A Quote by Euripides

What else goes wrong for a woman-except her marriage? — © Euripides
What else goes wrong for a woman-except her marriage?

Quote Author

If a marriage goes wrong, 60 percent of the blame is with the woman.
Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.
Men are literally lying in bed with their wives when the marriage is essentially over, thinking, 'I've got to get the hell out of here', and have a fantasy woman in mind. Then you get divorced, meet a woman, marry her, and by the time all that goes by, you've aged a few years and are ready to go back to your ex-wife.
Marriage is a unified institution. Marriage means a committed, legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. That's what it means. That's what it means in the revelations. That's what it means in the secular law. You cannot have that marriage coexisting institutionally with something else called same-gender marriage. It simply is a definitional impossibility.
If a woman abandoned by her husband, or a widow, of her own accord contracts a second marriage and bears ,a son , he is called the son of a re married woman .
Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don't think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don't.
Marriage had certain commercial advantages. By it the man secures the exclusive right to the woman's body and by it, the woman binds the man to support her during the rest of her life.... A more disgraceful bargain was never struck.
Marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve - one man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don't think anyone else should either.
At the beginning of a marriage ask yourself whether this woman will be interesting to talk to from now until old age. Everything else in marriage is transitory: most of the time is spent in conversation.
I get a little angry about this highhanded scrapping of the look of things. What else have we to go by? How else can the average person form an opinion of a girl's sense of values or even of her chastity except by the looks of her conduct?
All of women's stories in the 19th century had either one of two endings: you either had the good Jane Austen marriage at the end and you were happy; or you had the terrible Henry James savage downfall because of your own hubris as a woman, or you've made some great error leading you down a path to ruin. One is the story of love that's successful and the other is the story usually of reckless love that goes terribly wrong that destroys the woman.
Failing to be there when a man wants her is a woman's greatest sin, except to be there when he doesn't want her.
When a man has once loved a woman he will do anything for her except continue to love her.
The woman who has her being in marriage and motherhood has become part of antithetical reality, revoking property from the woman who remains in a condition of intangible femininity.
It is not wrong or bigoted to believe American society is stronger and that the family unit is better served when marriage is between a man and a woman. It is also not wrong for homosexual Americans to want to get as much parity as they can.
The woman who needs to create works of art is born with a kind of psychic tension in her which drives her unmercifully to find a way to balance, to make herself whole. Every human being has this need: in the artist it is mandatory. Unable to fulfill it, he goes mad. But when the artist is a woman she fulfills it at the expense of herself as a woman.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!