On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Radhika, Y. <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't realize a flat screen TV could be a determining factor in marrying > someone-guess i would never have made it to any matrimonial list in any case > especially since i clean my own bathroom! my husband had only an > air-mattress in his name thanks to his free wheeling, globetrotting > lifestyle prior to our marriage. the only concession he made to lifestyle > were his golfclubs and icehockey equipment.
Marriage has historically been an economic arrangement first and foremost, a partnership to weather the rough waters of life. Ancient Rome at the peak of its affluence saw a decline in marriages because people saw no reason to marry. This led to the introduction of the tax sop for married couples that most modern states continue to this day. It is no surprise then that arranged marriages even today resemble the harsh haggling and negotiation of a bazaar. Ancient love stories notwithstanding, marrying for love is a relatively recent phenomenon worldwide, less than 100 years old. It remains to be seen if marrying for love is a sustainable idea, afaik there is very little evidence either way at the moment. On a related note, the human gene is inherently polygamous - obviously therefore modern social conditioning of monogamy runs contrary to genetic traits, and is in a somewhat risk prone position. Marriages in ancient Rome or India carried no such rider of monogamy for example. OTOH, modern society seems to have aids to counter the genetic urges, such as pornography. Porn is a socially acceptable (in most cultures) outlet for genetic urges. Ironically therefore pornography saves marriages more often than not! Some reading: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7982132.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20020321.shtml Cheeni P.S. Couldn't resist stirring the pot a bit, the thread was getting boring :-)
