Marriage (+Poll)

[brimstoneSalad]

Maybe this is just a semantic disagreement?

I don't think so.

I think the hormonal stuff results in lust.

No, lust is something different. Asexuals can experience manic romantic "love" too.
Mania is mainly about obsessively valuing the relationship for its own sake, regardless of anything else.

Add this to genuine admiration, which leads to a strong desire for partnership/friendship.

That doesn't follow.
There's no rational reason a person would be genuinely admirable just for being sexually attractive and available.

Feelings of unsubstantiated positive regard come from infatuation/manic romantic "love".

This combination is what I would call infatuation.

Infatuation is not genuine admiration, in the sense that it's something substantiated. It's mindless admiration -- but yes, it is a strong desire for a relationship. It is obsession or valuing the other without cause beyond the raging hormones addling the brain.

Add attachment into the mix and you get romantic love.

Attachment can be rational or irrational.

When it's rational and built on a long relationship of trust and mutual support and enjoyment of each other's company for legitimate reasons unrelated to validating the relationship, then that's friendship love, and that's entirely reasonable.

When it's not built on any of that, but the subject either doesn't try to substantiate it, or substantiates it based on fallacies (such as the investment of time already made [good money after bad], or some kind of emotional codependency, or enjoyment of company because it validates the relationship [circular reasoning]) it's infatuation. That's not reasonable.

Possesiveness, jealousy etc. may be in part effects of the social constructs surrounding romantic love.
A requirement for exclusivity/monogamy may result in posessiveness on both sides.
If traditional poligamy is the social norm, the husband will be possesive, while the wives will accept to share him.
It seems that poliamory is also possible for people who reject social norms.

This is only partially true, in that it makes the possessiveness more extreme because of the loss of the relationship in entirety if challenged.

But ANY competing partner can be seen as a threat even in polygamous contexts. You don't want an obsessive/infatuated spouse in a polygamous relationship either; she will feel jealous of the others' time with the husband, and potentially (depending on the personality) try to sabotage the other wives to claim more time with the husband herself.

Euforia and strong bonding stem from neurotransmitters, and indeed, they probably had an evolutionary role as incentives for succesful procreation.
But I'm not so sure they have to have such bad effects, in spite of being irrational. They're just nature's 'carrots'.

You're right that they're nature's carrots -- but that's the problem. They work fine in "nature", because they provided substantial benefits to outweigh any of the costs. Today we are no longer subject to that 'natural' context, and we have social systems that negate the value of those benefits, thus letting the costs stand on their own as a net negative.

[knot]

My best friend married someone based on what's been described as mania in this thread

He used to be very rational, healthy and kind of a militant atheist type character. The woman he married is the polar opposite of all that, and now he's forced himself to change all his rational views to align with her irrational ones. He's completely dogmatic now and has fucked up his life completely because of his emotional commitment

I should prolly have said something earlier, but I was too much of a pussy. C'est la vie

[inator]

Add this to genuine admiration, which leads to a strong desire for partnership/friendship.

That doesn't follow.
There's no rational reason a person would be genuinely admirable just for being sexually attractive and available.

It's not what I'm saying. A desire for partnership is usually based on at least some admiration for the other person.
People don't just want to be in a relationship with every available person they find sexually attractive.
And they don't want to be in a relationship with every person they admire.
Being excited about someone is a combination of both.

Mania is mainly about obsessively valuing the relationship for its own sake, regardless of anything else.

It is obsession or valuing the other without cause beyond the raging hormones addling the brain.

Maybe I just don't know what that is. I understand that some people have ex ante expectations for a relationship because of social norms or whatever, and want to fulfill them even if the partner isn't right.
But how do "raging hormones" come into play here? Do you mean relationship addiction?
And isn't emotional attachment - legitimate or not - inherent to any kind of love based relationship, be it platonic, familial or romantic?

When it's not built on any of that, but the subject either doesn't try to substantiate it, or substantiates it based on fallacies (such as the investment of time already made [good money after bad], or some kind of emotional codependency, or enjoyment of company because it validates the relationship [circular reasoning]) it's infatuation. That's not reasonable.

I see.

Would you consider a relationship based on sexual attraction + admiration + legitimate/rewarding attachment to be romantic love?
Or do you just use that term for addictive behavior?

You're right that they're nature's carrots -- but that's the problem. They work fine in "nature", because they provided substantial benefits to outweigh any of the costs. Today we are no longer subject to that 'natural' context, and we have social systems that negate the value of those benefits, thus letting the costs stand on their own as a net negative.

Pleasure can be an end in itself, even if its practical function as an incentive is gone. That doesn't mean it automatically outweighs the costs, but it should be taken into consideration.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's not what I'm saying. A desire for partnership is usually based on at least some admiration for the other person.

No, it's usually the other way around.

People want to be in a relationship in order to be in a relationship. They are insecure, and they find others who show interest in them or who say yes to a date, and then they enter into relationships (often one on one) and thanks to our old foe cognitive dissonance, then start to rationalize reasons why each respective person is admirable (basically making stuff up).

"All your perfect imperfections" territory of mania.

People don't just want to be in a relationship with every available person they find sexually attractive.

No. They want to be in a relationship for the sake of being in a relationship. They just need one person who is sexually attractive to say yes, and require no other prior justification.

And they don't want to be in a relationship with every person they admire.

They don't even need to admire the person they enter into relationships with, because they'll make up reasons to admire the person after the fact in order to rationalize the relationship.

Being excited about someone is a combination of both.

Sometimes, and when it is that's a little more legitimate. Mostly it's just mania/infatuation, which is hormonal in nature and based not on rationality, but rationalization.

Maybe I just don't know what that is. I understand that some people have ex ante expectations for a relationship because of social norms or whatever, and want to fulfill them even if the partner isn't right.

Right, but that's not "some people", that's just the norm for relationships, and it's reinforced by movies and TV and bad romantic music telling us that's OK or even good. I compared it to religion not trivially, but due to deep similarities in terms of positive reinforcement from society about faith.

But how do "raging hormones" come into play here? Do you mean relationship addiction?
And isn't emotional attachment - legitimate or not - inherent to any kind of love based relationship, be it platonic, familial or romantic?

Sort of, yes. I'm talking about infatuation/mania, which is a particular hormonal situation found in the early stages of most relationships.

Familial love/friendship functions differently in a hormonal way. It feels different, and is associated more with trust and security.
Irrational attachment can occur in family situations, particular for parents of children -- parents will often continue to love and support a shitty lying, thieving, sociopathic drug addicted, pathetic excuse for a human being child -- but this is more the exception to the norm, and the positive effects of friendship and familial love I believe outweigh the negatives since they facilitate a lot in terms of economics and even activism.

There's a good video à-bas-le-ciel did that reflects my view on the value of friendship in a social sense pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UezI3u8iXA

Would you consider a relationship based on sexual attraction + admiration + legitimate/rewarding attachment to be romantic love?

That's probably more pragmatic and friendship based. "friends with benefits" kind of thing. It doesn't have to be 'romantic'.

In the cases where there are overwhelming legitimate reasons to be together, both deep friendship and pragmatic reasons, then adding in a scoop of mania may be harmless.
It's like gluing down a table that was already bolted down and you had no intention or need to move anyway. Where mania alone is more like gluing down random things that are very likely going to be in the way or need to be moved.

But in that case of substantial preexisting justification it's really just redundant -- it's not adding value, the couple is just protected from the most harmful effects by the fact of the overwhelming positive qualities that the relationship already had.

Pleasure can be an end in itself, even if its practical function as an incentive is gone. That doesn't mean it automatically outweighs the costs, but it should be taken into consideration.

As with meat, there are other sources of pleasure without such severe negative consequences.

[inator]

Maybe I just don't know what that is. I understand that some people have ex ante expectations for a relationship because of social norms or whatever, and want to fulfill them even if the partner isn't right.

Right, but that's not "some people", that's just the norm for relationships.

Maybe for people who have little to bargain with.

There's a good video à-bas-le-ciel did that reflects my view on the value of friendship in a social sense pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UezI3u8iXA

That was good, thanks for bringing this guy to my attention.

Would you consider a relationship based on sexual attraction + admiration + legitimate/rewarding attachment to be romantic love?

That's probably more pragmatic and friendship based. "friends with benefits" kind of thing. It doesn't have to be 'romantic'.

Then that's the problem. To me emotional attachment (legitimate or not) is love, and some sexual tension makes it romantic.

The potential negatives of emotional attachment are clear:
It feels good because it's an incentive to stay around someone from whom you can get benefits. The danger is that you may get attached to someone even if there aren't many benefits to be drawn, simply because you were around them for long enough. Or you can search for long-term proximity solely for the sake of developing that pleasurable attachment, and for no other reason.

As I see it, infatuation is a strong desire to be involved with someone, a crush that leads to a compulsive/addictive type of reward system. It just so happens that sex is a strong desire so odds favor sexual involvement, but it doesn't have to be - people can be attractive to each other in many non-sexual ways. Craving for connection can be passionate and burning without being romantic (as in "squishes") and stems from the uncertainty about reciprocity.
It wears off pretty quickly once the connection is established, so I consider it to be in itself less dangerous than unjustified long-term emotional attachment... though it can be the first stept towards that.

[brimstoneSalad]

Then that's the problem. To me emotional attachment (legitimate or not) is love, and some sexual tension makes it romantic.

There are many types of things we qualify as 'love', the stereotypically romantic being one. It doesn't necessarily come with sexual tension, though, as seen in asexuals who can also fall to mania-style attachment/infatuation.

What defines romance is harder to pin down, and it may go as far as obsession over other people/establishing relationships even without any potential sexual relationship, e.g. bromance.
I think it relates more to idealism and impracticality/irrationality, rather than to the sexual nature of a relationship. But I suppose definitions along those lines are also very hazy since people use these words interchangeably sometimes.

I'm talking about the infatuation, or intense obsessive stages (before long lasting familial/friendship kind of trust and bonding kicks in).
These are characterized by certain hormones, and there may be other relationships that do that too (as you mentioned) -- can we call them romantic too? Maybe.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/article ... e-pleasure

It feels good because it's an incentive to stay around someone from whom you can get benefits.

Why can't those benefits be incentive enough?

It wears off pretty quickly once the connection is established, so I consider it to be in itself less dangerous than unjustified long-term emotional attachment... though it can be the first stept towards that.

I would find unjustified long term emotional attachment very unlikely without the infatuation part starting it off, so that's really the part that's problematic. Parent/child relationships can yield that too, but it's less commonly harmful.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I get having your own opinion about marriage, but to be against it because it's not logical enough? What are we? Vulcan?

Not everything in life has to follow a logical path. Marriage is not a bad thing either if done correctly and not on a whim. Sure, i suppose you CAN stick to someone without marraige, but like diet, like starting a business, like ANYTHING, why would you be against someone else marrying?

If you don't like marriage, don't get married. Simple. Done.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Not everything in life has to follow a logical path.

How do we decide what doesn't? Arbitrarily?

Marriage is not a bad thing either if done correctly and not on a whim. Sure, i suppose you CAN stick to someone without marraige, but like diet, like starting a business, like ANYTHING, why would you be against someone else marrying?

I think you are misunderstanding the consensus on this thread. Practical marriages held together by mutual friendship are considered to be productive relationships. However, marriages held together by manic (irrational) love are considered to be dangerous. I hope that clears things up!

[brimstoneSalad]

Not everything in life has to follow a logical path.

How do we decide what doesn't? Arbitrarily?

Good question. It seems to be the rallying cry of theists when backed into a corner through rational argument, or really anybody who wants to defend irrational behavior.

Marriage is not a bad thing either if done correctly and not on a whim. Sure, i suppose you CAN stick to someone without marraige, but like diet, like starting a business, like ANYTHING, why would you be against someone else marrying?

I think you are misunderstanding the consensus on this thread. Practical marriages held together by mutual friendship are considered to be productive relationships. However, marriages held together by manic (irrational) love are considered to be dangerous. I hope that clears things up!

Right you are.

It's also worth noting the very bad argument made here:

[...]but like diet, like starting a business, like ANYTHING, why would you be against someone else marrying?

Like torturing defenseless animals for enjoyment, like conning the ill out of money with your new business selling sham "cures" and causing them to suffer more harm and die for shunning real medicine?

Or even like FGM or waging 'jihad' against society to enforce sharia law -- other people's actions are not harmless to us or the world. We should be against anything causing unnecessary harm in the world.

And yes, even self-harm, since no man is an island; the things you do to yourself or your S.O. affect others too, through changes in your behavior to the outside world.
A good, supportive relationship based on deep common interests and shared values pays good dividends to society at large. A toxic relationship established based on irrational emotional attachment rather than pragmatic cooperation does not.

Who people date and marry affects those around them.

[inator]

I think it relates more to idealism and impracticality/irrationality, rather than to the sexual nature of a relationship. But I suppose definitions along those lines are also very hazy since people use these words interchangeably sometimes.

True, the original meaning goes more in the direction of idealism/romanticism/dopamine highs than of sexual attraction/hormones.

Why can't those benefits be incentive enough?

Emotional attachment is probably adaptive - another one of those carrots.

When you're around a caregiver, in time you start projecting the feel-good sensation from the benefits you're getting upon the person herself. So just the proximity to that person, irrespective of new benefits at a particular moment, makes you feel good in a pavlovian way.

It's a learned behaviour that starts as soon as infanthood. https://internal.psychology.illinois.ed ... chment.htm

Derive that once more and you may start projecting the pleasure not on a certain caregiving figure, but on proximity itself. As long as you're getting long-term proximity and responsiveness, you can potentially get attached to anyone.