arcoiris Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Traditionally men and women got together to mainly reproduce and perhaps divide labor. In particular if we think thousands of years ago, most of the 'couples' were about diving tasks for subsistance -- men went hunting and women organize house and kids -- and about maintaining the human specie -- reproduction. So when is it that as a society we became so focused on the romantic side of marriage? And how likely is it that this romantic side of marriage is simply a construction in our minds of what marriage should be? Couldnt it be that we are so obssessed about what we read in romance books and watch in movies now that we think this is how marriage should be ? Just wondered what your thoughts are about it. Link to post Share on other sites
amaysngrace Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 well....my best stab at this is EVOLUTION. we have evolved in our relationships over the past one thousand years. we are wiser, as a people, are adept at recognizing our needs, have knowledge our great-great-great ancestors did not and it's not because of movies or novels. it's merely evolution... Link to post Share on other sites
Curmudgeon Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 marriage has been through a number of evolutions. Initially it was about safety, security and sustenance when men were hunter-gatherers. Then, as women took on more of the responsibility for agrarian pursuits and hearth and home, it was for reproduction to have an available work force. Over time, that evolved into a matriarchal society in which women controlled the family wealth and belongings and marriages were a matter of convenience for the accumulation of wealth. Enter the Victorian era (1800s) and this thing called love became touted. Arranged marriages languished in most "civilized" societies and people married for emotional purposes and to have families. It's interesting to consider that under current law in most states, marriage is considered nothing more than a fiduciary relationship and contract so in a sense, we've reverted, as a society, back to wealth being the driving factor, at least in the courts. I still like the love part best! Link to post Share on other sites
OldEurope Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 From Homer to Plato to Aristotle to Euripedes to Lao Tzu to 1 Corinithians 13 to Martin Luther to Nietzsche to Goethe to Jane Austen to Mark Twain to Henry Ford to Ghandi.....The ideal of marriage throughout human history has always been about love joining two as one.... The "business" perspective may be about dynasties and legalities, but not even these have ever managed to overwhelm or dismantle the human imagination, which yearns for finding and being joined to one like soul for eternity. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 From Homer to Plato to Aristotle to Euripedes to Lao Tzu to 1 Corinithians 13 to Martin Luther to Nietzsche to Goethe to Jane Austen to Mark Twain to Henry Ford to Ghandi.....The ideal of marriage throughout human history has always been about love joining two as one.... The "business" perspective may be about dynasties and legalities, but not even these have ever managed to overwhelm or dismantle the human imagination, which yearns for finding and being joined to one like soul for eternity. AWESOME POST!! Thank you so much.. that puts a doomed marriage into perspective! Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 It's interesting to consider that under current law in most states, marriage is considered nothing more than a fiduciary relationship and contract so in a sense, we've reverted, as a society, back to wealth being the driving factor, at least in the courts. Well in terms of a legal contract, I would like to know how you can even use the term "love" since it has no clear definition. A marriage license is nothing more than a certificate of fiduciary responsibility to the government, AFAIK. Something they use for tax purposes. Link to post Share on other sites
Horse Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 For the lower and middle class, it changed during the industrial revolution. Before then, other factors were more important to the survival of the people involved. The man needed a woman who could take care of the home, and bear and raise enough children to work the farm. The woman needed a man who could protect and support her. Love was a secondary consideration. The upper classes (the people who wrote books) were probably more likely to marry for love, since their survival was probably more secure. I guess the exception would be the arranged marriages that were meant to unite powerful families, but those people probably had something on the side. Link to post Share on other sites
Author arcoiris Posted March 11, 2006 Author Share Posted March 11, 2006 Emotional needs are indeed real and romantic relationships can fulfill these. However marriages have other purposes that perhaps were present in the past more vividly but are still part of today's arrangments. Marriages help with safety and security : women secure their financial future and their kids future by having a partner; men secure their offspring with women involvment and also can insure with a partner his financial needs. These issues are important and are more specific about the purpose of marriage. Of course we all dream with an EMOTIONAL INTENSE FULLFILLING MARRIAGE , but it is perhaps unrealistic longing for this. Perhaps it would be eaiser to be happy with one's marriage if the bar were at a respectful but simpler relation. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts