Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1     9/27/83; site hplabsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!moncol!pesnta!hplabsb!pc
From: pc@hplabsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women,net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Arranged Marriages Questions
Message-ID: <2987@hplabsb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 17:52:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.2987
Posted: Tue Jun 25 17:52:42 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 01:29:10 EDT
References: <1795@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.women:6114 net.nlang.india:474


	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).  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.

	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.  I think her point was that the passion of "love" ebbs and flows,
whereas a fundamental appreciation of the other person endures and
sustains.  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

-- 

					{ucbvax|duke|hao|allegra}!hplabs!pc