Willing to divorce your spouse? When will you divcorce your parents?

The increasing divorce rates saddens me.
Divorce is the direct result of treating the sanctity of marriage-borne relationship as different from birth relationships. We do not 'divorce' our parents or children. Why not? Because it is 'not done'. At least, till now.
Once divorcing parents or children also becomes the norm, life would be strange. Dad spanked me, so I divorced him. My son hangs out with people I do not approve of, so I divorced him. A frightening scenario!
No, it does not happen that way. We treat these relationships as 'inviolable' and divorce of them as 'unthinkable' - and hence they stay stuck. There is no getting out of them, so they are OK.
Life in a prison is unbearable only because there is the hope of the gates opening one day. If the doors are closed forever,prison is OK. Limitations bother us only in comparison to the possibilities of 'no limitations'. It bothers me that I can not bat as well as Mahendra Singh Dhoni ( a great Indian batsman). However, the fact that I can not run as fast as the jaguar does not bother me.
Provide some 'unbreakability' to the institution of marriage and it will pull through most of the bad times.
Of course,one does not want to promote slavery for life.
We do not recommend total abolition of the capital punishment. We just want to enforce the philosophy that 'capital punishment is only for the RAREST OF RARE cases'.
In the rarest of rare cases, parents are , even now, 'divorcing' their children and some children are 'divorcing' their parents.It will always happen. But let us make divorce of marriage related relations as difficult as is the 'divorce' of birth related relations.Those who find these difficulties as more bearable than the marriage are welcome to divorce.
The very concept that marriage related relations are as dear as birth related relations will go a long way.
As a matter of fact, marriage relations should be treated as many degrees more inviolable since, unlike birth relations, these are a result of our own choice.
The new system expects people to marry the person they love. The old system expected people to love the person they marry.Regardless.
In any case, what has love got to do with marriage? Marriage is a responsibility which must be discharged whether or not I find love in it.
Marriage, like all other social institutions, is meant to promote stability of the society, even if at the expense of the individual. Were it not for the needs of the society, one could well 'live' with one's partner without marriage. Many do today. Their parting of ways does not invite social censure.
As I said earlier, if you treat marriage as inviolable, you will find even the ugly aspects of marriage quite bearable.

Provocation in cases of sexual abuse

Females who dress provocatively, are themselves responsible ( at least, partially) for bad things like lewd remarks, rape etc that happen to them.
Whenever I have made this statement, I have comfortably managed to get myself labeled as a conservative, anti-women's lib and usually a 'man with a warped mind'.
Well, all that can be attributed to me ONLY if I have made any value judgment. Actually, I am only making a factual statement, not a value judgment.
Provocative dresses affect male physiology in a manner that the evil things that follow are only the natural consequence of same. Whether the male physiology SHOULD be or SHOULD NOT be affected by the provocations caused is another matter and has to be answered by the Lord Almighty, not me. In the present scheme of things, it does. Period.
Let me also slip in a bit of value judgment now. Leaving a house open does attract thieves and any robbery therein can be, at least partially, attributed to the carelessness in leaving it unlocked. The blame does not pass off from the thief to the house owner, but the house owner can not be fully absolved either.
You might argue here that rape etc also happens to girls who are decently dressed. I agree. However, that in no way means that provocative dressing does not start the chain of events which is likely to result in bad things. It would be bad logic to accept this.
In urdu, there is a good ' sher' ( couplet ) to suggest the same. It goes like this -
Sabhi mujhse kehte hain ki nazarein nichi rakh
Koi unse nahin kehta, ' Yoon na chalo ayan ho kar'
Roughly tranlated, it means - Everyone tells me to keep my eyes low. Nobody tells her not to move so provocatively.
See you.

Thinking, unfortunately, is a digital system

Point 1. I have located the seat of human problems. It lies in the human brain. We can think and reason, and that is hugely unfortunate.
Human brain can differentiate between what is and what can be - or even, what should be. That makes a highly fertile background for dissatisfaction. The dog, I suspect, does not compare the state of 'what is' to anything else. He lives happily in 'what is' and dies when the time comes. Mind you, I will also die when the time comes - but not before spending a lifetime worrying about it.

Somewhere, I read the following lines ( exact words, or author, not recalled now ) -
Heaven from all creatures hide the book of fate
All but the page prescribed, their present state
From brutes what men, from men what spirits know
Or who would suffer being here below
The lamb, thy is doomed to bleed today
Had he thy reason, would he skip and play?
Pleas'd to the last, he crops the flowing food
And licks the hand just raised to shed his blood
Oh blindness to the future! kindly given
that each may fill the circle, marked by heaven
Who sees with equal eyes, God of all
a hero perish, or a sparrow fall

But man is not content with the hidden tomorrow. He looks into palms, stars, faces, crystal balls and even tea leaves to decipher tomorrow. Gosh!
Do you know why ' Zebras do not get ulcers'? By now, I suspect you would have guessed.

Point 2. Within the boundaries of thinking, the most serious lacuna lies in the fact that thinking is digital, while happenings are analog.
Whenever something happens, say some feelings emerging within me, it happens ' in itself', and not with reference to some other universal pole. However, whenever I wish to express or even acknowledge it to myself, I need a word/scale for same. Should I be labeling the feeling as ' being angry' or 'being aghast' or ' being distraught'? Though I have the liberty to choose the magnitude - somewhat angry, more angry than ---. very angry, very very angry, I still must choose one of the existing scales - and that is what makes it digital. In forcing an analogous value into a digital system, the base gets corrupted. In most cases, the corruption might be minimal. but a lifetime of ' minimal corruptions' gets quite heavy as age progresses.
How I wish I could think in an analog manner - just the way it is - without needing to force fit it into the digital system of the existing available sets.

Is there some connection between Point 1 and Point 2 above. You bet there is. A dog's life is pure and for its own sake. In Hindi language ( Sanskrit, actually ), I would put it as - swantah sukhayah ( for the sake of one's own happiness ). A human's life is always one of conformity - even if it is to conform to the rigidities of a digital thinking system. Analog is pure, ' whatever it is'; Digital is force-fitted into a system of artificial boundaries - something with reference to others.
In the previous paragraph, I fell into my own trap and now I am editing this post to include this observation. When I was writing about the dog's life, I did not quite mean to express what is normally understood by 'for the sake of one's own happiness'. But that phrase is a well accepted one - a digital finite one. I plumped for it, corrupting my actual analog meaning.

How I wish I were a dog! Hopefully in the next life -but only if I please God in this one.