How important is Chemistry in finding future husband?

[EasterJoy]

So what if you meet man,same values,faithful,good character but no emotional attraction?
It cannot work, true(?) , because marriage must have emotion not be “business deal” finding man that “meets all the checkboxes” seems too practical method to make a marriage that last a lifetime.

Of course it can work, unless you are the kind who believes that a marriage that didn’t start with emotional fireworks is a marriage that has always been “loveless.” When I say no commitment and no “in love,” I mean that the person with “benefits” doesn’t have the benefit of being someone for whom you’d forsake all others. A “friend with benefits” gives social and physical benefits, but is someone you’ve withheld *giving yourself to *in any substantial way. At least one of you is holding out in the hopes that “someone better comes along” or to be free to look after yourself alone. That is what is pathetic: the idea that you can give all physically and yet withhold the love of giving yourself for life. That isn’t a “benefit.” It is a recipe for two people feeling emotionally unmoored.

Some of us never felt emotional fireworks for anyone who is remotely suitable as a spouse. Some of us never felt emotional fireworks for anyone who reciprocated. Some of us are reserved, and really don’t “do” the emotional fireworks thing at all. A lack of fireworks does not mean a cold heart. Your heart can be warm without racing.

Some of us started a courtship with someone we thought checked off the boxes of suitability and found after we got to know them that they are very much worthy of our affection. That doesn’t mean the fireworks developed. It does mean that the affection that sustains marriages after the fireworks die down developed between us and our spouses without the fireworks.

Most of us know people who only get serious with people who get the “fireworks” going, even though those who bring those kind of feelings in them have proven again and again to be charming manipulators. These are known as women who always “fall for the wrong kind of guy” or the men who “are always taken advantage of.” This leads to one bad relationship after another, and it breaks the hearts of everyone who loves the generous souls who keep going on this fool’s errand.

You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Marriages last based on character, fidelity, and virtue, not racing pulses. If you feel a sense of disappointment that you never “fall” for anyone who makes your heart race, I’d caution you to be careful what you wish for. Wish to “fall” for someone who has the capacity for a lasting marriage. That is falling into the arms of someone who will not abuse your trust.

What makes a marriage more than a business arrangement isn’t some kind of lightning bolt from our emotions. It is our willingness to give ourselves totally, not just in a quid pro quo, but being appreciative of and affectionate towards the whole person with our whole person. Some people can’t give that way unless emotions “drive them to it,” but others choose to love someone who is worthy of trust and find the warm emotions grow in. Not wild romance, not usually, but a connection that makes giving our heart possible. You do have to trust and be trusted in a way that goes way beyond quid-pro-quo.

 

[ZellieFan]

I think so many people are looking for this chemistry to be instant or have this all-or-nothing attitude towards chemistry. It’s absurd! Chemistry can grow over time but most people want to feel that connection right away. While I don’t agree with forced marriages, there is some wisdom to how arranged marriages happen. People are matched on common values, education level, etc and spend limited tell together. They make an intellectual decision. Love is a choice first and foremost. With generations raised on the concept of chemistry, soul mates and falling in love, no wonder marriage is in trouble.

 

[Xantippe]

So what if you meet man,same values,faithful,good character but no emotional attraction?
It cannot work, true(?) , because marriage must have emotion not be “business deal” finding man that “meets all the checkboxes” seems too practical method to make a marriage that last a lifetime.

Here’s a piece from the lady who also wrote Seraphic Singles:

edinburghhousewife.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-dating-manifesto.html

She encourages giving decent men a chance, but not waste your time with men you don’t click with after several dates.

I concur.

 

[Xantippe]

Of course it can work, unless you are the kind who believes that a marriage that didn’t start with emotional fireworks is a marriage that has always been “loveless.” When I say no commitment and no “in love,” I mean that the person with “benefits” doesn’t have the benefit of being someone for whom you’d forsake all others. A “friend with benefits” gives social and physical benefits, but is someone you’ve withheld *giving yourself to *in any substantial way. At least one of you is holding out in the hopes that “someone better comes along” or to be free to look after yourself alone. That is what is pathetic: the idea that you can give all physically and yet withhold the love of giving yourself for life. That isn’t a “benefit.” It is a recipe for two people feeling emotionally unmoored.

Some of us never felt emotional fireworks for anyone who is remotely suitable as a spouse. Some of us never felt emotional fireworks for anyone who reciprocated. Some of us are reserved, and really don’t “do” the emotional fireworks thing at all. A lack of fireworks does not mean a cold heart. Your heart can be warm without racing.

Some of us started a courtship with someone we thought checked off the boxes of suitability and found after we got to know them that they are very much worthy of our affection. That doesn’t mean the fireworks developed. It does mean that the affection that sustains marriages after the fireworks die down developed between us and our spouses without the fireworks.

Most of us know people who only get serious with people who get the “fireworks” going, even though those who bring those kind of feelings in them have proven again and again to be charming manipulators. These are known as women who always “fall for the wrong kind of guy” or the men who “are always taken advantage of.” This leads to one bad relationship after another, and it breaks the hearts of everyone who loves the generous souls who keep going on this fool’s errand.

You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Marriages last based on character, fidelity, and virtue, not racing pulses. If you feel a sense of disappointment that you never “fall” for anyone who makes your heart race, I’d caution you to be careful what you wish for. Wish to “fall” for someone who has the capacity for a lasting marriage. That is falling into the arms of someone who will not abuse your trust.

What makes a marriage more than a business arrangement isn’t some kind of lightning bolt from our emotions. It is our willingness to give ourselves totally, not just in a quid pro quo, but being appreciative of and affectionate towards the whole person with our whole person. Some people can’t give that way unless emotions “drive them to it,” but others choose to love someone who is worthy of trust and find the warm emotions grow in. Not wild romance, not usually, but a connection that makes giving our heart possible. You do have to trust and be trusted in a way that goes way beyond quid-pro-quo.

There must be women who are capable of marrying and being good wives in the absence of passion and “being in love,” but I think it’s a very dangerous thing to settle for in a “being in love” culture for some of the following reasons:

1. One may fall in love while married–with somebody else.
2. One may feel jealous of the people that are enjoying love matches or one may experience a near occasion of sin just by watching a romantic comedy.
3. It’s not fair to the husband–unless he has some sort of unfortunate sexual issues, he didn’t marry in cold blood.
4. There probably were men that one was actually in love with before
5. It has unfortunate possibilities for the spousal sexual relationship. If one is meh about a man and marries him, what will happen to one’s ability to appreciate him physically after having babies or a few years of dealing with his soiled undershorts and doing other unsexy things for him?

If one doesn’t feel passionate esteem, I don’t think one should marry, unless it’s very clear that one isn’t the sort of person that has that sort of feelings and if it’s clear that your spouse doesn’t have that kind of feeling. But if you are capable of passionate love, it is very unwise to attempt some sort of calculated marriage.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think so many people are looking for this chemistry to be instant or have this all-or-nothing attitude towards chemistry. It’s absurd! Chemistry can grow over time but most people want to feel that connection right away.

While I don’t agree with forced marriages, there is some wisdom to how arranged marriages happen. People are matched on common values, education level, etc and spend limited tell together. They make an intellectual decision. Love is a choice first and foremost. With generations raised on the concept of chemistry, soul mates and falling in love, no wonder marriage is in trouble.

I noticed you identify yourself as “Traditional Catholic”.

Well, interestingly, some of the really traditionalist extremes of the fundamentalist courtship movement, and I mean even more extreme than the Duggars and Bates, actually DOES seem to be little different from an arranged marriage.

So, not only are the suitors are pre-screened by parents, and the “courting couple”, who are supervised by chaperones at all times, the “couple” are actually discouraged from developing any actual emotions for each other until they are at least engaged, and for some, actually married. (Note that apparently the Duggars and Bates hold to the rules about physical chastity, but do approve of some level of emotional attachment, though always the caveat that what’s on TV can’t be trusted 100%.)

I think the problem, though, is that this kind of process can easily be abused. If the couple spends “limited time” together, and are always chaperoned, I’m not sure they can even get to know each other enough to even make an “intellectual decision” as to whether the prospective spouse is a good match. They really are depending on their parents and others involved in arranging the marriage to make a good decision.

I also think that certainly the Duggar marriages, or at least that of Josh Duggar, suggest that arranged or semi-arranged marriage is no guarantee of success, either. It’s all too easy for someone to be unwittingly roped into marriage with someone who is FAR from ideal material for a marriage partner.

Unfortunately, the people who are in charge of arranged marriages don’t always have their children’s best interests in mind. Some will simply sell their daughters to the highest bidder, with no caution at all to the prospective husband’s morals, level of faith, etc. And even if one set of parents is acting in good faith, the other set might just be desperately trying to marry off a child they know is actually FAR from the ideal mate, and I suspect this is what happened with Josh Duggar.

And if you happen not to know why I’d say that, Josh Duggar had not one but two accounts on the Ashley Madison website trolling for affair partners, he did admit to having a porn addiction and having affairs. Not to mention the whole “molesting his own sisters as a teenage” thing. While supposedly, Josh’s wife Anna knew about this (the molestation, not the porn addiction) prior to marriage, many have questioned that claim by the Duggars.

While chances are that marriage will not end in divorce, I certainly wouldn’t call it a great, successful marriage. I think the emphasis many who idealize arranged marriage make on how those marriages are much less likely to end in divorce, really ignore how most cultures that practice arranged marriage also have strong taboos against divorce.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

If one doesn’t feel passionate esteem, I don’t think one should marry, unless it’s very clear that one isn’t the sort of person that has that sort of feelings and if it’s clear that your spouse doesn’t have that kind of feeling. But if you are capable of passionate love, it is very unwise to attempt some sort of calculated marriage.

First of all, I hope I’m not violating forum etiquette by double-posting, but for some reason the MultiQuote button isn’t showing up for me.

Anyway… I don’t want anyone to think I’m disparaging arranged or "calculated’ marriages. I am sure there are people who are quite happy in those. As Charlotte Lucas tells Elizabeth Bennett in “Pride and Prejudice”, some people never had romantic notions at all, and I’m not saying all marriages HAVE to be “Love marriages”.

I also think it should be pointed out that many, if not most, cultures with arranged marriage, do not find monogamy in such a marriage to be important. Some practice actual polygamy. Others approve of concubinage, and indeed, it can be considered a “better match” for lower-class women to become the concubine of a higher-class man, than to marry a man of their own class. Even if there is no formal polygamy, many wink at a husband’s adultery, and consider it no big deal.

So, at least for the husbands, they actually get to have it both ways in such cultures. He may not get much of a choice when it comes to who his first or legal wife may be, that marriage was likely arranged. But if a pretty girl he’s actually attracted to catches his eye, he’s still free to indulge his passions, and even pursue actual “love” outside of marriage. He doesn’t have to worry about his wife leaving him over this, because that’s Just Not Done.

And while adultery by wives is less tolerated, apparently in some segments of the upper classes in Europe, even adultery by the wife was considered tolerable, as long as she waited a socially acceptable amount of time AFTER she did her duty and produced the heir, and a spare or two.

That’s another fact about the darker side of arranged marriage, even in cultures where “Love Marriages” aren’t as socially acceptable as modern Western cultures.

Ironically, it seems that in today’s culture, adultery is in a way considered LESS acceptable in some ways. “If you’re going to cheat, be honest about it and end the marriage instead of sneaking around” is often the secular advice given to cheating spouses. But of course, for traditional Catholics, simply divorcing a spouse one is cheating or being tempted to cheat on, isn’t an option.

 

[Xantippe]

First of all, I hope I’m not violating forum etiquette by double-posting, but for some reason the MultiQuote button isn’t showing up for me.

Anyway… I don’t want anyone to think I’m disparaging arranged or "calculated’ marriages. I am sure there are people who are quite happy in those. As Charlotte Lucas tells Elizabeth Bennett in “Pride and Prejudice”, some people never had romantic notions at all, and I’m not saying all marriages HAVE to be “Love marriages”.

I also think it should be pointed out that many, if not most, cultures with arranged marriage, do not find monogamy in such a marriage to be important. Some practice actual polygamy. Others approve of concubinage, and indeed, it can be considered a “better match” for lower-class women to become the concubine of a higher-class man, than to marry a man of their own class. Even if their is no formal polygamy, many wink at a husband’s adultery, and consider it no big deal.

So, at least for the husbands, they actually get to have it both ways in such cultures. He may not get much of a choice when it comes to who his first or legal wife may be, that marriage was likely arranged. But if a pretty girl he’s actually attracted to catches his eye, he’s still free to indulge his passions, and even pursue actual “love” outside of marriage. He doesn’t have to worry about his wife leaving him over this, because that’s Just Not Done.

And while adultery by wives is less tolerated, apparently in some segments of the upper classes in Europe, even adultery by the wife was considered tolerable, as long as she waited a socially acceptable amount of time AFTER she did her duty and produced the heir, and a spare or two.

That’s another fact about the darker side of arranged marriage, even in cultures where “Love Marriages” aren’t as socially acceptable as modern Western cultures.

Ironically, it seems that in today’s culture, adultery is in a way considered LESS acceptable in some ways. “If you’re going to cheat, be honest about it and end the marriage instead of sneaking around” is often the secular advice given to cheating spouses. But of course, for traditional Catholics, simply divorcing a spouse one is cheating or being tempted to cheat on, isn’t an option.

I forget who said it, but there’s a quote about how there’s always going to be romantic love–the question is, will it be inside or outside of marriage?

Regarding historical attitudes toward adultery in Europe, I sometimes wonder what would be left of Western Lit if you took out the adultery story lines. Madame Bovary–POOF! Anna Karenina-POOF! Tristan and Isolde–POOF! Guinevere and Lancelot–POOF! Gone With the Wind–POOF! The Sorrows of Young Werther–POOF! The Master and Margarita–POOF!

 

[EasterJoy]

There must be women who are capable of marrying and being good wives in the absence of passion and “being in love,” but I think it’s a very dangerous thing to settle for in a “being in love” culture for some of the following reasons:

OK, let’s look at those point by point.

1. One may fall in love while married–with somebody else.

That can happen when you had fireworks when you married, too. It is so common that it is almost trite: “My spouse and I were so in love, we got married, we ‘fell out of love,’ so I guess we weren’t ‘soul mates,’ and then I found my soul mate…” and we all know the foolish tragedies that follow from that.

1. One may feel jealous of the people that are enjoying love matches or one may experience a near occasion of sin just by watching a romantic comedy.

Again–marrying someone who initially made your heart race will not prevent this.

1. It’s not fair to the husband–unless he has some sort of unfortunate sexual issues, he didn’t marry in cold blood.

When you marry somebody who thinks that Feelings was the worst song ever written, he might be less than broken up to learn that you like him fine and enjoy his company but have never imagined that either one of you would have died of grief if the engagement hadn’t worked out. I’m not saying that men are not romantic–they are–but if you can really and truly say, “I want you and I am proud to have someone like you as my husband” and he finds that you hold nothing of yourself back from him, there are men who would count themselves truly lucky to have that. In other words, if you offer real love, there are a good number of people who do not get all wound up in “fireworks.” (This is especially true if you are talking about a fellow who’s been burned a few times while playing with fireworks.)

1. There probably were men that one was actually in love with before

There are undoubtedly men that we might like to have been in love with, but wanting someone who never gave you the time of day does not really count as “being in love.” A great many of us have never had “that guy” ask us out, but found that we were in the unlucky position of only having guys fall for us that we could not see ourselves with.

1. It has unfortunate possibilities for the spousal sexual relationship. If one is meh about a man and marries him, what will happen to one’s ability to appreciate him physically after having babies or a few years of dealing with his soiled undershorts and doing other unsexy things for him?

Sometimes the “meh” you are talking about comes because the recognition that living with this guy is not going to be fodder for a romantic comedy is* immediate* rather than delayed. That does not preclude a real affection. It is just not the kind of affection that people write love poems about. Shakespeare captured it in Henry V:

• If I could win a lady at
  leap-frog, or by vaulting into my saddle with my
  armour on my back, under the correction of bragging
  be it spoken. I should quickly leap into a wife.
  Or if I might buffet for my love, or bound my horse
  for her favours, I could lay on like a butcher and
  sit like a jack-an-apes, never off. But, before God,
  Kate, I cannot look greenly nor gasp out my
  eloquence, nor I have no cunning in protestation;
  only downright oaths, which I never use till urged,
  nor never break for urging. If thou canst love a
  fellow of this temper, Kate, whose face is not worth
  sun-burning, that never looks in his glass for love
  of any thing he sees there, let thine eye be thy
  cook. I speak to thee plain soldier: **If thou canst
  love me for this, take me: if not, to say to thee
  that I shall die, is true; but for thy love, by the
  Lord, no; yet I love thee too. ***

If one doesn’t feel passionate esteem, I don’t think one should marry, unless it’s very clear that one isn’t the sort of person that has that sort of feelings and if it’s clear that your spouse doesn’t have that kind of feeling. But if you are capable of passionate love, it is very unwise to attempt some sort of calculated marriage.

How do you know you are capable of passionate love when you have only had a crush on men who don’t see you as a good fit and the men who have had a crush on you don’t seem a good fit to you? And what about the people who only fall passionately for these guys that anybody can see are users and losers? Should we tell them, oh, no, don’t marry unless you feel passionately in love? Is it wrong to say, “you may want to re-think how much weight you put on romance, Luv.”

*And while thou
livest, dear Kate, take a fellow of plain and
uncoined constancy; for he perforce must do thee
right, because he hath not the gift to woo in other
places: for these fellows of infinite tongue, that
can rhyme themselves into ladies’ favours, they do
always reason themselves out again. What! a
speaker is but a prater; a rhyme is but a ballad. A
good leg will fall; a straight back will stoop; a
black beard will turn white; a curled pate will grow
bald; a fair face will wither; a full eye will wax
hollow: but a good heart, Kate, is the sun and the
moon; or, rather, the sun, and not the moon; for it
shines bright and never changes, but keeps his
course truly. *(from the same speech, Henry V…)

It is totally possible to really and truly love and want to give yourself entirely to someone because your admiration for him gives you warm feelings for him. It doesn’t have to be passionate and emotionally “exciting.”

You are right, though: If you have your heart set on that, admit it and wait for when you either find it or recognize it as a wish for glamour.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I forget who said it, but there’s a quote about how there’s always going to be romantic love–the question is, will it be inside or outside of marriage?

Yeah, pretty much.

Regarding historical attitudes toward adultery in Europe, I sometimes wonder what would be left of Western Lit if you took out the adultery story lines. Madame Bovary–POOF! Anna Karenina-POOF! Tristan and Isolde–POOF! Guinevere and Lancelot–POOF! Gone With the Wind–POOF! The Sorrows of Young Werther–POOF! The Master and Margarita–POOF!

Don’t forget Wuthering Heights! And the Scarlet Letter! Even “Romeo and Juliet”, depending on when exactly Juliet was formally betrothed to Paris. (And one of Juliet’s motives for faking death is because she doesn’t want to actually commit adultery by “marrying” Paris even though she’s already married to Romeo.)

However, I didn’t quite mean that adultery was perfectly acceptable in Europe in the same way that, say, polygamy is acceptable in Muslim countries. In most of those stories, the adulterers aren’t just happily pursuing love outside marriage with no sense of internal conflict at all. Tristan and Isolde specifically uses the “love potion” to get the lovers off the hook morally, but they’re STILL conflicted about their actions.

Indeed, most make a point (though I guess some of this may have been just a surface nod to public morals) of NOT rewarding the adulterous lovers. I actually am not familiar with “The Master and Margarita” but certainly, none of the other adultery stories have a happy ending for the couple.

(The only famous “adultery story” with a happy ending I can think of Jane Eyre, but Jane makes a point of REJECTING adultery and she never actually commits it herself, and Rochester does get some punishment for his adulterous actions though he doesn’t die.)

Anyway…I think that often, conservative Catholics and others make the mistake of reacting to justified concerns about the “sexual immorality” prevalent in modern dating relationships, by running too far in the opposite direction. The whole “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” courting movement, at this point can hardly be distinguished from arranged marriage in some circles, and I really sense a lot of “the grass is greener syndrome” behind some of the idealization of arranged marriage that I’ve seen on CAF.

 

[EasterJoy]

I forget who said it, but there’s a quote about how there’s always going to be romantic love–the question is, will it be inside or outside of marriage?

Regarding historical attitudes toward adultery in Europe, I sometimes wonder what would be left of Western Lit if you took out the adultery story lines. Madame Bovary–POOF! Anna Karenina-POOF! Tristan and Isolde–POOF! Guinevere and Lancelot–POOF! Gone With the Wind–POOF! The Sorrows of Young Werther–POOF! The Master and Margarita–POOF!

Well, what happens to the mystery genre if you take out murders committed in polite drawing-room circumstances that baffle the police but are figured out by amateur sleuths? There are many useful storylines that are employed often because they work as entertainment, not because they mimic real life!

Don’t forget Wuthering Heights! And the Scarlet Letter! Even “Romeo and Juliet”, depending on when exactly Juliet was formally betrothed to Paris. (And one of Juliet’s motives for faking death is because she doesn’t want to actually commit adultery by “marrying” Paris even though she’s already married to Romeo.)

However, I didn’t quite mean that adultery was perfectly acceptable in Europe in the same way that, say, polygamy is acceptable in Muslim countries. In most of those stories, the adulterers aren’t just happily pursuing love outside marriage with no sense of internal conflict at all. Tristan and Isolde specifically uses the “love potion” to get the lovers off the hook morally, but they’re STILL conflicted about their actions.

Indeed, most make a point (though I guess some of this may have been just a surface nod to public morals) of NOT rewarding the adulterous lovers. I actually am not familiar with “The Master and Margarita” but certainly, none of the other adultery stories have a happy ending for the couple…

Exactly. Look at Romeo and Juliet. Who wouldn’t want to be that couple? Anyone with a brain, that’s who.

Romeo was nuts for Rosaline in the morning–the hope of catching sight of her was the reason he crashed the Capulet’s party–and literally ready to marry Juliet that same night! Juliet, meanwhile, was not all cranked up to marry Paris. She had never met him until the same night she met Romeo! She wasn’t cranked up to marry *anyone at all! *

***LADY CAPULET **
Marry, that ‘marry’ is the very theme
I came to talk of. Tell me, daughter Juliet,
How stands your disposition to be married?

*JULIET **
It is an honour that I dream not of.

The whole play is about the tragedies that follow from unbridled passion and acting from the immediate impulses of the heart. Yet people hear all that flowery language and think, “oh…isn’t that ROMANTIC!!” as if they really think that romantic love has to be that over the top in order to be authentic. That is not true. Over-the-top romantic attraction is false more often than it is true. When it is true, it calms down to a fraction of what it was. No one can live like that. Sure, it is exciting, but it is also anxiety-producing and insecure. When you feel secure, some of the excitement necessarily dies away.

 

[Xantippe]

Yeah, pretty much.

Don’t forget Wuthering Heights! And the Scarlet Letter! Even “Romeo and Juliet”, depending on when exactly Juliet was formally betrothed to Paris. (And one of Juliet’s motives for faking death is because she doesn’t want to actually commit adultery by “marrying” Paris even though she’s already married to Romeo.)

However, I didn’t quite mean that adultery was perfectly acceptable in Europe in the same way that, say, polygamy is acceptable in Muslim countries. In most of those stories, the adulterers aren’t just happily pursuing love outside marriage with no sense of internal conflict at all. Tristan and Isolde specifically uses the “love potion” to get the lovers off the hook morally, but they’re STILL conflicted about their actions.

Indeed, most make a point (though I guess some of this may have been just a surface nod to public morals) of NOT rewarding the adulterous lovers. I actually am not familiar with “The Master and Margarita” but certainly, none of the other adultery stories have a happy ending for the couple.

(The only famous “adultery story” with a happy ending I can think of Jane Eyre, but Jane makes a point of REJECTING adultery and she never actually commits it herself, and Rochester does get some punishment for his adulterous actions though he doesn’t die.)

Anyway…I think that often, conservative Catholics and others make the mistake of reacting to justified concerns about the “sexual immorality” prevalent in modern dating relationships, by running too far in the opposite direction. The whole “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” courting movement, at this point can hardly be distinguished from arranged marriage in some circles, and I really sense a lot of “the grass is greener syndrome” behind some of the idealization of arranged marriage that I’ve seen on CAF.

It’s been a while since I read The Master and Margarita, but they also don’t get earthly happiness (but they do get a happy ending of sorts).

classiclit.about.com/od/masterandmargarita/fr/aa_master.htm

You’re right that adultery is generally not rewarded in Western Lit, but there’s an awful lot of it.

Here are some more:

–Dangerous Liaisons
–Brideshead Revisited
–pretty much anything by Graham Greene (End of the Affair, Heart of the Matter, etc.)
–Eugene Onegin (one-sided)

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Well, what happens to the mystery genre if you take out murders committed in polite drawing-room circumstances that baffle the police but are figured out by amateur sleuths? There are many useful storylines that are employed often because they work as entertainment, not because they mimic real life!

I can certainly draw on more than literature to make my point about the prevalence and acceptableness of adultery in Europe. Kings having “official mistresses”, for example. Prince Charles famously stating that he wasn’t going to be the only Prince of Wales to never have a mistress, etc. President Mitterand’s wife and mistress both showing up at his funeral and getting along fine. (And that was fairly recently!)

All this being said, as I’ve stated before, I am not stating that adultery in Europe was ever as openly accepted as polygamy in Muslim countries, concubinage in China, etc. And I’m sure some will state “but adultery is about LUST not love” and frame adultery is merely a question of selfish people acting out of lust.

The whole play is about the tragedies that follow from unbridled passion and acting from the immediate impulses of the heart. Yet people hear all that flowery language and think, “oh…isn’t that ROMANTIC!!” as if they really think that romantic love has to be that over the top in order to be authentic. That is not true. Over-the-top romantic attraction is false more often than it is true. When it is true, it calms down to a fraction of what it was. No one can live like that. Sure, it is exciting, but it is also anxiety-producing and insecure. When you feel secure, some of the excitement necessarily dies away.

I actually don’t disagree with any of that. I think that much of the conflict in this topic has come about from different definitions of “chemistry” as well as “romance”, “love”, etc.

I doubt most people who think “chemistry” is important actually are referring to “over the top romantic attraction” of the Romeo and Juliet type.

On the other hand, I doubt most people really think completely dispassionate marriages born merely out of duty, with just enough sexual attraction to make the marital act actually possible, are truly ideal, even if no adultery or abuse takes place within the marriage.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Some people say chemistry is not important but then couldn’t anyone become anyone husband (or wife) providing they are nice,kind,caring,reasonable,responsible and similar quality?
This is good for friendship material but will a marriage last this way?

Some people think Christian should only consider other Christian but this is unrealistic in this “modern world” because not many unmarried go to Church.

Some people find partner based off similar interests but to me same interests is not important as long as the others interests are not extreme or intolerable.

Well, I cannot recommend that a person have a long-term relationship with someone they aren’t compatible with.

Marriage is for life, and life is difficult to be with someone “until death do us part” with whom one is not compatible with.

As far as non-Christian/Christian partnerships—it depends on how well you know yourself.

If the other person won’t compromise your Faith and you are strong in Faith, perhaps that is your calling.

If you’re not very strong in Faith and/or are too easily influenced by a romantic partner, and would give into things like sleeping in on Sunday as opposed to getting the kids up for Mass, well, then it may not be a good idea to be with a non-Christian.

 

[EasterJoy]

On the other hand, I doubt most people really think completely dispassionate marriages born merely out of duty, with just enough sexual attraction to make the marital act actually possible, are truly ideal, even if no adultery or abuse takes place within the marriage.

Was someone suggesting a marriage in a case where either party was on the fence about whether either one could give themselves completely in the marital act?

The question is about how important “chemistry” is. Maybe the OP needs to clarify what is meant by “chemistry”? I am only saying that true affection and self-gift does not require finding a spouse that is unrivaled among his or her gender as a physical heartthrob.

First off, though, I mean that there are men and women who know the difference between someone who initially strikes them in a “leading lady” or “leading man” way and someone who would only ever be a “character actor” and who would choose the “character actor” every time. In other words, while the number of proposals to go on dates can have a lot to do with looks, the actual ability to stir up “chemistry” often doesn’t.

Secondly, though, the idea of “chemistry” sometimes means something like “I couldn’t marry someone who doesn’t make me laugh.” I’ve heard people from other countries who think this “someone who makes me laugh” is a ludicrous check-off box for a spouse. They simply do not care whether their spouse is likely to make them laugh or not! They want someone they trust, not just to be sexually faithful but also to give themselves without reservation to all the things that go into marriage. I hesitate to call these things “duties,” because as soon as I do that someone is going to jump in and say that marriage shouldn’t be onerous, as if something that is a duty must necessarily be onerous. No, a duty can be the thing you like to do best. The thing that makes it a duty is that you would need to do it even if it were to become onerous. There is nothing requiring fidelity that does not fit into that category.

If I had to choose between a man who I knew would always do his duty as a spouse simply because he said he would or a man who felt so strongly about me that he assured me that none of the duties of marriage would ever seem like duties to him, I’d pick the former *every *time! I would trust him more–to be blunt, I probably would not trust the latter at all–and I would feel more admiration and affection for the one whose word is his bond. Is that a kind of chemistry, too? I don’t know. I do know, however, that fidelity for the sake of fidelity deserves to be far more prized than it usually is and ought to stir up far more warm feelings that it seems to in people who hate the idea of “duty” between those who have promised to love each other for a lifetime, for better or worse.

 

[Xantippe]

Was someone suggesting a marriage in a case where either party was on the fence about whether either one could give themselves completely in the marital act?

The question is about how important “chemistry” is. Maybe the OP needs to clarify what is meant by “chemistry”? I am only saying that true affection and self-gift does not require finding a spouse that is unrivaled among his or her gender as a physical heartthrob.

First off, though, I mean that there are men and women who know the difference between someone who initially strikes them in a “leading lady” or “leading man” way and someone who would only ever be a “character actor” and who would choose the “character actor” every time. In other words, while the number of proposals to go on dates can have a lot to do with looks, the actual ability to stir up “chemistry” often doesn’t.

Secondly, though, the idea of “chemistry” sometimes means something like “I couldn’t marry someone who doesn’t make me laugh.” I’ve heard people from other countries who think this “someone who makes me laugh” is a ludicrous check-off box for a spouse. They simply do not care whether their spouse is likely to make them laugh or not! They want someone they trust, not just to be sexually faithful but also to give themselves without reservation to all the things that go into marriage. I hesitate to call these things “duties,” because as soon as I do that someone is going to jump in and say that marriage shouldn’t be onerous, as if something that is a duty must necessarily be onerous. No, a duty can be the thing you like to do best. The thing that makes it a duty is that you would need to do it even if it were to become onerous. There is nothing requiring fidelity that does not fit into that category.

If I had to choose between a man who I knew would always do his duty as a spouse simply because he said he would or a man who felt so strongly about me that he assured me that none of the duties of marriage would ever seem like duties to him, I’d pick the former *every *time! I would trust him more–to be blunt, I probably would not trust the latter at all–and I would feel more admiration and affection for the one whose word is his bond. Is that a kind of chemistry, too? I don’t know. I do know, however, that fidelity for the sake of fidelity deserves to be far more prized than it usually is and ought to stir up far more warm feelings that it seems to in people who hate the idea of “duty” between those who have promised to love each other for a lifetime, for better or worse.

1. I think (as other people have said) that there’s a big difference between the views of chemistry people have. Note that SuperLuigi used “compatibility” as a synonym for chemistry and I did the same upthread. So, when we say “chemistry” we don’t mean just smoking hot.
2. Having compatible senses of humor (or non-humor) is essential to a happy joint life. Is there anything sadder than one spouse making an uproariously funny joke–that flies right over the head of the other? If that were to be a routine part of married life, it would be a real tragedy. Having a spouse that thinks that you are funny and that you think is funny is very important for some of us. (Also, bear in mind that humor and intelligence are closely connected. Not all smart people have humor, but all gifted humorists are smart.) I certainly am very pleased when my husband laughs at my jokes and I am also very pleased to laugh at his. Shared humor is a way to demonstrate appreciation for the other’s gifts.
3. Having similar values is a kind of chemistry.
4. One issue with “fidelity for the sake of fidelity” is that it’s something that needs to be evaluated not on the basis of what a person says about himself or herself, but based on his or her actual conduct. So, anybody who just said “I believe in fidelity for the sake of fidelity” would not score any points with me for that.
5. One doesn’t necessarily need to choose between different good qualities. A person can be both funny and faithful. Or, unfunny and unfaithful.

 

[holyrood]

l greatly look forward to being able to read this entire thread carefully, but in my own experience:

In the past four years, I have spent 18 to 25 months with each of two men. One was as wrong as possible for me ‘on paper.’ He didn’t share my faith or values. But he respected and *honored *my faith and values–and there was great chemistry.

The second was perfect for me on paper, in addition to also honoring my faith and values–but I felt no chemistry.

Interestingly, I believe my faith deepened and grew profoundly with the first, but suffered *greatly *with the second.

What does this mean? I don’t know. I can’t explain. I could hardly prove any point with it. But I do know that eventually, I couldn’t continue with someone with whom I did not *feel *something, despite how perfect and wonderful he was in so many ways.

 

[Xantippe]

l greatly look forward to being able to read this entire thread carefully, but in my own experience:

In the past four years, I have spent 18 to 25 months with each of two men. One was as wrong as possible for me ‘on paper.’ He didn’t share my faith or values. But he respected and *honored *my faith and values–and there was great chemistry.

The second was perfect for me on paper, in addition to also honoring my faith and values–but I felt no chemistry.

Interestingly, I believe my faith deepened and grew profoundly with the first, but suffered *greatly *with the second.

What does this mean? I don’t know. I can’t explain. I could hardly prove any point with it. But I do know that eventually, I couldn’t continue with someone with whom I did not *feel *something, despite how perfect and wonderful he was in so many ways.

Right. And it’s not fair to the no-chemistry guy to waste his time once you understand there’s nothing there.

 

[holyrood]

Of course it can work, unless you are the kind who believes that a marriage that didn’t start with emotional fireworks is a marriage that has always been “loveless.” When I say no commitment and no “in love,” I mean that the person with “benefits” doesn’t have the benefit of being someone for whom you’d forsake all others. A “friend with benefits” gives social and physical benefits, but is someone you’ve withheld *giving yourself to *in any substantial way. At least one of you is holding out in the hopes that “someone better comes along” or to be free to look after yourself alone. That is what is pathetic: the idea that you can give all physically and yet withhold the love of giving yourself for life. That isn’t a “benefit.” It is a recipe for two people feeling emotionally unmoored.

Some of us never felt emotional fireworks for anyone who is remotely suitable as a spouse. Some of us never felt emotional fireworks for anyone who reciprocated. Some of us are reserved, and really don’t “do” the emotional fireworks thing at all. A lack of fireworks does not mean a cold heart. Your heart can be warm without racing.

Some of us started a courtship with someone we thought checked off the boxes of suitability and found after we got to know them that they are very much worthy of our affection. That doesn’t mean the fireworks developed. It does mean that the affection that sustains marriages after the fireworks die down developed between us and our spouses without the fireworks.

Most of us know people who only get serious with people who get the “fireworks” going, even though those who bring those kind of feelings in them have proven again and again to be charming manipulators. These are known as women who always “fall for the wrong kind of guy” or the men who “are always taken advantage of.” This leads to one bad relationship after another, and it breaks the hearts of everyone who loves the generous souls who keep going on this fool’s errand.

You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Marriages last based on character, fidelity, and virtue, not racing pulses. If you feel a sense of disappointment that you never “fall” for anyone who makes your heart race, I’d caution you to be careful what you wish for. Wish to “fall” for someone who has the capacity for a lasting marriage. That is falling into the arms of someone who will not abuse your trust.

What makes a marriage more than a business arrangement isn’t some kind of lightning bolt from our emotions. It is our willingness to give ourselves totally, not just in a quid pro quo, but being appreciative of and affectionate towards the whole person with our whole person. Some people can’t give that way unless emotions “drive them to it,” but others choose to love someone who is worthy of trust and find the warm emotions grow in. Not wild romance, not usually, but a connection that makes giving our heart possible. You do have to trust and be trusted in a way that goes way beyond quid-pro-quo.

There must be women who are capable of marrying and being good wives in the absence of passion and “being in love,” but I think it’s a very dangerous thing to settle for in a “being in love” culture for some of the following reasons:

1. One may fall in love while married–with somebody else.
2. One may feel jealous of the people that are enjoying love matches or one may experience a near occasion of sin just by watching a romantic comedy.
3. It’s not fair to the husband–unless he has some sort of unfortunate sexual issues, he didn’t marry in cold blood.
4. There probably were men that one was actually in love with before
5. It has unfortunate possibilities for the spousal sexual relationship. If one is meh about a man and marries him, what will happen to one’s ability to appreciate him physically after having babies or a few years of dealing with his soiled undershorts and doing other unsexy things for him?

If one doesn’t feel passionate esteem, I don’t think one should marry, unless it’s very clear that one isn’t the sort of person that has that sort of feelings and if it’s clear that your spouse doesn’t have that kind of feeling. But if you are capable of passionate love, it is very unwise to attempt some sort of calculated marriage.

It’s a lot to quote, but I wanted to say, i appreciate both your replies, from (apparently) opposite points of view. It is exactly the struggle I have had, knowing full well that the man with whom I felt no chemistry was solid, reliable, trustworthy, of great character, and ‘right for me’ in every respect. Yet in the end, at least for me, that wasn’t enough. I truly hoped those feelings would grow. I have no idea if there’s simply a difference in personalities, such that for some, feelings would have grown, or it wouldn’t have mattered.

I appreciate the conversation, however.

 

[EasterJoy]

1. I think (as other people have said) that there’s a big difference between the views of chemistry people have. Note that SuperLuigi used “compatibility” as a synonym for chemistry and I did the same upthread. So, when we say “chemistry” we don’t mean just smoking hot.
2. Having compatible senses of humor (or non-humor) is essential to a happy joint life. Is there anything sadder than one spouse making an uproariously funny joke–that flies right over the head of the other? If that were to be a routine part of married life, it would be a real tragedy. Having a spouse that thinks that you are funny and that you think is funny is very important for some of us. (Also, bear in mind that humor and intelligence are closely connected. Not all smart people have humor, but all gifted humorists are smart.) I certainly am very pleased when my husband laughs at my jokes and I am also very pleased to laugh at his. Shared humor is a way to demonstrate appreciation for the other’s gifts.
3. Having similar values is a kind of chemistry.
4. One issue with “fidelity for the sake of fidelity” is that it’s something that needs to be evaluated not on the basis of what a person says about himself or herself, but based on his or her actual conduct. So, anybody who just said “I believe in fidelity for the sake of fidelity” would not score any points with me for that.
5. One doesn’t necessarily need to choose between different good qualities. A person can be both funny and faithful. Or, unfunny and unfaithful.

People can be happily married without actually laughing at the same things. It is great to share a sense of humor, don’t get me wrong, but that does not automatically make it a “real tragedy” when some particular couple doesn’t do that.

I don’t think that having similar values is what most people mean by “chemistry,” either. Otherwise, how would it be possible for someone to “check off all the boxes” but still not have “chemistry”?

Still, I would agree on this: If you have some set of “boxes” set up and someone “checks them all off” and yet something inside you says, “Nope. This is not the one,” then you should NOT ignore that voice. That voice is telling you that you’re not going to be 100% in. You don’t buy shoes that don’t fit in the hopes that “they’ll stretch out” and you don’t marry someone that you wish was suitable that you know is not without being able to articulate why or without being able to give a reason that seems “good enough.” Yes, I would agree that this is not realistic. Oh, how many people really did get themselves into a tragedy by doing that!

 

[Xantippe]

People can be happily married without actually laughing at the same things. It is great to share a sense of humor, don’t get me wrong, but that does not automatically make it a “real tragedy” when some particular couple doesn’t do that.

I don’t think that having similar values is what most people mean by “chemistry,” either. Otherwise, how would it be possible for someone to “check off all the boxes” but still not have “chemistry”?

Still, I would agree on this: If you have some set of “boxes” set up and someone “checks them all off” and yet something inside you says, “Nope. This is not the one,” then you should NOT ignore that voice. That voice is telling you that you’re not going to be 100% in. You don’t buy shoes that don’t fit in the hopes that “they’ll stretch out” and you don’t marry someone that you wish was suitable that you know is not without being able to articulate why or without being able to give a reason that seems “good enough.” Yes, I would agree that this is not realistic. Oh, how many people really did get themselves into a tragedy by doing that!

I guess I was thinking mainly of situations where one spouse is just too stupid or literal to get a joke.

There are a lot of marriages between people that just aren’t intellectually compatible, especially among the older generations.

(I’ve unfortunately had many opportunities to see this repeatedly and at close hand with one couple in my extended family. They obviously love each other, but she is kind of dim, and her husband often gets exasperated at her for not getting stuff. But, that’s presumably who she was when he married her–he just didn’t notice at the time.)