Almost makes you wonder what got them to choose to stay together in the first place (considering that most people marry after having been in love, but being no longer in love)
evidently... in some skewed thinking, staying
together is all that matters.
personally, i think that sucks.
Almost makes you wonder what got them to choose to stay together in the first place (considering that most people marry after having been in love, but being no longer in love)
One way of looking at marriage is as a rather odd sort of package deal, an exchange in which the two parties agree to share income, housing, sexual favors, and a collection of productive activities such as cooking meals, cleaning house, washing dishes, and rearing children. Seen from this standpoint, the motivation for marriage is, in part, the existence of economies of scale in production--it is easier to cook one meal for two people than two meals each for one person--and, in part, the advantage of division of labor. A marriage is simply a particular kind of two-person firm.mmmmmmmmm
I have said nothing about love, which is widely believed to have some connection with marriage. It may seem odd to ask why we marry someone we love, instead of marrying someone whose tastes agree with and whose skills complement our own and then conducting our respective love lives on the side, love is associated with sex, and sex with having children. Parents much prefer rearing their own children to rearing other people's, and much of child rearing is most conveniently done in the home of the rearer. So it is convenient, to say the least, if a child's parents are married--to each other.
Now love reduces, although it does not eliminate, the conflicts of interest that lead to costly bargaining. If I love my man, his happiness is one of the main things determining mine; we therefore have a common interest in making him happy. If he also loves me, we also have a common interest in making me happy. Unless our love is so precisely calculated that our objectives are identicalin either direction; if we love each other too much, my attempts to benefit him at my expense will clash with his attempts to benefit me at his expense.
whoa... welcome SA!!!! glad you get your input
as well... and GREAT input at that [img]cool.gif[/img]
ok... some thoughts --
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">i find this interesting.Originally posted by SoulAngel:
I have said nothing about love, which is widely believed to have some connection with marriage. It may seem odd to ask why we marry someone we love, instead of marrying someone whose tastes agree with and whose skills complement our own and then conducting our respective love lives on the side..
first of all, it suggests that you can either
choose the one that best suits your abilities/needs
as opposed to the one you love (for other reasons).
what zela is saying...
is that should the former be true... then love
should (???) naturally evolve... or, at very
least, something close to love.
in regards to marriage, love isn't enough...
regardless of romantic notions.
love doesn't pay the bills. love doesn't fix the
rusted pipes. but then again, this is the
'business' aspect.
in any relationship, i do not feel LOVE comes
first. that is... when you agree to date someone,
it isn't for the reason that you love them...
you don't even know them. it is for alternate
reasons (business again).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">hmmmm... i'm not sure i agree with this.Originally posted by SoulAngel:
Parents much prefer rearing their own children to rearing other people's, and much of child rearing is most conveniently done in the home of the rearer.
while it seems appropriate for our era/culture...
it is not essentially true on a whole.
many cultures (like native americans, for example)
found it much more beneficial to rear children
in a 'social' context... meaning, many women
sharing the chores as a single 'unit' for many
children, regardless if it were their children.
this is similar to other nature/nurture elements
found in non-human contexts... such as bees,
whom care and nurture thousands of offspring
that are not genetically theirs.. or other primates,
elephants, lions, etc that care for offspring
from the respective groups.
does this defy the 'love' aspect in this discussion?
no.
but it doesn't define it either.
going back to the original quote:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">again, if this were true... then is it out ofOriginally posted by SoulAngel:
Parents much prefer rearing their own children to rearing other people's, and much of child rearing is most conveniently done in the home of the rearer.
love or lack of love that a parent sends their
children out of the home to be educated?
(this does not only include schooling, but also
in cases of employment, social relationships, etc)
while it is true that some parents home school
and teach SOME foundation towards economics,
chores, business, relationships (with kin), etc...
it does not seem to answer the question.
(this isn't directed AT you SA... but just as a
general thought for all)
I think soulangel tried to point out that as a human you have the instinct to get kids. And that you want these kids to be yourself (sort of implicit to wanting to have kids).
However, before you decide to have kids with someone, you want to be in a stable relationship, so you're sure things can keep on going (the business part), and at the same time you want to have the best possible platform for the kids and two people can do more than one.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks