In order to add a bit of drive to my site discussion I would offer to discuss the interrelation of friendship and romance. Once being at Israel Forum I had been told that it’s an eternal question and to discuss it we would need establishing separate new forum...

Well, new forum establishing would be too much for me, anyway I would like to present the ideas I came across after having summed up many discussions around. Certainly it’s just my IMHO, I would be very happy to learn your opinion.

So I shall start. Many posts at Internet forums, many TV shows discussing these subject are currently showing new step of the society evolution, «paradigm change» let’s say. But I can hardly express it without recalling many behavioural and historical facts, anyway that would be hard.

In 60-s the contraception method’s development lead to «sexual revolution». Indeed it was regarded cool and more appealing «to make love, no war». Up to «sexual revolution» of 60-s any young person hardly had a choice. After all in case any relation could bring born a baby there was no freedom of choice. Especially for females - the future child would depend on her and she would have to carry out all the difficulties of being pregnant and of giving birth to one. Certainly males were less dependant, but the female dependence affected them too. That was one of main reasons to get family. That feeling of hormone starving used to be called love that time. Nobody would doubt, that was very strong feeling. However it passes over soon (in maximum 1 year). But a marriage formed under its influence (or even more, the children) could not be repealed or cancelled. So people had to keep on living together. (Certainly here is the very place to bring another branch, strongly bifurcated one, toward many aspects of state policy etc. Recently A very interesting documentary was broadcast «sex during the «Cold war» times. It was very interesting, bet let’s «revenons a nos moutons»...)

So that time Love was the name of this first hormone starving. Many social barriers existed against its meeting, it called «love» (to add more significance it was pronounced «Lllove»), though it was nothing more than absolutely normal hormones-related amorousness. When I was a school kid everybody new lines of famous Russian poet Lermontov: « What is the sense of loving someone if it would pass away? But there is no eternal love». It seemed rather reasonable, indeed what is a sense?

However Lermontov died young, he was only 28. That might have been 6the youth maximalism...

 So after sexual revolution, as many barriers were broken, that feeling which was nothing more but amorousness, romancing somebody got called «Love», and love is saint thing, nobody can touch... that’s why that ridiculous it is when some pop-diva are speaking about «the eternal feeling of love». That’s nothing more but sexual addiction.

However by now society arrangement let one to have as much sex as it can. I think the time has come to understand the friendship as steadier base for marriage. However to start romancing someone amorousness is to be unavoidable. It can be corrected by reason, but it’s unavoidable.

 So all this long speech had come to the same, «basic instinct» but at other level of understanding. So all this is  a bit mixed over here - but I just intend to think  that love, amorousness, could be hardly regard as a main reason for marriage. one is free in being in love with somebody, but living together would need other feelings

The point I’d like to develop here is that steady «long-term» marriage can’t be based on this «hormone starving», since it is too flexible. Lucky are those who were able to develop on it some common-minding. Though it needs efforts, it’s not so natural. Those who failed in developing it would leave each other soon. And that’s why everybody is speaking now about «family ideals breakdown». It’s breakdown by no means, but it’s a paradigm change and I can’t tell where it’d lead to. Well, after all there are too many social embellishments over it!

Your ideas would be welcome