The Love Sick Society
English 1A
4/07/12
The Love Sick Marriage
When we talk about marriage in this time period, we always expect there to be a sense of love behind this status, for the most part. However, where did this concept of “love” come from? Marriage in the past was very rarely associated with love. Love was seen as detrimental to the concept of marriage. In fact, in Ancient China, love was seen as “disruptive” and an act of being “antisocial” (Coontz 378). So the question we ask ourselves is, where did this idea of love in marriage come from? Why did it happen? How did this change marriage? Stephanie Coontz seemed to challenge a lot of these questions. The idea of love is a very crazy idea when in terms of marriage, however as time pressed forward throughout history, this idea seemed to have created this whole new “love match” as a revolutionary idea to bring people together. But was it always like this? Where did it start? Before we dive into history of the love match, let us answer what truly is a love match marriage.
What is this “love match?” This whole concept of love match is about this extraordinary concept about marrying for love. “Love” as in when a person cares or has feelings for that “special person.” This idea is actually new compared to other models of marriage. This whole new concept of marriage, known as the “Love Match,” completely turned the institution of marriage on its head. Is this type of marriage actually working? Can we compare it to other models of marriage?
All models of marriages have their flaws and perfections. There have been an astounding amount of different models of marriages but the love one never seemed to catch on, at first. Let’s look at these some of these different types. One of the most common types of marriage was the marriage for an economical join of family. This model of marriage dates back to ancient history. We have the Chinese who would marry to join two wealthy families to create a better income for both families. We also
4/07/12
The Love Sick Marriage
When we talk about marriage in this time period, we always expect there to be a sense of love behind this status, for the most part. However, where did this concept of “love” come from? Marriage in the past was very rarely associated with love. Love was seen as detrimental to the concept of marriage. In fact, in Ancient China, love was seen as “disruptive” and an act of being “antisocial” (Coontz 378). So the question we ask ourselves is, where did this idea of love in marriage come from? Why did it happen? How did this change marriage? Stephanie Coontz seemed to challenge a lot of these questions. The idea of love is a very crazy idea when in terms of marriage, however as time pressed forward throughout history, this idea seemed to have created this whole new “love match” as a revolutionary idea to bring people together. But was it always like this? Where did it start? Before we dive into history of the love match, let us answer what truly is a love match marriage.
What is this “love match?” This whole concept of love match is about this extraordinary concept about marrying for love. “Love” as in when a person cares or has feelings for that “special person.” This idea is actually new compared to other models of marriage. This whole new concept of marriage, known as the “Love Match,” completely turned the institution of marriage on its head. Is this type of marriage actually working? Can we compare it to other models of marriage?
All models of marriages have their flaws and perfections. There have been an astounding amount of different models of marriages but the love one never seemed to catch on, at first. Let’s look at these some of these different types. One of the most common types of marriage was the marriage for an economical join of family. This model of marriage dates back to ancient history. We have the Chinese who would marry to join two wealthy families to create a better income for both families. We also
Cited: Behrens, Laurence and Leonard J. Rosen, eds. Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 10th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Print Coontz, Stephanie “The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love” Behrens and Rosen 378 -388 Edelman, Hope “The Myth of Co-parenting: How It Was Supposed to Be. How It Is.” Behrens and Rosen 429-435 Popenoe, David and Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe “The State of Our Union” Behrens and Rosen 390-402