Hi all-
I aprpeciate the thoughtful and interesting comments. I understand the analogy about moving. The emotional and assumed aspects of a relationship are important in defining it. I was not referring to a healthy companionate marriage, but to what I have sadly seen too much of- women willing to trade sexual attention to a man in return for lifestyle.
There is a terrific book called 'The Family, Sex and Marriage', which deals with social and marital behavior in England between 1600 and 1800. During this time marriage changed from a primarily social and business arrangement to a personal, companionate model. This change produced changes in behavior and expectations of spouses, as well as a significant change in the input of women regarding their marriage.
Charles and Diana represent a sad example of the changes involved. Diana expected a companionate model, where she and Charles would be lovers, friends, confidants, etc. Charles expectd a social arrangement, where Diana would be a nice face on the monarchy and the virginal producer of an heir. He was in fact in love with Camilla, and saw absolutely no reason he should abandon her just because of marriage. His forefathers had had an extensive string of mistresses which in no way interfered with their role as king; indeed, a mistress was a part of the retnue and 'image' of a monarch for centuries.
There are a couple of nice books on royal mistresses. One is called 'Sex With Kings', and looks at the issue from the point of view of the mistress. Another is 'The Oxford History of English Royalty', which detials manyof the extra-marital liaisons of the English kings, as well as the sad effect they had on the royal purse and consequently on royal power.
Money and sex seem to be intertwined in many ways, both socially acceptable and unacceptable.....
Ted
I aprpeciate the thoughtful and interesting comments. I understand the analogy about moving. The emotional and assumed aspects of a relationship are important in defining it. I was not referring to a healthy companionate marriage, but to what I have sadly seen too much of- women willing to trade sexual attention to a man in return for lifestyle.
There is a terrific book called 'The Family, Sex and Marriage', which deals with social and marital behavior in England between 1600 and 1800. During this time marriage changed from a primarily social and business arrangement to a personal, companionate model. This change produced changes in behavior and expectations of spouses, as well as a significant change in the input of women regarding their marriage.
Charles and Diana represent a sad example of the changes involved. Diana expected a companionate model, where she and Charles would be lovers, friends, confidants, etc. Charles expectd a social arrangement, where Diana would be a nice face on the monarchy and the virginal producer of an heir. He was in fact in love with Camilla, and saw absolutely no reason he should abandon her just because of marriage. His forefathers had had an extensive string of mistresses which in no way interfered with their role as king; indeed, a mistress was a part of the retnue and 'image' of a monarch for centuries.
There are a couple of nice books on royal mistresses. One is called 'Sex With Kings', and looks at the issue from the point of view of the mistress. Another is 'The Oxford History of English Royalty', which detials manyof the extra-marital liaisons of the English kings, as well as the sad effect they had on the royal purse and consequently on royal power.
Money and sex seem to be intertwined in many ways, both socially acceptable and unacceptable.....
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment