The Sims 3 berates you for having a child out of 'wedlock' Yes they use that word...

[The Harkinator]

Are you sure you're not playing the Sims Medieval? That kind of thing was frowned upon a few centuries ago.


But seriously this is appalling.

 

[winter2]

Personally it made my blood boil. There is absolutely no shame in having children out of wedlock these days and many couple choose to remain unmarried because of cost and also religious (or lack of) beliefs.

I like it. There is shame in intentionally having kids as a single parent and couples who choose to remain unmarried in my experience have only bad reasons for doing so.

Nice to see a piece of modern media actually shoving that in peoples faces a bit.

What??? What shame exactly is there in being a single parent pray tell! I am simply dying to hear how you are going to back that piece of opinion up.

 

[Chefodeath]

You know, given that it happens to only female celebrities, I think its pretty accurate.

 

[Araksardet]

This is disgusting. I thought The Sims was supposed to be family-friendly.

 

[DracoSuave]

Fuck those upitty bitches. Anybody who thinks there is something wrong with having a child out of wedlock needs to get in touch with reality.

This is disgusting. I thought The Sims was supposed to be family-friendly.

Chill. It only happens through voluntarily setting that restraint on yourself. It ONLY happens to gamers who choose the mission goals of getting married, then having kids, in that order. Clearly, there's going to be some negative impact if you don't do the mission correctly. But it is 100$ voluntary.

It's like being offended that Sims can sleep around. They can but it's voluntary so why get in an uproar?

It only affects you if you purposely play that way.

 

[lacktheknack]

That is a terrible, disgusting and vile sentiment. Marriage is a prison, whereas a relationship is only one if you choose to make it so. There is nothing that isn't purely financial that can be considered good about marriage.

Please stop complaining about being "forever alone", as I've often seen you doing.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Fuck those upitty bitches. Anybody who thinks there is something wrong with having a child out of wedlock needs to get in touch with reality.

The fact that they lived together for decades without getting married is what shows the lack of commitment -- if you're in it for the long haul, do yourself a favor and get married.

The fact is that a lot of people do not want to spend thousands and thousands of dollers on something that in the end is absolutely meaningless. I know you can have a small cheap wedding but for a lot of people that is not an option and so instead they decide to simply live in commonlaw.

That's their problem then. You can get married at a courthouse for a tiny amount, or have a church wedding for well less than the multi-thousand dollar blowout that you see on shows like Bridezillas. Not getting married because you want some ridiculous cinderella wedding is nothing but an excuse, and not a particularly good one. I will say that I can understand couples who can't get married right away because of financial issues, but if they really want to commit with their partner, to have children and grow old together, they should be working toward that wedding. If they don't want all that, they shouldn't be having children in the first place.

 

[b3nn3tt]

-snip-

I could not disagree more! Why is marriage the be all and end all of a relationship? In what way is it irresponsible to have children and not be married? Surely being in a relationship and having children is pretty commited, you don't need a piece of paper to prove anything.

Did you read what I wrote about visitation and property rights? Marriage is a contract that protects everyone involved, both the married couple and their children. That piece of paper does quite a bit more than just "prove (something)."

Well, then that has very little to do with commitment. And I would argue that a better solution would be to alter laws to allow for common-law partners to have more rights, or something along those lines, rather than force people to marry in order to gain certain rights. I think it's awful that people can live together for decades, but if they aren't married then if one of them dies the other can end up with nothing.

The fact that they lived together for decades without getting married is what shows the lack of commitment -- if you're in it for the long haul, do yourself a favor and get married.

But some people just don't want to get married, and I think that by staying together that does show commitment. I don't think that people should have to get married jsut to 'prove' their commitment.

 

[DracoSuave]

That's their problem then. You can get married at a courthouse for a tiny amount, or have a church wedding for well less than the multi-thousand dollar blowout that you see on shows like Bridezillas. Not getting married because you want some ridiculous cinderella wedding is nothing but an excuse, and not a particularly good one. I will say that I can understand couples who can't get married right away because of financial issues, but if they really want to commit with their partner, to have children and grow old together, they should be working toward that wedding. If they don't want all that, they shouldn't be having children in the first place.

Does marriage magically cause people to be more likely to stay together? Not any more.

So how does a contract that doesn't actually create more commitment magically be a sign of commitment?

The only evidence of commitment in any relationship is how long it's going on. If you have a couple that's been together for decades, I defy you to show evidence there's no commitment there, marriage or not. They have, through virtue of their mutual commitment to each other, outlasted the average length of a marriage by more than double.

Marriage is not commitment. Only commitment is commitment.

Your value judgements on the issue should be constrained to your ring finger and that of your partner. Beyond that, you should mind your own damn business.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

That's their problem then. You can get married at a courthouse for a tiny amount, or have a church wedding for well less than the multi-thousand dollar blowout that you see on shows like Bridezillas. Not getting married because you want some ridiculous cinderella wedding is nothing but an excuse, and not a particularly good one. I will say that I can understand couples who can't get married right away because of financial issues, but if they really want to commit with their partner, to have children and grow old together, they should be working toward that wedding. If they don't want all that, they shouldn't be having children in the first place.

Does marriage magically cause people to be more likely to stay together? Not any more.

So how does a contract that doesn't actually create more commitment magically be a sign of commitment?

The only evidence of commitment in any relationship is how long it's going on. If you have a couple that's been together for decades, I defy you to show evidence there's no commitment there, marriage or not. They have, through virtue of their mutual commitment to each other, outlasted the average length of a marriage by more than double.

Marriage is not commitment. Only commitment is commitment.

Your value judgements on the issue should be constrained to your ring finger and that of your partner. Beyond that, you should mind your own damn business.

-snip-

I could not disagree more! Why is marriage the be all and end all of a relationship? In what way is it irresponsible to have children and not be married? Surely being in a relationship and having children is pretty commited, you don't need a piece of paper to prove anything.

Did you read what I wrote about visitation and property rights? Marriage is a contract that protects everyone involved, both the married couple and their children. That piece of paper does quite a bit more than just "prove (something)."

Well, then that has very little to do with commitment. And I would argue that a better solution would be to alter laws to allow for common-law partners to have more rights, or something along those lines, rather than force people to marry in order to gain certain rights. I think it's awful that people can live together for decades, but if they aren't married then if one of them dies the other can end up with nothing.

The fact that they lived together for decades without getting married is what shows the lack of commitment -- if you're in it for the long haul, do yourself a favor and get married.

But some people just don't want to get married, and I think that by staying together that does show commitment. I don't think that people should have to get married jsut to 'prove' their commitment.

I say to both of you: marriage is a contract that gives all sorts of legal benefits. If you are committed enough to stay together for decades, there is not a reason in the world not to get married, and tons of reasons to get married. There are lots of excuses for not getting married, but very few valid reasons.

 

[Nopenahnuhuh]

Annoying as this might be, the Sims 3 actually tries aiming closer to home. Sure nowadays having a child out of wedlock might not be such a big deal in some places, but everywhere else it's borderline disgraceful, and I for one congratulate the sims 3 Dev team for putting it out there. Sure it's antiquated and dumb, but this is still the reality in many MANY places of the world. See this as a social commentary, if you will, and the rage will subside.

 

[sleekie]

"Why does this medieval game have medieval values in it?!?"

A stumper, indeed.

 

[DracoSuave]

I say to both of you: marriage is a contract that gives all sorts of legal benefits. If you are committed enough to stay together for decades, there is not a reason in the world not to get married, and tons of reasons to get married. There are lots of excuses for not getting married, but very few valid reasons.

Except that in many jurisdictions, a common law marriage gives you those benefits anyways. So... if you're getting them... why do you need to spend money on a contract to get them?

Ah yes, to satisfy jerks who don't know how to mind their own damn business.


PS: On top of that, there are contractual obligations inherent in marriage that some people do not actually want to deal with... obligations that have nothing to do with the family or love or any of that cool stuff. So, yeah, there's reasons to not get married.

 

[Dorian6]

Personally it made my blood boil. There is absolutely no shame in having children out of wedlock these days and many couple choose to remain unmarried because of cost and also religious (or lack of) beliefs.

The game is not berating you for having a child without being married. It's not based on the creator's personal opinions.

Your Sim is a celebrity in the game. How would people react if Tiger Woods had gotten his mistress pregnant? How did people react when Jamie Lyn Spears got pregnant? What about Bristol Palin?

The game isn't saying that having non-married parents is bad, it's saying that celebrities who have children and aren't married are berated and criticized and become fodder for tabloids. It's saying that Celebrities are subject to greater scrutiny than regular people.

 

[DracoSuave]

Personally it made my blood boil. There is absolutely no shame in having children out of wedlock these days and many couple choose to remain unmarried because of cost and also religious (or lack of) beliefs.

The game is not berating you for having a child without being married. It's not based on the creator's personal opinions.

Your Sim is a celebrity in the game. How would people react if Tiger Woods had gotten his mistress pregnant? How did people react when Jamie Lyn Spears got pregnant? What about Bristol Palin?

The game isn't saying that having non-married parents is bad, it's saying that celebrities who have children and aren't married are berated and criticized and become fodder for tabloids. It's saying that Celebrities are subject to greater scrutiny than regular people.

This!

And... let's be honest, the shame only lasts two days. That's kinda funny right there.

 

[Katana314]

I can understand if not many people on this site care about the Sims 3 or what goes on in relation to it but I would just like to draw your attention to this;

Your female sim is the only one who recieves the 'shame' for this 'heinous act' Also note the term 'bad actions' and 'innapropriate behaiviour' :|...

Personally it made my blood boil. There is absolutely no shame in having children out of wedlock these days and many couple choose to remain unmarried because of cost and also religious (or lack of) beliefs.

I actually think it's an interesting choice. Obviously, even a game company cannot say for sure that such an action is "bad", but they CAN say that the overwhelming majority of people would think badly of you for it. You can't go up to all of them and contest that it was "no accident, we are still committed to each other, we just don't think the same way of marriage".

Sims 3; a lesson in public perception.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

That's their problem then. You can get married at a courthouse for a tiny amount, or have a church wedding for well less than the multi-thousand dollar blowout that you see on shows like Bridezillas. Not getting married because you want some ridiculous cinderella wedding is nothing but an excuse, and not a particularly good one. I will say that I can understand couples who can't get married right away because of financial issues, but if they really want to commit with their partner, to have children and grow old together, they should be working toward that wedding. If they don't want all that, they shouldn't be having children in the first place.

Does marriage magically cause people to be more likely to stay together? Not any more.

So how does a contract that doesn't actually create more commitment magically be a sign of commitment?

The only evidence of commitment in any relationship is how long it's going on. If you have a couple that's been together for decades, I defy you to show evidence there's no commitment there, marriage or not. They have, through virtue of their mutual commitment to each other, outlasted the average length of a marriage by more than double.

Marriage is not commitment. Only commitment is commitment.

Your value judgements on the issue should be constrained to your ring finger and that of your partner. Beyond that, you should mind your own damn business.

-snip-

I could not disagree more! Why is marriage the be all and end all of a relationship? In what way is it irresponsible to have children and not be married? Surely being in a relationship and having children is pretty commited, you don't need a piece of paper to prove anything.

Did you read what I wrote about visitation and property rights? Marriage is a contract that protects everyone involved, both the married couple and their children. That piece of paper does quite a bit more than just "prove (something)."

Well, then that has very little to do with commitment. And I would argue that a better solution would be to alter laws to allow for common-law partners to have more rights, or something along those lines, rather than force people to marry in order to gain certain rights. I think it's awful that people can live together for decades, but if they aren't married then if one of them dies the other can end up with nothing.

The fact that they lived together for decades without getting married is what shows the lack of commitment -- if you're in it for the long haul, do yourself a favor and get married.

But some people just don't want to get married, and I think that by staying together that does show commitment. I don't think that people should have to get married jsut to 'prove' their commitment.

I say to both of you: marriage is a contract that gives all sorts of legal benefits. If you are committed enough to stay together for decades, there is not a reason in the world not to get married, and tons of reasons to get married. There are lots of excuses for not getting married, but very few valid reasons.

Except that in many jurisdictions, a common law marriage gives you those benefits anyways. So... if you're getting them... why do you need to spend money on a contract to get them?

Ah yes, to satisfy jerks who don't know how to mind their own damn business.

I can tell you this: nowhere in the US does it give you all of the rights of a real marriage, and in fact, there isn't such a thing as a commonlaw marriage over much of the country. There was a thread in R&P about this recently, and even Canada, which does confer most of the rights in a commonlaw marriage, doesn't confer all of them. Add in the fact that this game was made in the US, and you start to understand why the thing in the game makes sense.

 

[b3nn3tt]

marriage is a contract that gives all sorts of legal benefits. If you are committed enough to stay together for decades, there is not a reason in the world not to get married, and tons of reasons to get married. There are lots of excuses for not getting married, but very few valid reasons.

A very good point, and I agree with you that marriage does bestow a lot of benefits on a couple that they couldn't get if they don't marry. But I would argue that that isn't right, as it pretty much forces people to get married if they want to enjoy those benefits, whereas I think that the commitment itself should be enough. Unfortunately, that isn't the way the law works at the moment, and I think that is a damn shame.

 

[Zer_]

Pretty much sums up my views on this.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

marriage is a contract that gives all sorts of legal benefits. If you are committed enough to stay together for decades, there is not a reason in the world not to get married, and tons of reasons to get married. There are lots of excuses for not getting married, but very few valid reasons.

A very good point, and I agree with you that marriage does bestow a lot of benefits on a couple that they couldn't get if they don't marry. But I would argue that that isn't right, as it pretty much forces people to get married if they want to enjoy those benefits, whereas I think that the commitment itself should be enough. Unfortunately, that isn't the way the law works at the moment, and I think that is a damn shame.

Well, the way I see it, you need a contract to bestow those rights anyway. The way it works, and the way it has always worked, is that that contract is called a marriage contract. You could call it something else, like a civil union, but what's the point? You may as well call a spade a spade.