This is foolishness. At some point, we have to stop putting on the plastic crown from dress up time and declaring the world is the way we want it to be because it makes us feel good.
Eventually, we die. And all of this never-ending dewey-eyed middle-school self-obsession will turn to dust with our bones.
The “Holy”-ier than thou cows were THE WORST during my divorce
People are awful and judgemental and don't mind their own business
Cows
Excuse me sweety
Well. Not the place to theorize on my end.
This is terrible advice.
This is a terrible comment.
I came here from CowChop wtf
Yea thats what I thought this was...
Notice how important it is to them to take the gilt off themselfs when it comes to how children are effected.
Sorry but if you made the choice to have kids when dose the realistic responsibility of accepting that your dreams/happiness come second to the children YOU DECIDED to bring into the world.
Well... I am not sure that gilt (sic) has anything to do with it. The dilemma is really is divorce better than having the children grow up in a toxic relationship? I don't think there is any way to prove this.
My life would certainly have been better had my parents divorced muuuuch earlier. This story is about defusing the social stigma of divorce. If for no other reason its an important talk...
He sounds like the voice over guy on Museum tours.
beating a dead horse
I don’t know about this one. This sounds like two divorced couples trying to confirm their bias.
Do you really wanna know what the number one reason for divorce is?
Marriage.
So don’t get married.
She seems a sour woman… no wonder she divorced