Yabby
Of course it is complex chemistry. Everything about the human animal is of the natural world. That does not diminish the fact 'magic' might be experienced regardless of the origin.

One is cause the other is effect.

'What about the men who are seeking a wife who would like to stay at home and raise the kids. '

Yeah pelican that's standard fare. Ask any feminist why women are enslaved in the kitchen and it's all the nasty men and their societal expectations. I like to throw the other side of the coin out there.

It's a very little known or acknowledged fact that women make half the decisions that make up societal expectations. I like to balance out the zeitgeist by reminding everyone of that. I don't feel I need to reinforce the feminist side of things where all women are victims of 'men's attitude to women'.

PS: That man shortage complaint is real. There are many women in their early 30s and beyond, looking for a man who earns more than them. But those guys are having fun dating hot mid 20s old chicks.

Houellie,

"Zeitgeist" would have to be one of my all time favourite words - and all the characteristics of our time and society would suggest that we've complicated the gender specifics for ourselves to a great extent.

This is the result of a mechanised and digitised society where we have the luxury of blurring the lines of expectation.

All that time saved from doing menial work is now spent squabbling over which gender has the "right" to do what....great fun!

That reminds me of antiseptic Poirot. He always reckoned that we are a world depression or a global natural catastrophe away from traditional gender roles; All the office jobs and gender politics would be rejected for the pragmatism of muscles and wombs.

"so in that case, what grandma does is of vital importance"

Yes that's right in fact in one theory of what grandma does explains the evolution of menopause in women. As a woman ages, the chances increase that she or her child will not survive childbirth; and the chance increases that her own daughter will have reached child-bearing age.

Once it gets to the stage where the risk to a woman's reproductive success from "investing" in her own child is twice that of investing the same amount of energy in her daughter's child, natural selection will tend to favour the evolution of menopause, or so the theory goes.

The sheer ridiculosity of women romance victims denying that women in general are attracted to men on the basis of wealth, status, and power just defies belief. "What about the men attracted to women on the basis of the women's wealth, status and power?" is their reflexive idiotic response. If you would just actually think about the topic for a minute, and stop spouting your meaningless ideology, you might learn something about the real world.

"That man shortage complaint is real. There are many women in their early 30s and beyond, looking for a man who earns more than them. But those guys are having fun dating hot mid 20s old chicks."

Well I don't envy those rich guys Houlley, if they are limiting their relationship purely within the pool of materialism for their sexual encounters. They might not find too many mentally stimulating or loving relationships, but they might. It is possible that money is attractive to some women but it does not hold that rich men just by virtue of their money are not lovable. I reckon most men and women are smart enough to know money does not buy happiness even if it gives you a good time along the way.

But maybe they don't want mentally stimulating relationships or love, and are happy with the trophy wife or trophy husband. If that works for them there is no reason to diminish it compared to any other relationship. It is not for everyone, most people legitimately want more from a relationship.

Peter Hume
You interpret relationships within the same narrow confines as your economics. Love and romance is natural, and if it exists it must sit somewhere within that cold hearted analysis you continually spout. Writing in aggressive, red-faced and accusatory tones (you can almost see the spit) adds nothing to your argument.

SOME men and women (there are two genders) might marry for money but it is not the norm. You paint it as the only impetus for two people coming together. It is stuff and nonsense and denies the existence of human chemistry, love and the emphasis on values and principles.

Security in relationships/marriage is not just about financial security within which to raise children but includes values around fidelity, loyalty and shared principles/interests/moral values etc.

To define marraige purely within the confines of limited RW economic theory is to deny the nature of man in all its complexities and variations.