Radical Idea of Marrying for Love
Stephanie Coontz’s essay on “The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love” shows her opinion that the expectations of marriage are unrealistic based on different societies around the world in different time periods. For example in George Bernard Shaw’s theory, he believed that married was “an institution that brings together two people under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive and most transient of passions” (qtd. I’m Coontz 378). In our history all of the world marriage has been said to be a tool of survival.
Emotional love played a small part in marriage and was even sometimes discouraged. Even in today’s world love is still no seen as a necessity of marriage. Emotional happiness is the goal; however a happy marriage is defined differently throughout the world. Here recently has the emotional and sexual needs of a marriage become brightened. According to Coontz, “For most of history it was inconceivable that people would choose their mates on the basis of something as fragile and irrational as love…” (378). But, if you don’t marry for love, what is the point in marrying them at all?
There are many things that you have to factor into making the decision of actually getting married, but is love the most important? Yes. Marrying for any other reason is said to be set for an unstable relationship. If you marry someone for financial support, would you actually stay with your spouse if they became ill or maybe even fired? “Happily ever after,” is believe by the Modern Western cultures and is showed to us by media nonstop. It is also believed that a married couple should be best friend, share secrets and remain sexually faithful to each other. ”