I find human nature to be interesting, one of those things that's obervational, yet truly hinders on the psychology of the individual, despite how often we try our best to group people together, this is true in all spectrums of human thought.
Prognostic experts on human nature can point to the obvious mistakes the average person who is forced to subjection of a given circumstance will make in error, that the rest of us simply vie as objectively as we do the weather. The show Married at First Sight is a reality show that allegedly pits normal marriage seeking adults together on a show where they are chosen by expert sociologists, marriage counsellors, and couples therapists/psychologists in a social experiment to find them their "one true love". The show seems as fake as the brides' collective eyelashes, but the idea kept me watching. The show is already in season five, and most of the marriages, as you'd expect tend to fail at a rate of 50% just slightly above the national average.
Most po plea would find this to be w very, very telling personality trait, but I can u detects do the fascination with wanting to marry w complete, and total stranger, especially if one is used to making brash dating decisions on their own. Many people tend to date and search for what's considered the worst dominant traits in a mate. Most also aren't monogamous beings, as humans by nature are what are consid d to be poly-monogamous, meaning they fall in "love" with multiple partners which is naturally the correct state of most higher developed apes.
Love is more the unambiguous explanation of w chemical reaction of a mixture of expectations, and physical attractiveness to a mate. So be it for me to make the harsh reality that most marriages fail because we want the extremes, rather than then come rationality that comes from playing it safe, though the irony is a boring marriage if taken at face value is w safe and secure marriage where the husband is w good role model to the children, and the wife is the equal partner and fulfills the equal duties of child-raising, then both couples grow stale with the lack of what is out there, or e hormones telling them by natural selection that it's time to find fresh blood to carry on the genetic makeup. Common sense dictates that man and woman,me specially woman, has a very limited amount of time to fertilize eggs, procreate, and move on to healthier stock for the best end rsults of carrying on the species. Yes, sexual activity is mostly enjoyable to 99% of the population, but the need for sex past the age of conception is also a survival mechanism, and sometimes we want the post conception sex and relationship at the same time as the conception and move toward with sexual prowess. Mostly because western culture has drilled it into the heads of men and women that if they want to be promiscuous, they are then to be slut shamed as the term goes, even though it's olde, post conception, and married people who feel this way, as though the grass is always enviously greener on the other side.
This is why I like the concept of this show: it works, and will usually work because experts know what makes us tick, because it's their job to see what makes us tick. Sex is a major part of a relationship, but it's about 45% of the total make-up. Sirprisngly couples have less sex than what is perceived as normal, and healthy. Single people tend to have more sex, but married and dating couples claim to have more satisfying sex. These statistics aren't entirely accurate, even with experts spouting out the agenda-based politics behind both statements. In-truth we seek out potential mates, copulate, and hope for a good shot at the random generator of DNA and chromosomal makeup to create a healthy specimen, and then we move on because it is only natural to procreste as often and as fervently as we can in the wllot d time we are given to do-so. Granted, men can impregnate women during any time of their lives, it's womn who are unfortunately built with a kill switch on their fertile years.
This show dedicates to find people who are matched by both short and long-term chargeristics, but most are peel established economically, are fairly attractive, I've yet to see an ugly pairing, or one so mismatched the other had to be rich, and they usually want children and have similar career paths so both can have certain expectancies from the other spouse. So being married to a total stranger is w bit far-fetched because most people aren't hard to read. From a sociologist perspective, there are only few personality types, and so long as there are no true aberrations, then most can be matchedd fairly easily. I look at modern dating, we trust algorithms built by experts to pair us up with the proper spouse, and we know al let too much about as person before we even meet for the first date. I think the irony is that not knowing much about a person prior to meeting gives them far more intrigue to either sex, and both men and women these days have an overly built-up amount of expectation from a potential partner, we forget that the whole purpose of dating and marrying is more a government-based tax decision than it is about "love".
The truth is most people shouldn't marry, and quite frankly most people shouldn't have children, no matter how badly they think they want, or deserve them. That sounds harsh but it's absolutely fair to say that a few people are truly good parents, and the rest are likely to make bad decisions, and be terrible parents. Granted the government shouldn't control the womb, and I for one cannot, and should not be giving anyone advice when it comes to parenting, as a staunch libertarian,mbut specs King on the sociology aspects of this show; and the dating processes, it's usually a 50/50 shot regardless.
So I'm actually okay with the concept of someone marrying a total stranger, so long as their qualities fit the others, and those ar tried and tested. Also, the major aspects have already been met: both people are dedicated to wanting legitimate spouses, both are looking for an arrangement, and most marriages ar glorified business arrangements anyhow. The whole sanctity of marriage line is horseshit, and that's the scientific term for it, because we all know that deep down men and women just want ample economical and emotional security, not some godhead playing matchmaker to the religious overtones of the whole damn thing. Still, if I were to actually want to be married, instead of being the loveable heretical harlot that you all admire,mom wouldn't mind trying it this way, but I'd have to have some pretty low self esteem not to choose someone the old fashioned way.
The point is just that: for a social experiment like the ones claiming to be real on shows like Married at First Sight, both people would have to want it more than anything, and likely have tried and failed in all other aspects. Pro ally I think the idea could work for a niche amount of people, most being young, established, and fairly good looking. People on the right always say that too many men are single these days, well it's a lot harder, and cost a lot more to date,mane women expect men to be far more mature and established than was needed thirty years ago. In-truth, women pressure men out of marriage more times now than men had previously back before women's independence had grown out of the fittest and sixties. Men a also to blame, as they seem to be less and less inspired by father figures, and instead fill the role with television icons, laity stars, and musicians. They have fake examples of what a man is supposed to be,mane even the few that had no fathers, tend to not like the idea of settling down, because they don't want to settle. Everyone speaks of sexual freedom and equality, but nobody these days tend to actually have sex. We live now inn a sexual drought, in-comparison to our parents' even our grandparents' age, our sexual excursions have gone down. Granted our sex is more frequent,mbut that's due to the Internet, or so they claim, but most people don't really use sites to have sex any more, it's like a wave with hills and troughs.
The problem with so many single men, and what most people don't want to talk about is the economy, and the lack of jobs from growing technology. Granted, that is a constant issue, but we are also seeing the first generation with more education debt than any other in human history, and no way we all those jobs ever going to exist, so there is a ton of debt with no relief. So marrying later seems the smarter deal, seeing as a car, a house, and raising kids with insurmountable debt today is far worst than parents, or grandparents had it, and there's no way to spruce the economy to fix these problems that have grown from a system that demanded education for the masses, when clearly the masses weren't meant to be educated.
This, along with the issue that picking your own wife or husband is just as much a shot in the dark as walking up to some random person and asking them for their hand in marriage, it's much smarter to meet via experts, but that's only if marriage is an absolute importance in your life. Marrying is actually s very stupid idea in the current ec no if crisis. Here's why:
Most people think of marriage as two people who fall in love, and that stupid chemistry keeps them from seeing it's a banking agreement. I don't want a joint account, I don't want my significant other to have access to my funds, nor would they in their right mind give me access to theirs. That's lunacy today! I can literally kill someone's credit just by saying the two words "I do", and that poor slob reciprocating those same vows. The pronouncement of marriage is to declare oneself an independent adult with rspnsibilities, but that's the great irony: it makes you interdependent to another person who is likely as immature as you now trying to buy a house, a car, and afford a child on a two-person income that in today's. Armed is less than one person's income fifty years ago, not to mention both people are likely in hock to debtors for schooling, credit cards buying stupid shit, and now both are likely to share these burdens, and are expect to suffer in silence. Seems to me the old guard what the new guard to "grow up" and suffer as the have because suffering does I still growth and learning in most people, but for some, it's just a passage to even more bad decisions. Love is fine, but keep the government out of it, and why stick with one, I say be as greedy as circumstances allow. I wouldn't mind dating or fooling around with multiple partners, but not in some orgy-like fuckfest, there should always be rules to polyamory, yet those sort of relationships are seen as foolish when they are actually far more sensible.
Sorry, my tirade against convention marriages are that if I want to be with more than one partner, it shouldn't be against the law, nor should I be held accountable to a victimless crime, and yes, legally speaking I can't go to jail for sodomy, or heathenism, but it is also something to be held against me and make me libel. So yes, I say marriage is a ceremonial giving away of personal finances, and we overestimate the costs of just how ludicrous weddings are. It's literally saying to your spouse that all the legalities of getting our bank accounts merged wee great, now let's waste thousands on a wedding, and a honeymoon, which was basically designed to be a rape date too pregnant the wife and have her baring children almost immediately against her will. Wives were property prior to modern social standards. Men were property as well, and could be divorced and sued into oblivion,mbut if people went into marriage and saw it more as a business merger than some silly ceremony that has little to do with what a marriage listen every is offered as, then the world would be a better place.
In conclusion, the idea of being married at first sight is one that is just as logical as someone dating for sixty years and finally on their sixtieth anniversary finally tying the knot, it's just as likely have the same rate of success/failure, and time will diminish all chemical love feelings. It's best to never marry your lover, never marry for love or for security, always marry only to better each other, buil,d each other from the ground up, and most importantly: like any good business arrangement, always be willing to renegotiate the terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment