Is the idea of having one partner for life still a realistic one?

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Is the idea of having one partner for life still a realistic one? by Mind Map: Is the idea of having one partner for life still a realistic one?

1. Introduction (Li Di)

1.1. Having one partner means to marry just once in one’s life.

1.1.1. not realistic anymore

1.2. In the past, people were conservative and they stick to the social norm just because they do not dare to break it.

1.3. However, in modern society, people are more open, and they do what they think is right, instead of just following blindly.

1.4. Therefore, as many countries are facing baby shortage, having one partner can no longer bring much benefit.

1.5. Many facts have indicated that it has become more and more unrealistic to have only one partner for life.

1.6. Li Di, while most of your sign-posting is correct, the one about the birth dearth is quite irrelevant. The way it is phrased, this question is about individual choice.

2. Malvern Tan

2.1. It is unrealistic

2.1.1. Because of globalisation and people having to work overseas, it is difficult to maintain a strong relationship between two spouses. In the past, people could not travel around so much and thus their social circle was smaller. Thus they could remain loyal to one partner.

2.1.2. Actor Jack Neo adultery case, opposition member Yaw Shin Leong cheating on spouse.

2.1.3. Due to globalisation and the fact that more people are working overseas, it is difficult to remain true to one partner and therefore the idea is not a realistic one anymore.

2.2. Yes, you have brought up a relevant point, Malvern. However, your examples could be better. Were the marriages of the two people you mention jeopardised because of 'overseas travel'?

3. Jocelyn Tan

3.1. It is realistic

3.1.1. Compared to having multiple partners for life, having one partner can be more manageable, which would be more realistic.

3.1.2. One’s attention can be focused on just one partner

3.1.3. More time every day to build a meaningful and deep relationship with that partner

3.1.4. It would be mentally very taxing for one to cater to multiple partners each day and even more so if one has many kids, which may lead to superficial familial ties.

3.1.5. One has only limited amount of energy to interact with one’s children every day.

3.1.6. In terms of pecuniary matters, it is also more realistic to have only one partner.

3.1.7. Not everyone earns the same amount of income, and hence it is doubtful that everyone will have enough resources to afford having multiple partners, as it would mean the need for more money to raise more children and provide for a bigger family.

3.1.8. With the increasing cost of living and debts to clear in one’s life such as housing or education debts, having one partner for life is still realistic for most people around the world.

3.2. The question is actually about staying with the same partner for life. Still your point is relevant to some extent and properly developed.

4. Chen ChuHan

4.1. It is still realistic

4.1.1. Media can affect our perception pertaining to marriage. In modern society, media plays an essential role in the creation of social norms. Example: Titanic (depicts a deep love between two young adults) Since the movie depicts a memorable love story , people who also desires to have same memorable love with someone will be more likely to believe love is all about infatuation people who have watched the movie will believe more in true love with only one partner in life. Hence, the idea with having one partner in life is strengthened in people’s perception.

4.2. The point is valid, Chu Han, but your illustration makes it look like people in general are rather dumb. You need to support your point with more explanations. Think on this further and we will discuss it when we meet in class.

5. Daryl Choo

5.1. It is unrealistic

5.1.1. Divorce was uncommon in the past. However, with divorce being so commonplace, it is unrealistic that partners will stay together for life.

5.1.2. In the past, most people had only one partner and stuck with that person until death.

5.1.3. Society is now more accepting of divorce.

5.1.4. There are legislations put in place to aid the process of divorce.

5.1.5. Married couples can go to court to settle arguments over divorce.

5.1.6. With divorce cases being increasingly easy to settle, people see it as a solution to their marital problems and proceed to look for a new partner

5.2. Fine, Daryl. However, you need to elaborate a little as to why divorce is more common nowadays.

6. Conclusion (Li Di)

6.1. Unfortunately, the group has misinterpreted the question. The question is not about polygamy.

6.2. having only one partner for life is not realistic anymore due to our needs to increase the proportion of the young in the society.

6.3. It also benefits people in the way that it allows people to focus more on their work because there are more members in the family to take care of the children.

6.4. This may in turn increase the productivity of the society as a whole.

6.5. However, promoting polygamy does not mean that true love is outdated. Society still promotes the virtue of true love as they did before, just in a more open way. One person can have many true loves and treat his or her partners equally well so that no one will feel left out in the family. If people can share their love with other family members, they will receive more love in return.

7. Wilson Lee

7.1. It is unrealistic

7.1.1. many developed countries are currently facing a slow birth rate rather than a baby boom as compared to the past due to better education

7.1.2. I believe that having more than one partner for life is very applicable in developed countries whereby it could lead to an increase in birth rates

7.1.3. In most developed countries like Japan, Korea, or even Singapore, the problem of an Ageing population is getting increasingly evident. In Singapore, due to our current low birth rate of 0.95, our support ratio is projected to increase from 1 elderly to 7.9 working-age residents in 2011 to 1 elderly to 3.4 working-age residents in 2030. This would lead to a large economic burden for the working population in 2030.

7.1.4. Therefore, by decriminalising polygamy, couples who were initially unable to conceive due to infertility in either gender could now have babies through a third party.

7.1.5. Also, some working couples may have decided not to have babies as they lack time to take care of the children. Thus, second wives could not only help bear lots of children, but also stay at home and look after them.

7.1.6. The increase in number of babies would lessen the economic burden of the working population in 20 years time. Hence, I believe that in developed countries, the idea of having only one partner for life is not a realistic one.

7.2. See my comments under the introduction, Wilson. However, in terms of paragraph structure you have done a good job. Now think of how you can salvage this point and report to the group next week. Nothing to do for now.

8. New node