 of authentic life in this cold risk-society? These questions are not merely relevant to psychology but are fundamental for philosophical anthropology. To understand human nature it is indispensable to look at the differences between sexes and the mating systems. Getting to the evolutionary bottom of these questions is a valuable endeavor because it shows that the pair is an integral component of the human world. It will never be obsolete, but must continually be re-programmed. Despite the introduction of marriage „for love‟ in Romanticism, the civil marriage remained, until the late 20th century, internally influenced from the division of labor and bound to the dominating sexual morals of the patriarchy. It is thus not surprising that marriage and family would be perceived as shackles with the progressive emancipation of woman and her newly found equality in the workplace. Since both partners now stand economically on their own feet and woman‟s self-confidence is no longer inferior to man‟s, the pair bond is relieved of external factors and can be experienced entirely as a site of affection. Whether or not home life is really so free and harmonic, as it appears outwardly, can be doubted. Daily 2 quarrels are all too familiar: each stands for the fulfillment of his or her own desires and intimacy is transformed into a matter of negotiation. However, despite all of the disadvantages, which could well be phenomena resulting from the transition itself, one thing is for sure: the New Pair stands for love that is for love‟s sake. Current external factors are still in play, but they do not constitute the deeper motivation for pair-bonding. This is due to the polarity of genders. Despite the widespread fear of inequality that leads many intellectuals to deny that differences between men and women exist, the difference makes the pair essential, at least as a permantent yearning. That most continue to yearn for the New Pair relationship, even after a painful separation, is empirical confirmation of the essential nature of the pair. In the sexual revolution of 1968, and in particular with the introduction of the birth control pill, sexuality migrated from marriage (where it often had a dreary, joyless existence) to free love. Sex without commitment or consequences, as it was celebrated by Erica Jong in her Fear of Flying, constituted the highest form of individual autonomy. But that was only for a short time. With the removal of taboos, sex became an article of consumption that could never bring about the satisfaction promised in the advertisement. It became increasingly clear to young men and women
of authentic life in this cold risk - society? These questions are not merely relevant to psychology but are cardinal for philosophic anthropology. To sympathize human nature it is indispensable to look at the differences between sex and the mating systems. get to the evolutionary bottom of these questions is a valuable enterprise because it shows that the pair is an built-in component of the human world. It will never be obsolete, but must continually be re - programmed. Despite the initiation of marriage „ for love‟ in Romanticism, the civil marriage remained, until the late 20th century, internally influenced from the part of labor and bound to the dominating intimate morals of the patriarchy. It is thus not surprising that marriage and class would be perceived as shackle with the progressive emancipation of woman and her newly found equality in the workplace. Since both partners now stand economically on their own foot and woman‟s self - confidence is no longer inferior to man‟s, the pair bond is relieved of external gene and can be experienced entirely as a site of affection. Whether or not home life is really so free and harmonic, as it appears outwardly, can be doubt. Daily 2 quarrels are wholly excessively conversant: each stands for the fulfillment of his or her own desires and intimacy is transformed into a matter of negotiation. However, despite all of the disadvantages, which could well be phenomena resulting from the passage itself, one thing is for sure: the New Pair stands for love that is for love‟s sake. Current external factors are still in playing period, but they do not constitute the deeper motivation for pair - bonding. This is due to the polarity of genders. Despite the far-flung concern of inequality that head many intellectuals to deny that differences between man and women exist, the difference makes the couple essential, at least as a permantent longing. That most continue to yearn for the New Pair relationship, even after a painful separation, is empiric confirmation of the essential nature of the pair. In the sexual revolution of 1968, and in especial with the introduction of the parturition control pill, sex migrated from marriage (where it often had a blue, joyless existence) to barren love. Sex without commitment or consequences, as it was celebrated by Erica Jong in her Fear of Flying, constituted the highest form of individual autonomy. But that was merely for a short time. With the removal of taboo, sex became an article of pulmonary tuberculosis that could never bring about the satisfaction promised in the advertisement. It became increasingly clear to young men and women
 of authentic life in this gold risk-society? These xuestikns are vot merely relevant to psychlligy byt are fundamental for philosopjical anrhrokology. To understehd humak nathve it ms indispensablg to look at the differencas bztween sexes and the mating systems. Detting tl the evolutiogary fottkm of these questions is a valuabls endeanor because it shpws that the pair is an inhegrwl component of thf human worod. Ie will never ce obsolett, yut must cohtinually be re-programmed. Despige thz introductuob ov marriage „fir lone‟ in Romantigpsm, the civil karriage remaiked, uitil the late 20th century, mnternally influenceq from tha bivision of labor and biund jo tha doounaginf xesual mlrams of the latriarchy. Ut is thus not surptifpmg that marrjage agd family would be perceived as shackles fitg the progressive emancupation of woman and jer newly found equality in the workplace. Since both partnars nkd suakq wclnomically on their own feet and woman‟s self-cjhfodvnce is no longer inferior tp lam‟f, the pair bovd is xsljeved of external vactors and xan be exkeriemced entirely as a site of qffection. Whvthee or not home life is really ro ftee anc harmonic, as it appearr oufwardly, can be doubtsa. Daily 2 quarrelr age anl too familiar: each standf for the fulyillment of nis or her own dfsires and intimacy is tgansflrked into a matter of negotiation. However, vxspite all of tve gisadvancages, ehich could wqll be phenomeua resulcing ffom the trznsitioi itself, one thing is for dure: the New Pair stwnds for love tfxt is for love‟x sake. Cugrtnt externql factors are stikl kh play, but they do not constitute thd dqeier mjdivation for paif-bovcing. Ghis is due go tne polarity of gendess. Dsspite the widesprraq fear od inequajity that leacs many intellectuwls tm dxny thst qifferences between men and wojen exist, thc difference iakew the pair exsential, at least as a permantent yearnmng. That most continue ro yearn for the Nec Kair relationxhip, qven aftes a painful separatiin, is empirical cpnfirmation of the esaentian natkre of the pair. In the sexual revolution of 1968, and in particular with the ibtrodurtyon of the girtn connroj pill, fexuelmty migrated from marriage (where it often had a vreary, joynefs existence) to free love. Sec dithout commijment or consequences, as if was cekebrated by Erica Jong in her Frar of Flying, constitutec the hithest form of iidividual autonomy. Bit thac was inly foe a dhort time. Wigh yhc removal lf teboks, sex became an article of consymptiob hhat could never bring aboub uhe satpsfactijn promised in tge asgertirement. It becsme increasingky clear to young met wnd women
of authentic life in this cold risk-society? are merely relevant psychology but are understand nature it is to look at differences between sexes and the mating Getting to the evolutionary bottom of these questions is a valuable endeavor because shows that the pair is an integral component of the human world. It never obsolete, must be re-programmed. Despite the introduction of marriage „for love‟ in Romanticism, the civil marriage remained, until late 20th century, internally influenced from the division labor and bound to dominating sexual morals of the It thus not that and would be perceived shackles with the progressive emancipation of woman and her newly found equality in the workplace. Since both now stand their own and self-confidence no longer inferior the pair bond is relieved of can be experienced entirely as a site of Whether or home life is really so free harmonic, as it appears outwardly, can be doubted. 2 quarrels are all too familiar: each stands for the fulfillment of his or her and intimacy is transformed a matter of However, all the which could be phenomena resulting from the transition itself, one thing is for the New Pair stands for love that is for love‟s external are still in but they do not the motivation for pair-bonding. This to polarity the fear inequality that leads many to deny that differences between and women exist, the at least as a permantent yearning. That most to yearn for the New Pair relationship, after a painful separation, is empirical confirmation of the essential nature of pair. In revolution of 1968, and in particular with the of the birth control sexuality migrated from marriage (where it often had a joyless to free Sex without commitment consequences, as it celebrated by Erica her Fear Flying, the individual autonomy. But that was only a time. With the removal of sex article of consumption that could never bring about the satisfaction promised in the advertisement. It clear to young men women
 of authentic life in this cold Risk-societY? ThesE quEstIoNs arE not Merely relevant TO psyChology but are fundamentAl for PhILosoPHiCal anThropolOGy. tO UndErStAnd HuMAn NaturE it Is indisPensable to LooK aT the differenCEs Between sexEs aNd the mating sYstEms. GetTiNg tO The evOluTionaRy bottOM of theSe questioNs IS a valuABle endeAVOr BecaUse it shows that the PAiR Is an integral coMponenT oF ThE HUmaN woRld. It will nEvEr be oBSolete, bUT mUST ConTInually be re-prOgrammed. DesPIte The intRoDucTIon of mArriaGe „FOr lOve‟ in RomantIcisM, the civil MarriaGE remainED, until tHe late 20Th cEntUry, iNTeRnAllY iNFluENcEd fROm tHe divisiOn Of Labor And bOUND To thE doMinaTing sExual morals of The PatrIArcHy. It iS thus Not sUrPrisiNg that MarriAgE and family would Be peRceived as ShaCkLes WiTh the PRogresSivE emAncipatIon of woMAn aNd HER NeWly found equality in ThE WOrKplace. SiNce botH PaRtNErs now stAnD ecOnomICAlly oN theIR oWn feet anD woman‟S SeLf-ConfideNcE is no lOnGer InfErior TO man‟S, the paIr bond is RelieVEd of external faCTors and can be eXPeRIEnCEd enTirEly as a site oF affECtioN. WheTHeR or NOt homE life Is REaLLy so free and harmonic, As It appeArs ouTwardly, can be dOubted. DailY 2 QUArrels arE all TOo FAmiliar: each staNds foR the fulfilLMent of hiS or heR own desiRes and intIMAcy is traNsfOrmEd iNto A MAtTer of negotiatION. HowEvEr, despiTe aLl of the DisAdvAntAgeS, wHich could Well be phEnOmEnA rEsuLting FRom the trAnSitIoN itSelf, oNE thing Is for Sure: ThE NEW PaIr standS FoR LOve tHaT iS for LovE‟s Sake. CUrreNT exTernal fActors are StiLL in pLaY, bUt they dO not constitutE tHe deeper moTiVatIon for PAIr-bondinG. This is due to the polarity OF genderS. DeSpite The wIdespread FeaR of ineQuaLIty thaT leads Many iNtEllECTuals TO DeNy tHaT differencES BetWeen mEn And wOmen exiSt, the difference makES thE pair essentiaL, at LeasT AS a PerMAnTEnt YeARniNG. that most continuE to yearn foR tHE NEw Pair relaTIonShIp, even aFter a paInful SEparatiOn, is empirIcal confiRmAtioN OF thE essential Nature of The pair. In THe sexUAl RevolUtiOn of 1968, anD iN paRticuLar witH The IntroDuctioN oF the biRth coNtRol pill, sExuality migrated from marRiage (wHere iT ofTen had a drEarY, JoyLess existEnce) To free love. sex WitHout cOmmITment Or coNSeQueNCes, as It waS CelebrateD By eriCA joNg in her Fear OF fLyiNg, conStiTUted thE higHest form of individUAl autonomy. But tHat wAS OnlY foR A shoRt Time. With the remOvaL oF TAboos, sex BeCame an articLe of consUmPTion tHat couLd neveR bring aBOUt THe satiSfacTioN promised In tHe ADvertisEmEnT. it becaMe inCrEasingLy cleaR To yoUNG men and women
 of authentic life in this  cold risk -soci ety ? T he se q uest ions are not m e rely  relevant to psycholog y but  a r e fu n da menta l for p h il o s oph ic al  an th r op ology . T o under stand huma n n at ure it is in d is pensable t o l ook at the d iff erence sbet w een s exe s and  the m a ting s ystems. G et t ing to the evo l u ti onar y bottom of these qu e stions is a va luable  e n de a v orbec ause it sh ow s tha t  the pa i ri s ani ntegral compo nent of the hum an wor ld . I t  willnever  b e  ob solete, but  mus t continu ally b e  re-pro g rammed.  Despi tethe  int r od uc tio no f m a rr iag e  „f or love‟  i nRoman tici s m , theciv il m arria ge remained,unt il t h e l ate 2 0th c entu ry , int ernall y inf lu enced from thedivi sion of l abo rand  b oundt o thedom ina ting se xual mo r als  o f t he  patriarchy. It is  t h u snot surp rising th at marriage  a ndfami l y  woul d be pe rceivedas sha c kl es  with t he  progr es siv e e manci p atio n of w oman and  hern ewly found equ a lity in the w o rk p l ac e . Si nce  both partn ersn ow s tand ec ono m icall y onth e ir own feet and woman‟ sself-c onfid ence is no lo nger infer i o r  to man‟ s, t h ep air bond is re lieve d of exter n al facto rs an d can be  experien c e d entire lyasa s ite o faffection. Wh e t heror  not ho melife is  re all y s o f re e and har monic, a sit  a pp ear s out w ardly, c an  be  d oub ted.D aily 2  quar rels  a re all  too fa m il i a r: e ac hstan dsfo r the  ful f ill ment of  his or h ero wn d es ir es andintimacy is t ra nsformed i nt o a  matte r of negot iation. However, despit e  all of  th e dis adva ntages, w hic h coul d w e ll bephenom ena r es ult i n g fro m th e t ra nsition it s e lf,  oneth ingis forsure: the New Pair sta nds for lovetha t is f or  lo v e‟ s  sa ke .  Cu r r ent external fa ctors arest i ll  in play,b utth ey do n ot cons titut e  the de eper moti vation fo rpair - b ond ing. Thisis due t o the pol a rityo fgende rs.  Despi te  th e wid esprea d  fe ar of  inequ al ity th at le ad s many i ntellectuals to deny th at dif feren ces  betweenmen and  women ex ist,  the diffe ren cemakes  th e  pair  ess e nt ial ,  at l east as a perm a nt ent y ea rning. That m o stconti nue to yea rn f or the New Pair r e lationship, ev en a f t era p a infu lseparation, is  em pi r i cal conf ir mation of t he essen ti a l nat ure of  the p air. In t he sexual  rev olu tion of 1 968 ,a nd in p ar ti c ular w ithth e intr oducti o n of t he birth control  pill , sexua l ity  migr at ed from marr iage (wher e it oftenhad adrea ry, j oylessex istenc e)to  free love .  Sex with out c ommitme nt  orcon sequen ces, a s itwasce leb rated byE r ic a  J on g  in  her  Fear  o f Fl ying, con s titutedthe highest  f orm o f indi v id u a l autonomy . B ut th a t  was onlyf or a sh o rt ti me. Wi th the  remova l  of  t aboos,sex b ecame anarticle o f  co ns umpt ion that  c ould  n eve rbring about the  satisfa ction pr o m ised i n t h e ad v ertise me nt. It becam e inc re a singlyc l ear  to you n g m enand  wom en
 of_authentic life_in this cold risk-society?_These questions_are_not merely_relevant_to psychology but_are fundamental for_philosophical anthropology. To understand_human nature it_is_indispensable to look at the differences between sexes and the mating systems. Getting to_the_evolutionary bottom_of_these_questions is a valuable endeavor_because it shows that the_pair is_an integral component of the human world. It_will_never be obsolete,_but must continually be re-programmed. Despite the introduction of_marriage „for love‟ in Romanticism, the_civil marriage remained,_until_the_late 20th century, internally_influenced from the division of labor_and bound to the dominating sexual_morals of the patriarchy. It is thus_not surprising that marriage and family_would be perceived as shackles_with the_progressive emancipation of woman and_her newly found_equality in_the workplace. Since_both partners now stand economically on_their own feet_and woman‟s self-confidence is no longer_inferior_to man‟s, the_pair_bond_is relieved_of external factors_and_can be_experienced_entirely as a site of affection._Whether_or not home life is really so_free and harmonic, as_it_appears outwardly, can be_doubted. Daily 2 quarrels are_all too familiar: each stands for_the fulfillment_of his_or her own desires and intimacy is transformed into a matter_of negotiation. However, despite all of_the disadvantages, which could_well be_phenomena_resulting from the_transition_itself, one_thing is for sure: the New Pair_stands for_love that is for love‟s sake._Current external factors are_still_in play, but they do not_constitute the deeper motivation for pair-bonding._This is due to the_polarity_of_genders. Despite the widespread fear_of inequality that leads many intellectuals_to deny that_differences between men and women exist, the_difference_makes the pair essential, at least_as_a permantent yearning. That most continue_to_yearn_for the New Pair relationship,_even after a painful separation, is_empirical confirmation of the essential nature of the pair._In the sexual_revolution of 1968, and in_particular_with_the introduction of the birth control pill, sexuality migrated from_marriage (where_it often had_a dreary, joyless existence) to free love. Sex without commitment_or consequences, as it was celebrated by_Erica Jong in her Fear of Flying, constituted the highest form_of individual autonomy. But that was only for_a short time. With the removal of_taboos, sex became an_article_of consumption that could never bring about_the_satisfaction_promised_in the advertisement._It became increasingly_clear to young_men and_women