I stumbled upon how marriage was viewed in 17th century
France (which wasn’t very different from how the
rest of the world viewed it). Back then the whole
point of marriage was for functionality. Of
course in Africa polygamy was still the order of
the day considering the Missionaries had not
come to convince us otherwise. Needless to say,
marriage then was primarily about functionality.
For men it was permissible to keep concubines,
and as for women…well women have always
been sexually and emotionally restricted. But the
point is that people married for reasons like
expanding family wealth, strengthening tribal
ties, and other such ideas. Today, no one would
admit that the wealth present in their spouse’s
life of family plays even the slightest role in our
decision to marry them. In fact, it is seen as
‘uncool’ to say you want to marry someone for
any reason besides being absolutely in love with
them. We are supposed to deny all functional
advantage of the arrangement so as not to come
off as gold diggers or luxury seekers.
Unfortunately no one has ever paid a bill with
love, and even more unfortunately, love is not
the drug we think it is. Ask any married person
and they will tell you, the high doesn’t last
forever. Instead it is cyclical in nature. It rises
and dips like an oscillation graph (see Google or
your secondary school physics textbook). When
it is at the high point (we’ve all been there), all is
rosy like paradise found its way to earth, and
then it dips are like a cold gust of wind a strange
reality dawns of you that no human can ever fill
that void of existential loneliness (forgive my big
grammar, I didn’t know what other phrase to
use). At this point the functionality of the
relationship will be put to test. This is where
someone will tell you something like ‘I know you
love me, but love won’t put our children through
school’. You get the picture.
Regardless of how much we try to deny it in the
name of political correctness or whatever term
you choose to use, there is a functional part of
relationship that cannot be filled with love and
we have to start facing up to this. Yes,
companionship is important. It is good to have
shared interests and ideas as they make for
wonderful conversation, but denying a need to
be functional in the name of love is just setting
yourself up for something bad. Though gender
roles might be blurring as we progress as a
culture, they roles still exist even if they aren’t
gender specific anymore. Take cooking for
example: a woman’s place might no longer be in
the kitchen, but someone has to cook because
the family isn’t gonna survive on solar energy. A
man’s role might have moved on from provider,
but until manna starts falling from heaven again,
somebody has to put food on the table.
You will be shocked to see the amount of people
going into marriages without the slightest clue to
how they will get through the most functional
tasks of living, only to get into domestic wars
later over whose turn it is to wash the dishes.
The fact that co-habitation is still very much
frowned upon before marriage also rules out the
opportunity to simulate what living with
someone would feel like. Sometimes it’s all
perfect from a distance and then people move in
together and all hell breaks loose.
In this age of extreme romanticism it has never
been more important to step back and look at
the more functional parts of our relationship
before we commit to something we cannot
sustain.
So next time you find yourself love stoned over a
girl/guy, ask yourself: If I actually wasn’t in love
with this person, would I be able to live with
them. If the answer is no…well…the answer is
no.
P.S Love is never enough.
Credits:www.willifmoore.com

Yes Love should be functional.

Love? No, thank you.

For me, love is absolutely enough

bukatyne:
For me, love is absolutely enough

Guess your love is functional.

andromida:


Guess your love is functional.

Yes o!

Functional, practical and romantic