Me too. I knew i wanted to marry her when i was 16. Never dated anyone else.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Hypothetically should monogamy only be a dealbreaker
- Thread starter DiscussingTheTopic
- Start date
Me too. I knew i wanted to marry her when i was 16. Never dated anyone else.
I'll first agree, then disagree (and i understand this was your neighbor's opinion and not necessarily your own). The "pair-bonding" between a man and woman when they are intimate is a thing; especially the woman's first time. There are a few studies that support this and also show the psyche of a woman who is free with herself can be a little "off". They are not that popular as they counter the Feminine Imperative. The part about Men is half and half. It may be true that men do not get as emotionally attached but there are studies as well that show men suffer over a much longer period and usually do not recover fully.
A woman who has been dropped many times will usually continue to try to find a good man who will provide and protect. They may be leary, or eager and make bad choices, but the drive will be there. "Where are all the good men, why do I keep finding losers?" A man, on the other hand, who has been dropped more than a couple times can pretty much be counted on to just giving women in general the finger and live in the hills with the bears and grow his beard long (no offense, Zec. And besides you managed to somehow get your woman to go in the hills with you, so good on you.
Ha!).I'll try to see if i can find the studies or at least some reference to them. But, if you think about it, doesn't it kind of make sense that they would be that way? That it would support God's design? He wants men to be lifelong supporters of women, so would make them in such a way that separation would be almost unconscionable, but yet remain (somewhat) emotionally unattached in order to keep himself in check. Women on the other hand, if something were to happen to their husband or were (unreasonably/without cause) kicked out, she would need to be able to "get over it" and find a new man relatively quickly.
Now, let the flamers flame....
Could it be that men and women form the same bond from intimacy it's just that men don't break that bond with subsequent intimacies? Thus a secular observer would assume the bond is less intense when in reality it's just repeatable.
That fits my personal understanding well.
But the problem with what today consitutes a "secular observer" is that they deny the truth of "male and female He created them" to begin with.
It's tough for people who deny there's any difference to wrap their heads around REASONS for that difference...
I think that is perfectly plausible!
That ill fated Prince who loved Jacob's daughter Dina comes to mind, not that there aren't countless other examples of men who bonded with a woman, and wanted to maintain that relationship.
I agree on it making sense, and studies are sometimes interesting. The fault I see in studies are that there is no way to have uniform groups to study, as no two people, much less groups, are the same.
Even a man one would not describe as good, or godly, who is not pleased with his woman, might hate the thought of her being with another man. That may be why the law instruct a man, with a wife that can "find no favor in his eyes" to divorce her. His desire may be to keep her, even if she was not a very "meet" (suitable and fit) helper for him.