Importance of Romantic Love

[desertIslandCactus]

A member posted her recollections of her father's affairs and referring to the 'honeymoon' stages, then the replacements.

 

Probably an apt observation.

[Spark1111]

Quiet Storm, thank you so much for reiterating what has been documented many times scientifically for a long time now.

 

The three stages of love are limerance, (the lustful, exciting begining)

 

disillusuonment, (yes, the realization my partner and our love is NOT perfection. It is here where all the power struggles, childhood dynamics, and arguing comes into play)and

 

mature love-the acceptance of a partner and relationship unconditionally.

 

Obviously, divorce and affairs usually occur during the disillusionment stage of a relationship.

 

What a shame! Because with the proper tools and commitment, MOST COUPLES could reach stage three.

 

And another sociological phenomena being studied today? Women who want all the passion, excitement, and hot sex on the side as men do, but who are not leaving their marriages for a permanent relationship with their AP.

 

That stat has grown dramatically in the past 10 years or so.

[Spark1111]

Finally,someone who understands the stages of love. So many people think Romantic love last forever. They do not understand it is a stage. Most people going through affars are comparing the Romantic sdtage they are in wuth lover, to The comfort stage they are in with the wife. Does not mean you cannot visit romance once in awhile after chemicals have faded. But simply your love will feel different.

 

If people read books on "The Science of love" rather than using movies and poeme to understand love. There would be less divorce and dissapointment.

 

The #1 reason for marriage failure. Unrealistic expectations.

 

and COMPLACENCY! Could not agree more.

 

So why is it we want to feel our emotions, romanticized, make our situations unique? That we actually are exercising free will in our love relationships?

 

Ahh, it that also brain chemicals to protect our psyche?

 

Maybe so.

[jlola]

A member posted her recollections of her father's affairs and referring to the 'honeymoon' stages, then the replacements.

 

Probably an apt observation.

 

That person would be me. My father is always in love with his affair partners. I find it so sad my mother would find so many love letters and still stay.

 

My sister has been married 4x and has had an affair within ALL her marriages. She is about to marry husband #5 and had the nerve to say the other day this is true love finally. I asked her if she did not love her other husbands. She said she now realizes no! Talk about denial and rewriting history.

 

I sent her many articles on the stages of love. Hoping she would finally understand this "great romance" feeling she has now will finally end. That committment is what keeps marriages together and romantic stage is just a stage.

 

Now my sister is an intelligent women with 2 masters degrees. She actually said she did not believe any of these articles about the stages. I guess she would preffer to believe movies and poems rather than science.

 

Of course she says she knows many old couples who are still "in love" and she wants that romantic love they have.T rying to explain to her that those old couples went through all the stages. The ups and downs. Falling in and out of love but still held on and finally getting to acceptance stage which truly is love goes above her head.

 

I think she wants to believe those couples always had butterflies and romance and this is why they suceeded.

 

It amazes me how little anyone is willing to learn about relationships beyond " let me look good and pray I find a soulmate who fulfills all my needs,always makes me happy and makes my life wonderful and interesting". So much immaturiry. I wonder if I will actually ever find a man who understands these stages rather than one who expects "hollywood" version of love.

[Owl]

Has anyone read the book "Committed" by the author of Eat Pray Love?

 

I just started reading it and am at the part where she interviews Hmong women in Vietnam about their marriages and their husbands. The short quick summary of what she finds is that they live communally and for them "husband" is more of a job description and they didnt marry for romance. She concedes that romantic love is a part of their culture but not the primary basis for the marriage. She also observes that they have broader community ties and husbands and wives dont spend much time together.

 

While the Hmong live a very different life than we do in a more modern society, many people marry for reasons other than romantic love. And that being the case it makes sense that if great romance wasnt the basis for the marriage, then even if they feel a more intense love for someone else, it may not be a reason to leave the marriage.

 

To paraphrase Tina Turner Whats Love Got to Do with It? Not alot in some cases. That really hit home with me. xMM's marriage to his wife was not based upon romance it was based upon status and yes they liked each other well enough at some point in time. But romance and romantic love as we discuss it was not part of the equation.

 

So all the squabbling that goes on here about whether the MP loved the AP and whether he/she would leave if they really loved the AP may be based on a flawed premise in many many cases.

 

JJ, I can absolutely accept that it's entirely possible that in your case, in your situation, MM and his wife were "friends", and never in love.

 

But...I'd like to point out that for the vast majority of us Westerners...we marry because we're "in love".

 

Occasionally there are marriages of convenience, such as what you suggest/imply may have been the case with your exMM and his wife.

 

But that is far from being the normal practice in Western Europe and the United States.

 

For the majority of people...they married because they were in love (at that time at least), and they set the expectation that they would stay together and in truth they expected to love each other as a committed couple for the indeterminate future.

 

Love was the basis, and the premise on which those marriages are/were founded.

 

So the question about the possiblility of love between the MM/MW and their AP does come into play.

 

Let's follow this the other direction tho.

 

Let's look at your previous situation.

 

Your exMM and his wife have a marriage of convenience. Does this mean that she wouldn't/shouldn't have been hurt or cared at having found out he was cheating on her? Did she ever find out about any of his dalliances, and if so, do you believe she was hurt...or simply didn't care beyond what it did to her public image?

 

Is the continuation of the concept that marriages don't have to be based on love then mean that the BS isn't/shouldn't be hurt when they discover the infidelity? If that's the case...why are so many far more emotionally devestated than they would have thought that they could have been (myself included in there)?

 

If this "lack of love" in marriages in other cultures has this same dynamic, does this mean by extension that the BS's in these other cultures are hurt far less than BS's in Western cultures, because they never expected that love anyway?

 

It's an argument I've asked about with a few of the OW who are from 'different cultures where infidelity is far more common and acceptable'. If this is the case...then why is it hidden, and why does it seem like the BS's are just as devestated?

[OWoman]

I have yet to find an OW who doesn't place a blame on the W as OW's excuse for 'rescuing' the H ..

 

The marriage is closed to outsiders, and their bodies do belong to each other.

 

Luckily the law in civilised countries does not take such an anachronistic, narrow-minded view, or the legal possibility of rape in marriage would not be countenanced.

[OWoman]

If this is the case...then why is it hidden, and why does it seem like the BS's are just as devestated?

 

It is kept hidden on the request of the BW, out of respect for her. She is devastated when it is flaunted in her face, as that signals a lack of respect. If it continues quietly in the background without her knowing, she accepts it and chooses not to engage.

 

This I have verbatim from many BWs in just such a culture, where I lived.

[Owl]

It is kept hidden on the request of the BW, out of respect for her. She is devastated when it is flaunted in her face, as that signals a lack of respect. If it continues quietly in the background without her knowing, she accepts it and chooses not to engage.

 

This I have verbatim from many BWs in just such a culture, where I lived.

 

Why is she devestated if there's no expectation of romantic love? How does it show disrespect if it's an expected part of the culture?

 

Not arguing with you...you live in that culture, and I don't. I accept that you see it much more clearly than I do...which is why I'd like to try to understand the WHY and HOW a little better if you don't mind.

[Owl]

Luckily the law in civilised countries does not take such an anachronistic, narrow-minded view, or the legal possibility of rape in marriage would not be countenanced.

 

So, countries in which the expectations of committment and monogamy as part of the marriage vows are unciviliized, anachronistic, and narrow minded???

 

I'm sorry...I try hard not to offend someone else's sense of cultural pride...but I tend to prickle up when someone makes a comment that tweaks mine.

[donnamaybe]

So, countries in which the expectations of committment and monogamy as part of the marriage vows are unciviliized, anachronistic, and narrow minded???

 

I'm sorry...I try hard not to offend someone else's sense of cultural pride...but I tend to prickle up when someone makes a comment that tweaks mine.

Apparently it's narrow minded to expect loyalty and honesty in some places. Please - tell me where these places are so I never plan a vacation there.

[2sure]

Marriage is a contract, bond, and commitment between husband and wife. Culture , circumstance , and individual beliefs & values all dictate what the terms of that contract, bond, and commitment are. Whether romantic love is a requirement or not is just one of the many variables.

 

It is solely up to each partner of the marriage to decide if they have been betrayed or not. No one else.

[half_ofa_heart]

Marriage is a contract, bond, and commitment between husband and wife. Culture , circumstance , and individual beliefs & values all dictate what the terms of that contract, bond, and commitment are. Whether romantic love is a requirement or not is just one of the many variables.

 

It is solely up to each partner of the marriage to decide if they have been betrayed or not. No one else.

 

I couldn't agree more! Infidelity matters to the people involved regardless of whether or not they are married. Do you need a marriage certificate to be entitled to feel betrayed?

 

After my failed marriage, I felt no need to ever get married again but I would like to be in a "committed" relationship but to me that doesn't mean you need a contract to be committed to each other. I would rather know that my SO is there because he WANTS to be rathter than because he was "LEGALLY REQUIRED TO BE THERE".

[OWoman]

So, countries in which the expectations of committment and monogamy as part of the marriage vows are unciviliized, anachronistic, and narrow minded???

 

I'm sorry...I try hard not to offend someone else's sense of cultural pride...but I tend to prickle up when someone makes a comment that tweaks mine.

 

Owl, if you read what I said - it was that the assumption of OWNERSHIP of another human being is anachronistic, and uncivilised. Slavery has been abolished in the civilised world, and for good reason too. Assuming ownership of another is a retreat into an age of barbarism, IMO and that of the UN and every other Human Rights body.

 

And a good thing it is too. If spouses did indeed "own" one another, then it would be legally impossible for a husband to be found guilty of raping his wife - irrespective of whether the wife consented to the sex or not, and irrespective of any violence or coercion he used to get the sex he demanded. Fortunately, this is not the case - rape in marriage is indeed recognised in the civilised world, and husbands can be found guilty of raping their wives if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt (the same as in any other rape trial) and I'm proud of that fact because I believe every person should have jurisdiction over their own body and nobody should be owned.

 

How you get from that - which was what I said - to the assertion you claimed (about monogamy, etc) is beyond me, frankly - but perhaps you'd care to explain?

[OWoman]

Apparently it's narrow minded to expect loyalty and honesty in some places. Please - tell me where these places are so I never plan a vacation there.

 

 

Perhaps if you also read what I'd written, instead what you thought I'd written, your response would seem less of a caricature.

[OWoman]

Why is she devestated if there's no expectation of romantic love? How does it show disrespect if it's an expected part of the culture?

 

Not arguing with you...you live in that culture, and I don't. I accept that you see it much more clearly than I do...which is why I'd like to try to understand the WHY and HOW a little better if you don't mind.

 

It is disrespectful to one's W to flaunt one's GFs in front of one's W. So it is devastating to be shown such disrespect - because it is such a clear breaking of the social code.

 

It's not the having of the GFs that causes the devastation, it's the flaunting of them. That a man will have GFs is accepted (it's not relished, but it's accepted). Women are taught this during initiation. They know that their H will likely have GFs, and will likely father children with them, for which he will have to provide. They are taught "skills" to keep his heart with his hearth, so that they (the Ws) continue to receive adequate resources for themselves and their children (and other members of the household). They are also taught that a good H respects his W by not flaunting his GFs in front of his W, and that the W of a good H need never find out that he even has GFs.

 

M has little, if anything, to do with romantic love. It's mostly about finding a good strong woman who will bear many healthy children and work hard in the fields (woman's work - men usually find work in the cities) to increase the family's wealth. Spouses seldom meet before M - the negotiations are usually carried out by the extended families - and so if love does come into it, it's usually late in the day and an exception rather than the rule.

 

ETA - this is of course among the more traditional people, in the rural areas. These cultural norms weaken in the cities but still persist to at least some degree, often causing some amount of friction when, say, a rural traditional woman marries a more "modern" urbanised man who, say, refuses to beat her if she displeases him - so she thinks she is unloved. It's a society in transition with a great many permutations... but then, I guess all societies are in transition, one way or another.

Edited February 1, 2011 by OWoman

[greengoddess]

It is disrespectful to one's W to flaunt one's GFs in front of one's W. So it is devastating to be shown such disrespect - because it is such a clear breaking of the social code.

 

It's not the having of the GFs that causes the devastation, it's the flaunting of them. That a man will have GFs is accepted (it's not relished, but it's accepted). Women are taught this during initiation. They know that their H will likely have GFs, and will likely father children with them, for which he will have to provide. They are taught "skills" to keep his heart with his hearth, so that they (the Ws) continue to receive adequate resources for themselves and their children (and other members of the household). They are also taught that a good H respects his W by not flaunting his GFs in front of his W, and that the W of a good H need never find out that he even has GFs.

 

M has little, if anything, to do with romantic love. It's mostly about finding a good strong woman who will bear many healthy children and work hard in the fields (woman's work - men usually find work in the cities) to increase the family's wealth. Spouses seldom meet before M - the negotiations are usually carried out by the extended families - and so if love does come into it, it's usually late in the day and an exception rather than the rule.

 

ETA - this is of course among the more traditional people, in the rural areas. These cultural norms weaken in the cities but still persist to at least some degree, often causing some amount of friction when, say, a rural traditional woman marries a more "modern" urbanised man who, say, refuses to beat her if she displeases him - so she thinks she is unloved. It's a society in transition with a great many permutations... but then, I guess all societies are in transition, one way or another.

 

 

starting to sound like a bad romance novel. I'm not buying it.

[OWoman]

starting to sound like a bad romance novel. I'm not buying it.

 

 

I guess you'd know better than me, since I don't read that kind of thing.

 

Of course, if you knew any anthropology, you might recognise the society I'm alluding to, so I'm rather grateful for your choice of reading material in this case

[Mme. Chaucer]

Off topic but sincere question:

 

Why do posters here typically say things like "in my culture" or "in the culture where I lived" etc? Why not just let us know what culture we are talking about?

 

A former very active poster to this forum used to say that in her country there was no word in the language for "commitment" and I have been trying and trying to find out what language that might be.

 

Naming a "culture," language or a country is not going to destroy anyone's anonymity.

 

I think that if a person is going to use examples from a particular society, that society should be named so that others with experiences there can affirm, refute, expand upon, question, or whatever - as the OP did with her example of the Hmong people.

[donnamaybe]

Perhaps if you also read what I'd written, instead what you thought I'd written, your response would seem less of a caricature.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Honesty and loyalty are to be shunned by certain cultures, apparently, since that's what it takes to be faithful to your partner. Oh, unless we're talking about honesty and loyalty only when it's convenient. I see that a lot on this forum; the appearance of having some sort of integrity but only when it's convenient.

[OWoman]

Off topic but sincere question:

 

Why do posters here typically say things like "in my culture" or "in the culture where I lived" etc? Why not just let us know what culture we are talking about?

 

A former very active poster to this forum used to say that in her country there was no word in the language for "commitment" and I have been trying and trying to find out what language that might be.

 

Naming a "culture," language or a country is not going to destroy anyone's anonymity.

 

I think that if a person is going to use examples from a particular society, that society should be named so that others with experiences there can affirm, refute, expand upon, question, or whatever - as the OP did with her example of the Hmong people.

 

The TOS expressly warn members not to post identifying information like this.

 

If you live in the US, you're probably safe posting your location, since most posters are from there. If you live in some other parts of the world, less so.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I've lived in cultures (temporarily) where it was "normal" for men to have a mistress, or simply sexual escapades, and, as OW states, considered respectful to his wife for him to take pains to keep the "other women" hidden. These "cultures" were Italy, Spain and Japan.

 

The younger generation of women there (my age peers at the time), especially if well educated, were not planning to go along with this status quo. They pitied and looked down on their mothers for turning a blind eye to the situation, and in general they vowed that they would not be in such a marriage. During my time in these countries, it seemed as if the men were not so hot about this movement towards change, and quite a few of the younger married men that I encountered (which were plentiful, as I was there as a professional dancer) wanted to continue with the "side dishes." Their wives were NOT turning a blind eye.

 

I also spent some time in Holland and Sweden. I learned less about the intricacies of love in those countries I did get the general sense that there was a more relaxed attitude about who was having sex with whom, and that extended to women as well as men.

[donnamaybe]

So "The Times, They Are a Changing," and some don't want to keep up with the times.

[Mme. Chaucer]

The TOS expressly warn members not to post identifying information like this.

 

If you live in the US, you're probably safe posting your location, since most posters are from there. If you live in some other parts of the world, less so.

 

If this is the case, why do they permit putting ones location with their avatar?

[seren]

If someone lives in a country where the culture is to have marriage based upon the presumption and acceptance that having another partner or relationship outside the recognised one, then surely all parties are aware of their role and enter marriage knowing the 'ground rules. I fail to see how someone can be blindsided by an A in those circumstances.

If both have a comfortable love and are happy with that, then I again, see no problem with that.

 

For most marriages in Western cultures, romantic love was at least present for the marriage to go ahead initially. Over time, life, problems, complaceny by both or one can see the romance being the foundation for a more solid, respectful love. If that is understood by both, then that's their relationship and good for them.

 

However, if both have an understanding that neither should go outside that relatiohsip for love, romance, sex whatever then that goes against promises and expectations of the marriage contract then the foundations of that marriage are rocked.

 

I realise I am going off track here, my view is that for me at least, I expect romantic love to continue, I don't expect to be too settled, I and he work hard to make sure we have us time and I also expect the limerance or whatever to be in place for the length and time of our marriage. I never, ever want there to be a lack of sparkle and there isn't, but we also have a settled familiar love too. It isn't that one should take the place of the other, both can co exist. We are at the 27 year point this year and I have a drawer full of limerance lingerie, there is life in the old dog yet!! if you want the sparkle to continue, then you encourage and nurture it - no need to look elsewhere for that. H's A was never about that, not all A's are romance based.

[OWoman]

If someone lives in a country where the culture is to have marriage based upon the presumption and acceptance that having another partner or relationship outside the recognised one, then surely all parties are aware of their role and enter marriage knowing the 'ground rules. I fail to see how someone can be blindsided by an A in those circumstances.

 

In the culture I was alluding to, it's not a case of being blindsided by the A (since the expectation is that those will happen), it's more a case of being hurt by the disrespect shown by the lack of discretion. The fact that the BS knows about the A shows that the WS did not respect them enough to keep it hidden and discreet - and it's the lack of respect that hurts, rather than the inevitability of the A.

 

I'm not sure how much sense that makes to an outsider - for whom the mere fact of the A would seem to signal disrespect anyway, surely? - but they were adamant in their argument.