Why does a wife's opinion have more weight than others' in the mind of the husband?
I have been thinking about powerful men, such as heads of states, and their spouses. When people around you have every reason to steal your power, your spouse's loyalty becomes all the more valuable.
It is possible, though, that the president's wife team up with the bachelor vice-president who is more attractive than the president.
Considering the possibility of losing everything, including life, when the president discovers the wife's infidelity, it is much wiser for the wife to give good advice to the president-husband; the president can stay in power and she can enjoy the power as the first lady.
Why is it that the same opinion is more valuable when it comes from someone whom you like and trust?
It's related to our survival as species. We need to be totally devoted to each other in order to reproduce and nurture offsprings. It's an enterprise that requires a tremendous amount of cooperative energy. Aren't you more forgiving about your lover than your best friend, for example?
It depends!
At least, when you are madly in love.
When we are crazily into someone, everything about her/him is interesting, funny or pleasant. Even admirable.
Have you noticed that the same traits start bothering you when the relationship begins to cool off?
They can become totally irritating in the end. In the worst cases, all turns repelling, including what attracted us to that person in the first place.
You realize how fickle this business of liking and loving is? That's why I try to stay out of it.
I don't believe what you just said.
That's because you are not in love with me, you see.
One and a half point for a sly interpretation of my statement. I meant to say that people who claim to have no interest in roses and the like are the ones who secretly crave à-l'eau-de-rose stuff, much more so than others.
If you are trying to tell me that I am into anything mushy, I vehemently object!
You deny my assessment because you are not in love with me.
Okay, I got your point. By the way, our blood-kins are biological extensions of ourselves and we make use of that fact quite often. I notice it every time when I happen to refer to the skills that I have and the person who is listening to me does not and turns competitive.
Did you brag again about the fencing tournament that you won as a high school student to your colleague who does not play fencing?
A typical reaction is something like, "I don't play fencing, but my sister does. In fact, she's exceptional."
Because the colleague has no experience or knowledge, s/he can't say, "You play fencing? I do, too. I'm pretty good at lunge and belong to the Dardi school. What about you?" Instead, s/he refers to her/his sister, who is more like her/himself vis-à-vis you.
They always bring up parents, children, spouses, or siblings, and occasionally in-laws, but very rarely friends. "Oh, you speak Lufu? ... My mom speaks it fluently." "Well, your cocktails are good, but my brother has a great shaker. He makes wonderful "Gel Us." That one is difficult because it has to be in four layers..."
"Gel Us"? I've never heard of that cocktail. Is it sorbet-like?
Never mind. Anyway, they could have said instead, "How wonderful that you speak Lufu," and "You've got talent as a bartender." Spouses are special because, although they are not related by blood, people treat them as if they were.
No biological relation, but considered extensions of themselves.
And it all happens unconsciously. To me, that's the interesting part, because these instinctive acts concord well with the traditional notion of marriage; it is an agreement between families and about blood lines.
What about the political aspect in traditional alliances?
Marriages become political only if they guarantee fusion of two families. In other words, only if two families regard each other as one after the union is sealed. Usually that became more solid after a child was born, a true biological fusion of the families.
The political aspect is based on the biological one.
The former cannot exist without the latter. Reflecting this nature of marriage, in some societies, participation in the most important part of ceremony is restricted to blood kins and spouses.
Even a very close friend cannot attend?
No, not unless that person is considered by family members as someone who has taken up the responsibility of the deceased father of the bridegroom, etc.
A very close friend of yours is not considered "one of us" by your family.
Traditional societies must have recognized the precariousness of friendships. The only way a friend can gain a family-member like status is to become one.
Marry me, if you want to be one of us... Is this what you mean?
The good news here is that it doesn't have to be you; anyone in your family who is available would do.
What if I'm the most desirable?
Plausible hypotheses only, please!
I have been thinking about powerful men, such as heads of states, and their spouses. When people around you have every reason to steal your power, your spouse's loyalty becomes all the more valuable.
It is possible, though, that the president's wife team up with the bachelor vice-president who is more attractive than the president.
Considering the possibility of losing everything, including life, when the president discovers the wife's infidelity, it is much wiser for the wife to give good advice to the president-husband; the president can stay in power and she can enjoy the power as the first lady.
Why is it that the same opinion is more valuable when it comes from someone whom you like and trust?
It's related to our survival as species. We need to be totally devoted to each other in order to reproduce and nurture offsprings. It's an enterprise that requires a tremendous amount of cooperative energy. Aren't you more forgiving about your lover than your best friend, for example?
It depends!
At least, when you are madly in love.
When we are crazily into someone, everything about her/him is interesting, funny or pleasant. Even admirable.
Have you noticed that the same traits start bothering you when the relationship begins to cool off?
They can become totally irritating in the end. In the worst cases, all turns repelling, including what attracted us to that person in the first place.
You realize how fickle this business of liking and loving is? That's why I try to stay out of it.
I don't believe what you just said.
That's because you are not in love with me, you see.
One and a half point for a sly interpretation of my statement. I meant to say that people who claim to have no interest in roses and the like are the ones who secretly crave à-l'eau-de-rose stuff, much more so than others.
If you are trying to tell me that I am into anything mushy, I vehemently object!
You deny my assessment because you are not in love with me.
Okay, I got your point. By the way, our blood-kins are biological extensions of ourselves and we make use of that fact quite often. I notice it every time when I happen to refer to the skills that I have and the person who is listening to me does not and turns competitive.
Did you brag again about the fencing tournament that you won as a high school student to your colleague who does not play fencing?
A typical reaction is something like, "I don't play fencing, but my sister does. In fact, she's exceptional."
Because the colleague has no experience or knowledge, s/he can't say, "You play fencing? I do, too. I'm pretty good at lunge and belong to the Dardi school. What about you?" Instead, s/he refers to her/his sister, who is more like her/himself vis-à-vis you.
They always bring up parents, children, spouses, or siblings, and occasionally in-laws, but very rarely friends. "Oh, you speak Lufu? ... My mom speaks it fluently." "Well, your cocktails are good, but my brother has a great shaker. He makes wonderful "Gel Us." That one is difficult because it has to be in four layers..."
"Gel Us"? I've never heard of that cocktail. Is it sorbet-like?
Never mind. Anyway, they could have said instead, "How wonderful that you speak Lufu," and "You've got talent as a bartender." Spouses are special because, although they are not related by blood, people treat them as if they were.
No biological relation, but considered extensions of themselves.
And it all happens unconsciously. To me, that's the interesting part, because these instinctive acts concord well with the traditional notion of marriage; it is an agreement between families and about blood lines.
What about the political aspect in traditional alliances?
Marriages become political only if they guarantee fusion of two families. In other words, only if two families regard each other as one after the union is sealed. Usually that became more solid after a child was born, a true biological fusion of the families.
The political aspect is based on the biological one.
The former cannot exist without the latter. Reflecting this nature of marriage, in some societies, participation in the most important part of ceremony is restricted to blood kins and spouses.
Even a very close friend cannot attend?
No, not unless that person is considered by family members as someone who has taken up the responsibility of the deceased father of the bridegroom, etc.
A very close friend of yours is not considered "one of us" by your family.
Traditional societies must have recognized the precariousness of friendships. The only way a friend can gain a family-member like status is to become one.
Marry me, if you want to be one of us... Is this what you mean?
The good news here is that it doesn't have to be you; anyone in your family who is available would do.
What if I'm the most desirable?
Plausible hypotheses only, please!
Posts
