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