1. How to Build Positivity in Married Life? : Click Here
    Dismiss Notice

Questions on Marriage,Love,Infidelity,Monogamy and all that Jazz - II

Discussion in 'Married Life' started by Dovahkiin, Jun 8, 2013.

  1. Dovahkiin

    Dovahkiin Silver IL'ite

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Dear Ladies

    My last and only thread in these forums ended as a cliffhanger since I was not able to articulate my ideas well and had to abandon it. It had a reference to another thread by another poster (a troll maybe??) about her infidelity and her attempt to still go back to her marriage.

    But my original thread was not about infidelity. I started off with my questions about why she was not advised by members here to come out clean with her husband. Although I still have that question, what I really wanted that thread to be was about the entire idea of marriage and its practicality itself. And since I couldn't express it, I had to abandon it for then hoping I will get a chance to start a better thread about it later.

    So here goes...

    My thoughts about marriage used to be that it is an institution imposed by the society upon individuals. It is more an inconvenience considering how men are naturally polygamous and women are naturally hypergamous and how both are forced to live committed in monogamy. I mean, the romantic love part initially gets the ball rolling and the vasopressin and oxytocin and such stuff my doctor friend tells me does make us monogamous for a while. Then again the ball cannot roll too far and romantic love naturally fizzles out in a few years (and if in case of a some arranged marriages, there is none at all - only carnal desires)

    Then again I often see people say that they are happily married, even without romantic love. When the romantic love is substituted by companionate love that still makes a good marriage for many.

    My real question is what is really important for a marriage? The transient romantic love or the permanent companionate love? Ok...You will ask "isn't it obvious?"

    Even though it seems obvious, we also see how often people who engage in a romantic extra-marital affair, leave their stable marriages to be with their lovers. Then, does it not make the very concept of companionate love inferior to romantic love?

    Then again one might say, it is only the selfish, immature adulterers who leave their spouses. Even if it were so, how often does an adulterer when faced with reality and chooses the marriage does so because they valued their "companionate love" for their spouses more?

    There can be two reasons why an adulterer stays in a marriage despite feeling strong emotions for his/her affair partner.

    1. That s/he does it because s/he feels a strong loyalty for his/her spouse that makes her/him stay and not entirely make the affair the primary relationship. Loyalty towards certain things (like our country, to our family, etc.) are things that define us and we have this "inexplicable love "for what we are loyal to, because that love itself gives us an identity. The companionate love is part of such a thing.

    2. That s/he does it out of a sense of duty or fear of social stigma.

    And this is why I referred to the infidelity story in my original thread. To know if the poster stayed in the marriage because of some kind of "inexplicable love" to her spouse that gave herself her own identity. Because if such love exists and if that can override romantic trysts or our human nature to be polygamous/hypergamous, then marriage may never be an inconvenience at all as I originally theorized.

    In fact, recently I was reading another thread by a poster smileatlife, "Untold love.." where she tells her story of feeling romantic love for someone else while still being married. In either stories, I wanted to know if they did stay married to their spouses and not leave them because of this inexplicable love and loyalty. Or if it was only out of a sense of duty. Because if it was the former, then marriage may not be a societal tyranny at all. If it was the latter, don't you think it is high time we redefined marriage (or maybe even do away with it gradually?)
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2013
    1 person likes this.
    Loading...

  2. Lisbeth

    Lisbeth New IL'ite

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Marriage and monogamy are rules imposed by society but we have them because it offers secure environment to raise children, satisfy sexual needs and provide companionship that we crave. Love we feel during the initial stage, the kind that makes our heart beat faster can't last for long but to have that excitement life long we need to change partners often... which is not good for raising children, also there is a risk of STIs.

    Lasting love that provides emotional support and regular sex is something many of us find more important than experiencing continual excitement of the initial phase. It is a compromise... if we could have it all, we would go for it but we can't. We have to compromise on something to get something.

    Extra marital affairs happen when people give in to natural temptations instead of controlling their urges. It is not a matter of one love being superior to another... it is the same love in different stages of a relationship. Some people are weak and give in to these temptations more so than others.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Dovahkiin

    Dovahkiin Silver IL'ite

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    @Lisbeth
    I am going out on a limb here and gonna assume that you actually made a profile to answer that question. Thank you very much.

    As you say, the purpose of a marriage is long lasting love as opposed to a whirlwind romance and also an arrangement for regular sex. But what my question actually is about is, what is the short-term incentive that keeps the marriage going till the long term goal of long lasting love is achieved?

    Most marriages that end in divorce is within the first 4 years (I am going by the western standards, btw). That seems like the exact amount of time that takes for oxytocin production drop and romantic love go away. Then again there are other marriages that last even without the passion, even when there have not been too many years together for a close intimacy to have developed.

    I am just making an assumption here. Correct me if I am wrong. Is there more than just the expectation of a short term romance or a long term companionship that makes people endure a marriage?

    People are naturally conflicted between a display of strength of character and expression of individual freedom. Character is all about unconditional love, loyalty, commitment, etc. whereas freedom is about his/her own happiness in the form of sex, romantic love, etc.

    Are those people who endure a marriage during the dull years, actually do not endure it but in fact willingly stay part of it because of themes like "commitment and loyalty to marriage/family" in fact defines their character and gives them an identity? Is that the actual incentive that keeps people going in a marriage?

    P.S: Forgive my ignorance. I just do not understand how many marriages actually work. I am single. Never been in a committed relationship for long. So I have my own assumptions about marriage, which are probably wrong too. But still wanted to get them validated.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2013
  4. Lisbeth

    Lisbeth New IL'ite

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Your assumption is not wrong.

    Short term incentive is the day to day support, company, sex, etc.

    The initial high passion phase should gradually be replaced by friendship and love. Divorce happen when 2 people who are not right for each other get married so after high passion there is nothing left to take it forward.

    Following the initial phase there should be friendship, respect and love. Long term companionship gets built on those building blocks.

    Absolutely right but romantic love, sex can all be sustained (maybe not with same high passion as before) for a long time if both husband and wife work on it.

    Different people would have different reason to tolerate dull years. For me I get through rough phase in the hope of it getting better due to the happiness shared in the past.

    Marriage is not for everyone and it only works (with a happy prefix) when the right people get married. Monogamy may not be natural but with the right person it is easier to be faithful without compromising on individual happiness.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2013
  5. Dovahkiin

    Dovahkiin Silver IL'ite

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Now this is what confounds me. How can there not be anything left, unless your spouse is totally obnoxious and you can't stand her/him? I mean, you've lived with her/him under the same roof for 2 or 3 years. There should be some kind of an attachment at least. I used to think this attachment will replace the romantic love and keeps the ball rolling until and that the attachment becomes only stronger over time.

    I thought it was given, since you spend time with that person for some years.
    Yes. This is something I've heard from many others too. But what is the guarantee that you can revive it? If it can't be revived, then does it mean that the marriage is a failure?

    My basic question is, why is the quality of love that people have for their spouses different from what they have for their kids.People give unconditional love to their kids. But why do people make their love towards their spouses subject to conditions?

    I mean, if the passion is totally dried out, some people do feel suffocated in their marriages. Is their definition of love different? Or is it that they are the only unlucky ones, whereas in every other marriage the passion is always there and so the others do not complain?
     
  6. Den

    Den Bronze IL'ite

    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    Nice post, true and bang on.....the many faces of marriage! Each one has their own definition based on love, society, religion, stigma, monetary disposition and their individual characteristics! IMO, the institution of marriage is weaning away to individualism within the individuals societal framework.
     
  7. riya123

    riya123 Gold IL'ite

    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    464
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Gender:
    Female
    I really liked your post and wanted to reply but everytime something or the other came up. For those marriages that last without passion are the ones that have strong influence of culture and religion on them. In India some societies do consider divorce as a social embarrassment, so some people prefer to live in a passionless marriage than face the embarrassment of a divorce. It may also be due to financial and emotional insecurity. Some women who have given up their jobs to support husband, in-laws and children are financially dependent on their spouses and so prefer to stay in the marriage, even though it has nothing much to offer them.



    Some marriages are pretty dubious. Some pretty famous marriages that were dubious were those of Prince Charles - Diana, Hema Malini - Dharmendra, Boney Kapoor - his first wife, Amir Khan - Rina.

    But still people do believe in the institution of marriage - those are mostly the ones who are happy in their marriages. Marriages don't work for everyone.

    I think the ethical dilemma begins when one has children and finds long term companionship outside of marriage. If a person quits the marriage for the companionship one found outside of marriage - it is not really welcome by our society and people make all sorts of character assaults on the person as often we find that in Indus Ladies itself.

    Second if a person stays in the marriage and tries to work on the marriage - in some cases it will be like beating a dead snake where there is nothing much left but one will still try to revive the companionship.
     
  8. Dovahkiin

    Dovahkiin Silver IL'ite

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you. Please do post your views.
    Thank you. No problem. Take your time to respond. As I can see there are people who come here with their serious crises. My thread does not need any immediate attention. Besides, I'd really like it if you contemplate more over what you are posting, even if it means you have to post it late.

    Now that is the most important question. What is it that a marriage should offer? Not just for women. For men too(which of course you cannot answer). Is marriage about the passion and emotional high that a spouse can potentially offer or is it about the stability/security (not just financial-emotional too) that being part of a family offers?

    What would you feel about someone who walks away from a boring/dull(but not necessarily an abusive) marriage? Please do share your opinion, without worrying about being judged.
     
  9. riya123

    riya123 Gold IL'ite

    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    464
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Gender:
    Female
    Marriage should offer what ever a person wants. It also depends on their ability to tolerate/compromise. For instance, if A gets married to B and A expects certain things out of a marriage - A has all the rights to expect whatever he/she is expecting. Now the question is whether B can live upto the expection? If yes, B can live up to the expection then it works wonders but if B cannot live upto the expection, the question will how far can A compromise his/her expectation and adjust with B?

    Vice versa is also true - you can put A in place of B and B in place of A.

    Now what I find ridiculous in Indian marriages is many a times we could be forcing A, in the name of culture, tradition etc, to adjust with B - It is completely wrong for force A to adjust with B, no matter it is arranged or love marriage. A should be adjusting out of free will and not out of family/society pressure.



    I wouldn't think it is wrong at all. One has all the freedom to live the life they want. If a person finds it painful to live a dull boring but not abusive marriage, then the person has all the freedom to leave that marriage. We should not be judgmental about others.
     
  10. Dovahkiin

    Dovahkiin Silver IL'ite

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    True. But once again it begets the question, what are those things a marriage is supposed to offer. Since the idea of marriage is rooted in the permanence of the "contract", shall we say, these certain things that one should expect in a marriage also should be something that can be got permanently without effort?

    I mean, things like passionate romance, sex and such stuff that cannot be sustained forever cannot be the basis of marriage can they? Suppose during the beginning of the marriage two partners engage in intercourse on a frequent basis, but over the years ones libido falls and the other's libido is still high, does it give enough ground for a divorce? Of course like you say A will, if need be, adjust out of free will. A might look at the other positive sides of marriage, like how great a caregiver B is, how great a friend B is,etc. Once again, like I said, such things about B are something that is part of his/her core nature. This ultimately makes the marriage stable and steady. But not fiery and passionate. Then again, ideas like great sex and great romance are part of a whirlwind relationship which themselves are against the basis of the marriage, aren't they?

    But what if A is not ready to adjust? If A is such a person who craves fire and passion, then why should A take the risk of tying himself down in a marriage which is more likely to become boring and dull? A taking the decision to marry itself is highly irresponsible,is it not?

    Further to what I have been saying about A, if A is stuck in such a marriage- a marriage that does not offer excitement, but offers only stability - A has the right to leave the marriage only if he was forced into it initially. If A had chosen to go into the marriage willingly, especially if A had a free-choice marriage (or as you call it, "love marriage"),then with that A relinquishes all rights to quit it, does he not? Why choose to cross paths with someone else's life willingly and then destroy their life by leaving them?

    If you say A must have got into it expecting excitement forever, then that actually means A was immature to begin with, is it not? Given how people change and situations change, why should A place his expectations on someone else to keep him happy always? He can of course expect the stability that a marriage/family offers, since that is what you get by default by going into a permanent relationship. After all, the idea of a permanent relationship is to have stability in one's life. But how was he so naive to expect excitement always?

    Now, this goes beyond selfishness. This will in fact scar B forever, if A leaves her for someone else. A leaving the marriage is one thing. But A leaving it for someone else actually means, he has disrespected B, abused her trust and even might have destroyed her trust in the opposite gender forever. Selfishness can be justified. But can cruelty be justified?
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2013

Share This Page