Self-Arranged Marriages

I personally would prefer to call it self-arranged commitment.    Ever since I first heard about Robert Epstein's love project, I am convinced, that there is no better way to find long-lasting happiness than self-arranged commitment.  

According to evolutionary biology, the instincts in the human subconscious feel attracted to mates by traits indicating a high probability of having healthy offspring and thus the survival of their genes.   The instincts create infatuation, the conscious mind experiences this as passionate love.   
Unfortunately, as soon as the infatuation wears off, the couple is doomed, if they then discover to not have enough in common for long term bonded affectionate companionship.  

The concept of self-arranged commitment skips the step of infatuation and aims directly at a wise choice for a monogamous long-term affectionate companionship.   The principle is very simple:  A wise choice means finding someone suitable and compatible by sharing basic values, attitudes, interests, hobbies and tastes.  Physical attraction is secondary, as long as the other is not repulsive and repugnant.  

Significant is the motivation to make it work by open communication, a fair balance of giving and taking, and the patience to allow affection and attachment grow by sharing a lot of time of pleasant activities.   

This is a very rational concept, but it should appeal especially to people, who are rational enough to be atheists.       

Tags: commitment, marriage, self-arranged

Views: 125

Replies to This Discussion

This is a very rational concept, but it should appeal especially to people, who are rational enough to be atheists.

But what about those who don't want a committed, monogamous, long-term relationship?  Not everyone does.  We have plenty around here who don't.

 

You're making the same mistake that groups like Libertarians make: assuming that everyone has the same starting values as you.  If you're using invalid premises, then it doesn't matter how rational you're being in your logical structure.  The GIGO law rules over the most sound argument.

This thread is just irrelevant for those, who do not want commitment.    Only for those who do, self-arranged commitment is a better method than succumbing to instincts.

Yet you make several statements that I completely disagree with and feel the need to comment on.

 

For example, in this last post here, you make the implication that more than half of what I say on this site is relevant to the subject at hand.  This is patently false.

I try to formulate it in the terms of logic.

This thread is relevant in the case of a person, who  (is looking for a long-term commitment) AND (is a rational person). 

relevant = important to consider

Atheists aren't necessarily rational, either.  As I said, I know Libertarians.

Thanx Maruli, this is a very interesting analysis, and I completely agree.

It is exactly the kind of relationship I am searching for

BUT it kind of inevitably involves an ASEXUAL relation... Which makes sense if we leave inside all instincts, since sex belongs to that process of attraction/infatuation/survival of the genes...

There are some guys I could picture myself sharing a "long-term affectionate companionship" with, but since there is no physical attraction, no sex is possible. Go tell a guy you want a monogamous relationship without sex...

"BUT it kind of inevitably involves an ASEXUAL relation... "   

This is not, what I mean at all.   Affectionately bonded companionship is the combination of emotional, intellectual and physical intimacy.   All three are equally important.   

When peoples' instincts drive people into physical intimacy, but they are a mismatch, they may never reach emotional and intellectual intimacy.
But if a couple meets, who starts of neutrally, without any repulsion or repugnancy, and they spend time together in moonlight walks, museums, theater plays, concerts, this causes them to develop emotional and intellectual intimacy, and the physical intimacy follows automatically.   Making a wise choice does not deactivate the instincts, only avoids them to dominate.  
In countries, where marriages are arranged by the family, this does not stop people from becoming loving couples.
It sounds like you are saying you want a life partner not just another sex partner.  To paraphrase on of my favorite Beatles, you want someone who will still need you and feed you (if necessary) when you're 64.  It sounds like you have a sound plan to reach your goal.

well, japan still has arranged marriages. due to the decline in total marriages arranged marriages have been decreasing. when i was in business i became good friends with a few men who had mistresses, who they told me they loved. they regarded their wives as child factories.  many of the children of the mistresses were adopted by the husbands and wives, so in many cases the wives know about the mistress.

in the last 20 years, growing numbers of 50+ wives are divorcing thier husbamds. the kids are out of the house and it seems the wife sees no reason to remain.

sorry but it seems to me that without love, such a relationship is doomed to failure as a means to bring happiness to either the husband or the wife

soory im not single

My focus is on SELF-arranged based upon the best compatibility for emotional and intellectual intimacy.   Marriages arranged due to social status etc. bear the same danger of emotional and intellectual incompatibility as has infatuation.

even ifyour idea worked wed still be looking for people of similar social status to marry.  in japan only the first meeting is arranged by others, often they do not meet again, but sometimes they do and then some marry.

close rea]latives of my wifs have done this, and i cant say that they are happier then then those who married because of infatuation.  in addition sometimes infatuation or love can produce relationships which are astoundingly beautiful. these relationshipe seem to never happen with arranged marriages.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service