Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.CDN Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!mokhtar From: mokhtar@ubc-vision.CDN (Farzin Mokhtarian) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Arranged Marriages Questions Message-ID: <992@ubc-vision.CDN> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 19:21:57 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.992 Posted: Wed Jul 3 19:21:57 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 06:12:58 EDT Organization: UBC Computational Vision Lab, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 51 > There are probably more not-for-love marriages in existence > than the romantic would like to believe. It seems to depend on your > expectations about marriage (and partnership). It also depends on how much you believe in love or how much confidence you have in love. > I have known men of > Western-cultures who went at marriage as they would a car purchase: > a checklist of musts and preferences, then the one with the best cost/ > performance gets the nod. [Some women probably choose husbands the > same way.] If the people in the marriage are to be functional partners, > there is no need for closeness, mutual admiration, or affection-- just > a kind of tolerance and some agreed-upon guidelines for behavior. It is not as easy as you try to make it sound. Obviously it is possible to make such a marriage "functional" but even people who settle for not-for-love marriages would not say that there is "no need for affection" because affection is a basic human need no matter how you reason about it. So if that affection does not come from their "functional partner", they will have to either look elsewhere for it or deny it to themselves. > My mom used to tell me that it's easier to marry someone you > really like but don't love than to marry someone you love but don't like. Did she tell you that it was also better? > I think her point was that the passion of "love" ebbs and flows, > whereas a fundamental appreciation of the other person endures and > sustains. Was she speaking of her "love" or love in general? Obviously love is not strong enough to last the realities of life, is it? In fact it is very fragile. Almost as fragile as life is. > My experience is that you'd better marry someone you really > admire AND love or you won't have enough resources to make that partnership > work. But then, that's because I have high expectations for my marriage. > Patricia Collins Nicely said but why do I get the feeling you are preparing yourself mentally for something more "functional/enduring/sustaining" than love? Farzin Mokhtarian ubc-vision!mokhtar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Love is out of fashion now, but how come they still need it?"