h a l f b a k e r yThese statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Become a member, sign a contract, pay money marry who your told to.
If the relationship ends in divorce within a certain time frame you pay a hefty fine to the service.
You will also be obligated to utilize the organizations divorce legal services.
Incentive for lasting Marriage
If your marriage
lasts 20 years a $ bonus is issued, 30 years gets a larger bonus etc. etc..
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
So, if I tell you to marry someone abusive - you give me money now, and then more money later when you can no longer handle the relationship. Good deal for me, by why on earth would anyone do this? |
|
| |
Clearly this is a metaphor for something. |
|
| |
There would be exemptions for certain circumstances like getting connected to an abusive person. |
|
| |
However the system could protect you and come to your aid in the event of such situations. |
|
| |
Like any dating site the service would endeavor to connect you with your best match based on extensive testing, questioning and background checks. |
|
| |
Also you only get paid if you make it work.
You do not get paid to get divorced, rather you would get penalized financially unless you were subject to exigent circumstances. |
|
| |
//You do not get paid to get divorced, rather you would get penalized financially unless you were subject to exigent circumstances.// |
|
| |
I'd be interested to read what the 'exigent circumstances' would include. |
|
| |
// Clearly this is a metaphor for something.
[marked-for-tagline] |
|
| |
[A tagline is the little changing slogan underneath the croissant in the upper left corner.
"marked-for-tagline" means "hey, wouldn't that make a good slogan for this site" or, when I say it, "hey, I've added that to the list of slogans for this site".
I did that because the above statement is one that can be, and perhaps should be, said about many ideas here. It is funny because it is itself so vague. (You picked up on that.) Since a bad or incomprehensible idea on its face regains new value when considered as a metaphor, asking for that treatment outright may be a way of saying that an idea is bad. But maybe the idea really is a metaphor, or maybe it could be a metaphor that the reader, or even the author, admits to not understanding just yet, but strongly feels is there. Of course, they may both be wrong about that.] |
|
| |
not a metaphor for anything, tag line?
what do you mean exactly |
|
| |
just a marriage arrangement service |
|
| |
like skydiving, having your marriage arranged could be thrilling, and make it more special |
|
| |
exigent circumstances were already defined
abusive, cheating, criminal behavior etc.. |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] arranged marriages have been known to exist for millennia. |
|
| |
Failed marriages have caused financial hardships for even longer. |
|
| |
Successful marriages being financially productive isn't anything new either. |
|
| |
The idea, as presented doesn't seem to really make any sense (since there's nothing new, or beneficial here that would make someone pay to participate) and is either:
i) an attempt to promote discourse through controversy, or
ii) has some underlying meaning the majority of us are not party to and is causing the poster to giggle quietly as we fumble about in the dark. |
|
| |
//like skydiving, having your marriage arranged could be thrilling, and make it more special// |
|
| |
So, are you saying that because skydiving is arranged, and it is exciting, then if marriage is arranged, then that will be exciting too? |
|
| |
Does the same logic apply in other fields? e.g. If orange juice is squeezed, and it can be found in fridges - by deduction, we might expect to find teddy-bears in fridges, because they too are squozen. |
|
| |
To me, this seems exactly the wrong way round. Why do you pay if it _doesn't_ work? Surely you should be compensated? |
|
| |
[nineteenthly], you seem to be assuming that the marriage is something that you consume, so that you are a paying customer. However, there is a sense in which a married person allows their marriage to consume them, to the benefit of others (principally their children, but also, arguably, society at large). |
|
| |
In this second conception of marriage, you might reasonably get paid for sticking at it. (Of course, in a sense, you do get paid in real life, through the efficiencies of maintaining a single household and not spending half your life shuttling your tug-of-love children to another household.) |
|
| |
The idea doesn't exactly match either conception, of course, in so far as the proposed organisation is nowhere near identical with either society at large or the children of the marriage, but is simply a business concern. |
|
| |
To make this idea happen would require one of two things.
1. The organisation is a governmental institution (actually or virtually) so that it doesn't have to rely on a series of transactions of positive marginal utility between individual consenting adults. OR
2. Some fantastic, baroque trans-generational financial engineering connects the ultimate beneficiaries of stable marriages with the funding of the organisation. |
|
| |
Somehow, neither of those fills me with great confidence. |
|
| |
I don't consider marriage in this situation at least to be something consumed. The service is finding the client a suitable spouse. Suitability might mean something like "someone who needs a work permit" and "someone who wants an arboretum" (i.e. 'Green Card'), in which case this can be done. If the relationship fails, there's a case for blaming the service.
Marriage is bad for society at large because it leads people to put their spouses or their children before the needs of society at large. It turns the world into a huge mess where few people look beyond their own narrow concerns, and remember, i am happily married and speak from experience, so i'm not being self-righteous here.
Such services, incidentally, exist. I see numerous ads for them on the local TV station and in various newspapers. |
|
| |
Having spoken to at least a couple of people who have been involved in arranged relationships, there is one interesting dynamic that isn't widely recognised ... both parties go in expecting the worst. |
|
| |
Human reality being what it is, from time to time some things are bound to go better than the worst you are expecting. When things go better than you expect, it typically leads to some kind of pleasant surprise. Pleasant surprise - often - leads to a more positive attitude, a desire to return the favour, and an improving outlook ... and a gradual, but positively reinforcing cycle can be set in motion. |
|
| |
Compare this to a model where the expectations are based on 'romantic love'. Even the most realistic are presumably at least slightly intoxicated by our highly evolved pairing systems, so expectations tend to be high. Again, human reality will dictate that from time to time at least, things will go worse than expected. Things going worse than expected leads to unpleasant surprise, often accompanied by disappointment, hurt, resentment, anger, etc. These may start off small, but they can set up a vicious cycle where 'things are just not working out ...' |
|
| |
I'm not sure which model would lead to more or less of each of the various potential outcomes ... and certainly don't know of any studies to find out, which could be extremely interesting |
|
| |
However, arranged marriages (or other purely practical contract partnerships created outside of the 'love' construct) may not be QUITE as stupid as they sound to those of us who have grown up with more individualistic social norms |
|
| |
Not like skydiving at all. With skydiving, you know where you're headed (straight down, very fast) and if it All Goes Horribly Wrong, it's much quicker and less painful than marriage. |
|
| |
hmmmm, find myself agreeing with 8th. |
|
| |
Not reallt. They both look OK for a while, but then they slowly start to wilt and become less attractive; funally, you have to acknowledge there's no further mileage to be had, and chuck them away. |
|
| |
// leads people to put their spouses or their children before the needs of society at large// True, but incomplete. |
|
| |
I can't help thinking that the world would be a better place if anaphrodisiacs were added to the water supply. |
|
| |
what does an anaphrodisiac do? |
|
| |
It makes you attracted to people called Anne. |
|
| |
//Not like skydiving at all//... hmm. If skydiving had the same failure rate as marriage, do you think it would be legal? |
|
| |
An anaphrodisiac turns you off. It stops you wanting sex, lowers your libido, whatever. Like the mythical "bromide" which used to be in Army cups of tea during National Service.
Resisting the urge to go and look that up immediately, it remains for me to add this: i wouldn't say this is a dating service because arranged marriages have an element of compulsion. In fact, it's more like National Service, but without the bromide. |
|
| |
//[marked-for-deletion] arranged marriages have been known to exist for millennia.// //baked// |
|
| |
I am having a hard time understanding the opposition here. This idea is no dating service. |
|
| |
If you sign up, you have to marry you have no choice.
The only service I know of with that model is the military, based on that it is unique. |
|
| |
Second imagine having an added financial incentive to have a successful long lasting pleasant marriage.
A pyramid scheme matches this model. |
|
| |
Also consider infidelity when there is an organization ready to penalize you and not just your angry cheated lone spouse. The greater threat might make you think twice before risking the destruction of your family. |
|
| |
I like --kindachewy remarks. |
|
| |
and I would like to distribute frackaphrodisiac to all here and maybe I could get more buns. |
|
| |
[vfrackis] would you sign up? If not, then why not? And then, when you've answered that question, maybe you'll understand the negativity. |
|
| |
If you can't see any down side - then I'd be glad to hook you up, for a fee of course. And if it doesn't work out, you have to pay double. |
|
| |
I look forward to your business! |
|
| |
I have to say, i do like the idea of a cheated spouse having support. However, that very cheated spouse will be fined, won't s/he? Also, on top of the unhappiness at having a failed marriage, you have to pay, whereas the reward of having a successful marriage is already there in the form of happiness, so you don't want the money anyway. |
|
| |
"happiness" is so very circumstantial. I'd settle for contentment. money might motivate me to work toward contentment. still, I'm not liking this idea. |
|
| |
[vfrakis] a tagline is the quote under the croissant- upper left screen. |
|
| |
If money is a motivator, that suggests that the
traditional division of paid and unpaid work in
marriage motivates the wife towards contentment.
That's not a popular opinion, with me any more than
anyone else. |
|
| |