Finding "the one"

[Strike For The South]

A) For one, romantic love, as nearly all of us likely already know, is a recent phenomenon. Sure, it has been around for as far back as we know, but it was never something that was actually practised, notwithstanding rare exceptions. Arranged and forced marriages were the norm. Societies were built on this idea, grounded deeper than any fundamentalist claims of the family as being the fundament of our society (which is true, but a family is far, far less necessary than arranged marriages were in the old times) . Therefore, what we have is a recent phenomenon, which BTW, does not work well at all. The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60% (forgot by how much, I just knwo it is more). In contrast, it is a well-established sociological fact that arranged marriages are by far longer lasting, and even happier.

Once again......Correlation /=/ Causation. Arranged marriges don't end in divorice because in many socities where they arrange marrige divorce is illegal or taboo.

Romantic love is also a very far reaching thing. It is most deffintley not a recent invention.

The divorce rate is also nowhere near 60% and its dropping

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

The sociologists insist the lack of expectations as well as the higher rigidity brings the couples together, encouraging the solution of differences and problems. This is the same reason why cohabitation has such an adverse effect (although small in comparison to an arranged marriage), because it does the converse, loosening the importance of the marriage bond, and suggesting that there is always an easy way out. Whatever the fundamentalists may be, they have the right ideas (i.e. the ideas which keep the marriage together, and running happier) about marriage, down to the inequality of husband and wife, as much as I loathe to admit.

In arranged marrige its not about happiness, divorce never enters into there pshyche. Its that simple. Besides plenty of people run out of these things. Ancient Indian literature is littered with myths of princess runing away from there husband to be.

Not to mention, the marriages that do end, usually do so before the first eight years - the first 4-7 years is the crucial point. This means that after eight years a family is on average, much safer. However, a couple may make it through the eight years with an ongoing conflict only to split up few years after that. Alternatively, an extramarital affair may occur - after all, close to 20% of all US divorces are due to infidelity, with nearly one out of four men cheating during their marriages.

Do you have a source for that?

B) Secondly, true love does start out as lust - something once again pointed out numerous times before me. I will clarify, however, and point out that love is nearly entirely a chemical state of mind - even the long-term affection as a matter of fact. For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine is the more instant-acting chemical while serotonin maintains your obsession over longer periods of time. Now, what the interesting fact I was going to say is that the state of the brain suffering from love is very, very similar to that of an OCD person, down to the levels of serotonin.

Mostly correct information. Do you have a source for your OCD=love claim?

Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. And it is, one cannot deny this - people do all sorts of stupid things under the influence of this drug. Finally, even the long term love is a result of chemical imbalance, namely the excess of the hormone of oxytocin. Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.

Love is the result of the biological imperative to reproduce, you were right about the chemicals. Humans are inclined to mate with someone with the most gentic differences to ensure the best litter so to speak.

The chemicals that get released are a necesary part of continuing the species.

Same reason why an orgasm is so pleasureable.

C) The third and final point is that love, long- and short- term, can be 'artificially' induced relatively easily given the right conditions. I cannot find the exact study now, but I did read in one of my sociology/psychology books that researchers put together a large number of pairs, (one male, one female) and put them to work on a physical assignment for two hours. Turns out the attachment created by merely working together caused most to feel attraction to the opposite of the pair, regardless of physical attractiveness differences (which were not too great). Quite a bit went on to date and a few even married. Alternatively, an even more effective strategy is working or even simply being together under frightening events (roller-coasters and horror flicks actually do count - hint hint for all the Orgahs dating the opposite sex).

This is true. Of course one can feel a deep attraction for many people

[Rhyfelwyr]

Humans are inclined to mate with someone with the most gentic differences to ensure the best litter so to speak.

Wouldn't that mean we should be more attracted to people of different races?

[Strike For The South]

Wouldn't that mean we should be more attracted to people of different races?

No "race" is mostly a social construct.

Skin pigmentation has to do with Vitaman D and the amount of sun one gets. Of course this is dependent on how much melanin one has.

The amount this has to do with genetics is peanuts compared to some dieases/mental conditions.

I could have more in common with a Kenyan than you.

Skin color is useless when examining the genome

[The Wizard]

I think he meant for genetic diversity, considering someone far away is likelier to have a completely different gene pool than you do.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Once again......Correlation /=/ Causation. Arranged marriges don't end in divorice because in many socities where they arrange marrige divorce is illegal or taboo.

Aww, come on, you cannot discount all of statistics in that manner. It does not work like this. You are no expert yourself, either, to have the authority to say whether there is a statistical fallacy here. Professionals already examined the study and found its conclusions satisfactory. Parroting the same phrase over and over stops working at a certain point - although I do admit you had a very valid point about divorce taboos causing faulty correlation - a point which was considered by the researchers as well. Arranged marriages work, and that is a sociology 101 fact, and not just a bunch of studies or obscure facts. The evidence is too overwhelming - mainly the statistics, which differ very significantly from the average society based on romantic love. I am aware of the taboo on divorce in those societies, but once again, if you read more carefully, the marriages are overall defined as more successful. Jesus, I should not even be arguing this. You are still in the Uni - go to your resident sociology/psychology professor and ask him.

Romantic love is also a very far reaching thing. It is most deffintley not a recent invention.

You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.

The divorce rate is also nowhere near 60% and its dropping
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

Gah, did you even read my post? So far, all the things you have said show more misunderstandings on your part as opposed to possible holes in my argument. Not to mention, you really misused that statistic there. That is the divorce rate per 1,000 people, meaning all people - people who die early, children, elderly, mentally retarded, incarcerated individuals, etc, etc. That divorce rate does not even discriminate between married and non-married persons. But that is fine if you expected me to divide the latter statistic by the former. Even if you do that, you will get 50% (rounded from 49.something) total divorce rate in proportion to the total marriage rate.

However, I am not done yet. Due to the fact you seemingly did not read my post, you missed out an important qualification - namely, the one where I pointed out the divorce rate of over 60% is found in first-time marriages. ('The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60%' - AP). Therefore, almost precisely half of the US marriages end in a divorce, but the second-time marriages fail at a significantly lower rate than the first-time ones, which answers for the >60% statistic. Since second marriages are quite relatively common in US, my qualification had a crucial effect.

In arranged marrige its not about happiness, divorce never enters into there pshyche.

Hmm, an unsupported assertion... You do not think that factor, namely the factor of the divorce taboo never crossed the minds of the sociologist researchers? At least one study, (but undoubtedly at least several more analogous studies existed) I remember, focused on parent-arranged marriages in the Western society. Variables were taken into account.

Its that simple.

Nothing, especially on such large scale, is that simple. Logic, stereotypes, cultural assumptions, guesswork, and 'common' sense do not substitute for statistics emanating from peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Besides plenty of people run out of these things. Ancient Indian literature is littered with myths of princess runing away from there husband to be.

You are joking me, right? You downplay my statistics in every manner, inquire on the sources, examine for variables/biases, cite the causation-correlation problem, nitpick (all of which is perfectly understandable) and now you say this??? Not funny. 'Cause ancient literature is a scientifically, statistically rigorous source. Without a doubt there are plenty of people who get the short end of the stick in such situations, but mentioning ancient myths is about as accurate as personal experiences. Not anywhere close to valid in the eyes of a sociologist, in other words. A historian has the license to interpret and cite such evidence as a valid support for his/her own hypotheses on the ancient societies, but a sociologist is no historian, not even close in this regard. Of all the things, why mention matters millennia-old? You do not think the treatment of women changed since then?

Do you have a source for that?

For the infidelity, that statistic is everywhere, as the statistics correlate adequately. If you wish to check it, do so, and believe me, you will not find lower numbers, at least not likely. The 1/4 statistic for marital infidelity is very conservative - not only because it is low, as far as other studies go, but also because its method of data collection is rather unique - 1/4 of the divorces were found to have been caused by male infidelity. This leaves out the millions who manage keep the affairs secret, who have not yet spilled the secret, and those who decided to stay together even in the face of infidelity.

Mostly correct information. Do you have a source for your OCD=love claim?

The quick answer would be the February 2006 National Geographic article 'Love: The Chemical Reaction''. If NG does not satisfy you, which is understandable, since it is no scientific journal, much less a peer-review one, it is possible to examine the sources cited by the article. But this is chemistry observations, and it is difficult to go wrong here - or at least in comparison to a very impure and subtle science of sociology.

Love is the result of the biological imperative to reproduce, you were right about the chemicals. Humans are inclined to mate with someone with the most gentic differences to ensure the best litter so to speak.

The chemicals that get released are a necesary part of continuing the species.

Same reason why an orgasm is so pleasureable.

Yes, of course, I agree with that. Stimuli must be present to ensure the biological act of reproduction and the care for the offspring.

This is true. Of course one can feel a deep attraction for many people

Right. My point was that this attraction is arbitrary - in the sense that it is not so much the physical/personality traits that affect us, but the circumstance as well.

Wouldn't that mean we should be more attracted to people of different races?

Heh, you are a sharp one, eh? You are correct, but the mechanism which ensures genetic diversity is not played on the personal level, but on the societal one. Well, mostly.

We have the basic aversion to incest, which is the result of the Westermarck effect - which is the aversion to erotic attachments to the persons with which the subject has/had close contact with in the first few years of one's own life. Basically, it is the sexual desensitisation to the people in your family (including the extended one). This phenomenon is very much present in relatively small, close tribal-like structures, most notably the kibbutz. This instinct in effect shields the child from reproduction with the people he is close to - evolution presumed it would likely be one's own intimate genetic relatives.

But really, on a larger scale, it is played out through the practise of exogamy, where one has to seek a mate outside of the tribe - and this is a societal pressure, because the genetics do not discriminate on such a macro-level (we are programmed to seek certain traits, but those traits are universally shared - we show no particular affinity for people with apparent genetic differences). This societal pressure, however, does not normally cause particularly asymmetric bonds, in the genetic sense. That would be too troublesome. In fact, just the opposite happens - the basic human personality trait of being comfortable around like individuals ensures that we do not socialise too much with people unlike ourselves. To sum it up, we are fine-tuned to where the chances of marriages to relatives are highly unlikely, but once that danger passes, we show no preference for genetic strangers.

[Centurion1]

You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.

True love is an ideal popularized in western society with the advent of medieval king Arthurian myths and legends.

People do not have that one person. If i had enough commitment and an aversion to the concept of divorce there are probably a million people i could marry. Of those million i could probably be happy (very subjective) with a few thousand. True happiness is subjective and in marriage is often based of children, physical attributes, social standing, comfort of home life, and personality compatibility.

Love itself is an objective word. Maybe th eman who beheaded his wife loved her but is his love the same as the man who stays married to the woman on the feeding tube for 20 years. Love is different for everybody.

As to people preferring certain races. So what. I prefer certain races women over others so do 90% of men. hell i even prefer certain nationalities over others.

Not to say people cannot fall in love to say you cant is ridiculous some people meet someone and they do seem to click. But god didnt make them talk to that person some sort of trait (likely physical) attracted them in the first part.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

but I don't want to date anyone for fun or just as friends. God is all the love I need really, and if His plan for me includes a relationship with someone (as a precursor to marriage), it could only be with a christian who would help me grow in faith and love of God.

Ah.... heard this one before. She's a romantic and, it appears, devoutely evangelical.

On a related note, I was once not dissimilar to AP (though a bit more positive generally) what happened was I met a girl similar to the one you are describing.

[naut]

Ah.... heard this one before. She's a romantic and, it appears, devoutely evangelical.

On a related note, I was once not dissimilar to AP (though a bit more positive generally) what happened was I met a girl similar to the one you are describing.

So what you are saying is that we should set up AP with this girl? A bit of global match-maker....

"This summer. A Russian asexual. A soft-spoken Australian Romantic. One a child of chaos. The other a lamb of god...." [/Voice-over]

[Rhyfelwyr]

So what you are saying is that we should set up AP with this girl? A bit of global match-maker....

"This summer. A Russian asexual. A soft-spoken Australian Romantic. One a child of chaos. The other a lamb of god...." [/Voice-over]

Anyway, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and say I used to be like AP as well. Although, I'm far too much of a stereotypical Scotch Presbyterian hard-hearted ****** for any of this soppy rubbish!

There doesn't really seem to be much of an idea of romance in the Bible. From what I remember, Paul does leave his love life up to fate as this girl does, although he seemed to think of singleness as more of a blessing. Indeed, he says somewhere that people should only get married if they think they won't be able to avoid fornication otherwise. And then there's that bit where Jesus says some men become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. So all in all, I don't think her very modern, idealised views on love have any biblical roots.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So what you are saying is that we should set up AP with this girl? A bit of global match-maker....

"This summer. A Russian asexual. A soft-spoken Australian Romantic. One a child of chaos. The other a lamb of god...." [/Voice-over]

No! For starters, I was never asexual (celibate, yes), and then it didn't end well, we were never in love (likely the problem); also, she was raised Christian.

Pever, how old is this girl?

[Strike For The South]

Aww, come on, you cannot discount all of statistics in that manner. It does not work like this. You are no expert yourself, either, to have the authority to say whether there is a statistical fallacy here. Professionals already examined the study and found its conclusions satisfactory. Parroting the same phrase over and over stops working at a certain point - although I do admit you had a very valid point about divorce taboos causing faulty correlation - a point which was considered by the researchers as well. Arranged marriages work, and that is a sociology 101 fact, and not just a bunch of studies or obscure facts. The evidence is too overwhelming - mainly the statistics, which differ very significantly from the average society based on romantic love. I am aware of the taboo on divorce in those societies, but once again, if you read more carefully, the marriages are overall defined as more successful. Jesus, I should not even be arguing this. You are still in the Uni - go to your resident sociology/psychology professor and ask him.

Idk about happiness but Ill just say the when people come from these socities they almost all choose the romantic love aspect. It is one of the first part of there culture that is shed and as a middle class emerges in India there is less an less of the old rules.

Perhaps romantic love is only for the decadent?

You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.

The plebs of acinet Greece and Rome all had arranged marriges?

Gah, did you even read my post? So far, all the things you have said show more misunderstandings on your part as opposed to possible holes in my argument. Not to mention, you really misused that statistic there. That is the divorce rate per 1,000 people, meaning all people - people who die early, children, elderly, mentally retarded, incarcerated individuals, etc, etc. That divorce rate does not even discriminate between married and non-married persons. But that is fine if you expected me to divide the latter statistic by the former. Even if you do that, you will get 50% (rounded from 49.something) total divorce rate in proportion to the total marriage rate.

However, I am not done yet. Due to the fact you seemingly did not read my post, you missed out an important qualification - namely, the one where I pointed out the divorce rate of over 60% is found in first-time marriages. ('The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60%' - AP). Therefore, almost precisely half of the US marriages end in a divorce, but the second-time marriages fail at a significantly lower rate than the first-time ones, which answers for the >60% statistic. Since second marriages are quite relatively common in US, my qualification had a crucial effect.

All the data seems to contradict you. The more you get married the more likely the divorce is.

http://www.divorcestatistics.org/



Hmm, an unsupported assertion... You do not think that factor, namely the factor of the divorce taboo never crossed the minds of the sociologist researchers? At least one study, (but undoubtedly at least several more analogous studies existed) I remember, focused on parent-arranged marriages in the Western society. Variables were taken into account.



Nothing, especially on such large scale, is that simple. Logic, stereotypes, cultural assumptions, guesswork, and 'common' sense do not substitute for statistics emanating from peer-reviewed scientific studies.

You are joking me, right? You downplay my statistics in every manner, inquire on the sources, examine for variables/biases, cite the causation-correlation problem, nitpick (all of which is perfectly understandable) and now you say this??? Not funny. 'Cause ancient literature is a scientifically, statistically rigorous source. Without a doubt there are plenty of people who get the short end of the stick in such situations, but mentioning ancient myths is about as accurate as personal experiences. Not anywhere close to valid in the eyes of a sociologist, in other words. A historian has the license to interpret and cite such evidence as a valid support for his/her own hypotheses on the ancient societies, but a sociologist is no historian, not even close in this regard. Of all the things, why mention matters millennia-old? You do not think the treatment of women changed since then?

You dont have established links or sources, your only stats are the ones you choose to give us. Which is fine (and I consider NG repuetable for a debate likes this) but clearly both of us are seeing what we want to see

[Aemilius Paulus]

The plebs of acinet Greece and Rome all had arranged marriges?

Of course . Did you honestly think they married for love? I see why you would reason in this manner, as arranged marriage sounds like something that is more or less an upper-class thing, but I can assure you, it is not. You need to polish up your history before invoking it in a debate...

All the data seems to contradict you. The more you get married the more likely the divorce is.

What do you mean, you just supported my own point?! Yes, a second marriage is more likely to end in a divorce, but there are less of those than the first marriages. When I said the rate is lower, I meant the gross number, not the percentage. As a percentage of all marriages, the first ones fail more - because there are more of them. That was my point. The statistic is in relation to the total number of marriages, and not the number of first marriages. Same topic, different method. But I was indeed wrong about 60% 'all marriage' statistic. It is 50%, and it looks as if I read the marriage statistics in the past and confused the second marriage statistic as the total divorce rate.

You dont have established links or sources, your only stats are the ones you choose to give us. Which is fine (and I consider NG repuetable for a debate likes this) but clearly both of us are seeing what we want to see

OK, so I admitted I was mistaken about the 60%. But what other statistics do you doubt? I gave you what I read in sociology textbooks, which you can check any time you pick one up. You gave me a vague reference to ancient Indian myths, which you have not read (perhaps a few excerpts, but certainly not the entire vegas or other epics), and which I will not read, and which I may not even be able to access.