Long Term Relationships and their discourse!

Advance for the common good is incidental to the fact of achievement in the most part.

So you're arguing that arranged marriage, being passionless from the outset and disregarding the individual choice of the protaganists, can later 'grow' its own breed of passion? Maybe, but it's not the dream and ideal of romantic love upon which the majority of the west is fed, is it?

Incidentally - because I can't be bothered to find your post on the correct thread - Oxford grads are somehow more intelligent and intelligible than Cambridge grads, is that so? Would that be somehow borne out in the relative status of Oxford and Cambridge in the league tables for the past decade or so?

 

So far, everyone has made profound observations on love (Cris seems to comprehend the popular cycles of it) so, let's not turn this discussion into a battle of wits with Cambridge versus Oxford, OK, kids? :wink:

I say this because this discussion is getting good.

 

You do? Then why involve yourself in relationships with those who are romantically defensive?

Even the inexplicable can be explained one way or another.

How can you say that love is completely selfish and almost destructive in all cases?

I think that this is lust you're thinking of.

 

Sorry Sardonic, fair point. 8)

Further to Cris' point, I agree that in my experience there are many ways to be intimate which aren't immediately obvious to outsiders: with one relationship in the past, I shared the experience of a Cambridge degree (not for the fainthearted) with my partner, as well as doing the same job on a committee one year which he performed the previous year. The common experience and working on the project together seemed to bring us closer together in the relationship, and always gave us something to talk about. With this man, similar things apply: we are always close, by studying the same material each week, reading the same books, and taking part in many of the same projects (having the same career aspirations). Boring that may sound but it is a great way to build intimacy - having been friends for six months or so - by having such a lot of common experience, as well as that from attending the same uni for 3 years and mixing in almost the same circle of friends. We seem to talk on a very private and intimate level even in public while not being very openly demonstrative as a couple.

 

I personally think that the most happily dating/married couples aren't publicly affectionate, if so, then why would they need to prove it to the rest of the world?

Many couples do just that, and then, when they get behind closed doors, it's like a reality show again and again with the pretentious, phony ones.

 

This is true. I don't have any insecurity whatsoever about my feelings towards him or his towards me, they seem to be just what they should be both ways - and that has never happened for me before. It probably also comes from having spent so much time together as friends with no sexual element, we're just used to being matey around each other, and when at uni together it isn't appropriate to be that affectionate either (there are no other obvious couples).

 

Oh no, it's quite the contrary, collaboration is more paramount; paramount to the factual conditions that we live in today. If we haven't AS A CULTURE changed our "rules" in survival of the fittest, do you believe you will have the SAME rights as a women as you do today!? Do you believe, you would be able to freely choose your partner on the concept of passionate love!?

Being "in love" is a learned behaviour, consequently, humans are not monogamous by nature and passionate love is not monogamous. If you wanted to, you can teach yourself to be monogamous, just like you can create passion in your relationships. Its really mental MissB, but yes, in the west, we have become too pleasure seeking. The risk of being monogamous, outweighs the rewards. Correct!? Well...at least from a male's point of view I should say.

 

OK you got me on the first point - if there hadn't been co-operative behaviour, many issues (including female rights) would not be as advanced as today. Tricksy argument!

But I differ on the second: whether the 'risk' of being monogamous outweighs the rewards of it or not is a personal choice, dependent upon what the individual man or woman wants, but I don't think that passion and monogamy are comparable as learned behaviours. I guess it's probably acknowledged biology that lifelong monogamy isn't 'natural' to men in particular (although surely it used to help, due to the long infancy of human children?) - but passion a learned behaviour? The insanity of early lust which sends us off like giggling schoolchildren? You're right in that the rituals of romance and loving behaviour are learnt, and even some sexual practices probably derive from cultural shifts rather than simply 'what is natural', but I think passion is about the most natural and unlearned experience that humans can have in their lives, apart from maybe the love for a child.

 

Of course monogamy is learned behaviour, it's a "social construct" to stabilize society. I see monogamy as a rule, since men are naturally more rebellious to rules, monogamy MAY not come as instinctual. This is not to say women are "naturally" more monogamous than men. Women are just as biologically programed to cheat as men, it may be more beneficial for a women not to, then say, a male who is highly attractive and successful. But passion, I see passion as an idiom, and as an idiom it can be expressed in multiple mediums. I do not think it can be displayed in such a way that is neoteric in an arranged marriage.

 

Neoteric? Did you get the right word there?
It simply sounds like you're agreeing with me now so I guess the debate has reached its healthy conclusion!