Sender: 1.0 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <BAY109-F33D3ADD98846409A5ABFBAA7780 &AElig phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703091715330.5345 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <BAY109-F33D3ADD98846409A5ABFBAA7780 &AElig phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-712158972-2079211099-1173478550=:5345"
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:15:50 -0500 (EST)
To: Eva Revesz <erevesz &AElig hotmail.com>
cc: dreeves &AElig umich.edu, improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu, reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu,         reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu
From: Kevin Lochner <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: RE: Grandpa Andrew's Reflections on Marriage

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---712158972-2079211099-1173478550=:5345
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE


  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry


On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Eva Revesz wrote:

> Dad,
> I enjoyed rereading your marriage talk, and I think you are right on the =
mark=20
> with your notion that a sense of humor is vital in a long-lasting=20
> relationship. But I would like to quibble with a point or two:
>
> 1) What past civilization(s) do you know of in which the women were=20
> polygamous? Give concrete examples.
> 2) The notion that you could be in love with more than one woman at a tim=
e=20
> is, I think, a contradiction of terms. One can certainly "love" more than=
 one=20
> person at a time (both emotionally and sexually), but the pysiological=20
> condition of being "in love" is only possible with one person at a time. =
If=20
> you can't relate to what I'm talking about, then you've never really been=
 in=20
> love. In any case, it's a lot more than a sexual attraction, to which you=
=20
> seem to be reducing the phenomenon of love in your talk. That's what I ha=
ve a=20
> problem with, and I believe Shirley didn't like the talk for the  same=20
> reason.
>
> Love,
> Trixie
>
>
>> From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
>> To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu, reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu,=20
>> reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu
>> Subject: Grandpa Andrew's Reflections on Marriage
>> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 00:24:34 -0500 (EST)
>>=20
>> By popular demand:
>>=20
>> REFLECTIONS ON MARRIAGE
>>=20
>> Dear Bethany, Dear Danny,
>> Ladies and Gentlemen:
>>=20
>> My assignment for today is to give you some reflections on the marriage=
=20
>> institution and to tell you what makes successful ones. The task is both=
=20
>> ridiculously easy and impossibly difficult. I suppose I was chosen for t=
his=20
>> honor because, at least on the bridegroom's side, I seem to be the most=
=20
>> experienced person on the subject -- having had in my life two marriages=
,=20
>> and I certainly learned a lot along the way. To the question there is th=
e=20
>> conventional answer, the sanctimonious answer, the frivolous answer, the=
=20
>> long answer and the short answer. I shall not bore you with the first fo=
ur=20
>> because you can read plenty of that kind of advice in marriage manuals,=
=20
>> homily collections, and even on the Internet. Before I proceed to the la=
st=20
>> option, namely the short answer, let me give you some personal=20
>> reminiscences.
>>=20
>> Between my ages of 13 and 14, puberty crashed down on me like a ton of=
=20
>> bricks. Ever since that age (with "time out" during life crises with the=
=20
>> Nazis, Communists, and so forth) I was constantly in love, frequently wi=
th=20
>> more than one girl at a time, and in a highly theoretical sense=20
>> (recognizing the practical difficulties) I really wanted them all. I alm=
ost=20
>> felt personally insulted when they started marrying others. What a waste=
 of=20
>> natural resources to let my virility go unused! Or even only to be=20
>> restricted to just one partner! As I started to reflect on marriage I wa=
s=20
>> astounded that Humankind should choose for itself such an imperfect=20
>> institution. The limitations it imposed were counter-instinctive, and in=
=20
>> conflict with the lifestyle of our own ancestors as attested in the Bibl=
e.=20
>> What's more, some modern religions have continued to endorse several wiv=
es=20
>> for one man.
>>=20
>> Before I could run too far with these sentiments, my sense of fairness=
=20
>> kicked in. What's fair for the gander is fair for the goose, and if seve=
ral=20
>> wives are OK for one man, why not several husbands for one woman? Indeed=
,=20
>> that too had been tried by Humankind and became the dominant paradigm in=
=20
>> certain civilizations. The combination of the two ideas finally suggeste=
d=20
>> extended free-sex communities with carefully matched membership, and=20
>> child-rearing chores delegated to trained specialists. In my young years=
 I=20
>> was dreaming of Utopian systems of that sort and actually witnessed the=
=20
>> formation of one, in post-war Hungary, on an informal and free mutual=20
>> consent basis. The experiment survived not even one year. The interperso=
nal=20
>> difficulties multiplied exponentially with the size of the group, and th=
e=20
>> community broke up just about at the time when the first children were=
=20
>> born, amongst mutual recriminations, furious hostilities, and yearning f=
or=20
>> the warmth of the intimate family. I suppose, going back all the way to =
the=20
>> beginnings of our species in the Ice Ages and before, all Humankind was=
=20
>> once a global free-sex community and it broke up into individual family=
=20
>> units because that suited the genuine requirements of human life, and=20
>> specifically the emotional well-being of the offspring, better. It is an=
=20
>> accommodation that we must make for the sake of the next generation. I h=
ope=20
>> that we are not on the threshold of reinventing the wheel by going throu=
gh=20
>> the whole cycle once more.
>>=20
>> So, the "nucular family", if I may be permitted to use the expression of=
=20
>> our beloved President, is the societal form we are stuck with, and I do =
not=20
>> pretend that it is an institution free from problems. But the problems a=
re=20
>> manageable and smart people find out early what kind of management suits=
=20
>> their temperaments best. Now I come to the short answer to the question=
=20
>> asked in the preamble and tell you what has worked with Shirley and me,=
=20
>> during all these thirty years: it was, and still is, A SENSE OF HUMOR. W=
e=20
>> can laugh at each others' faults; occasionally, when we are really mad a=
t=20
>> each other, we impersonate two stags locking horns (I hope mine are only=
=20
>> imaginary) and push each other a few steps back and forth,=20
>> forehead-to-forehead. This way the anger subsides faster and we NEVER=20
>> (well, hardly ever) carry any ill feelings to the dinner table or to bed=
=2E=20
>> In the early days, when I was trying to characterize Shirley to my frien=
ds,=20
>> I would say, in her presence, "The trouble with Shirley is that she has =
her=20
>> own opinion on everything." When she reminisces about our first year=20
>> together, she relates an occasion when we talked about a common=20
>> acquaintance whom she characterized as a "dingbat". I was unfamiliar wit=
h=20
>> the expression and asked her to explain it. "Well, it's kind of like a=
=20
>> blind-flying bat, bumping into everything, or making a mess of everythin=
g."=20
>> Later she asked me: "What did you call that kind of a person before you=
=20
>> learned the word Dingbat?" and I said: "I never needed that word until I=
=20
>> met you."
>>=20
>> I guess some people would regard that kind of joking offensive but we=20
>> learned to enjoy, and even mutually develop, each other's humor. That is=
=20
>> what I recommend to you, Bethany and Danny, and your marriage will be=20
>> long-lasting and happy.
>>=20
>> * * * * * *
>>=20
>> Andrew L. Reeves
>> 17 February 2007
>>=20
>> --
>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Play Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain. PLAY now for FRE=
E.=A0=20
> http://zone.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=3Dflexicon_hmtagline
>
---712158972-2079211099-1173478550=:5345--