Summar of 'The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love, ' by Stephanie Coontz

All it took was one google search for marital statistics to prove me wrong. According to a 2016 publication by the ABS, marriage rates have been on a high compared to the mid and late 1900’s. The very play that made me question the future of marriage was a pioneering play of the 1950’s by Ray Lawler, Summer of the Seventeenth Doll- a tale about unconventional relationships that don’t stand the test of time.

The book has a section entitled, “Marriage is traditional” and in that particular section it mentioned about how “marriage has changed over time.” When examined current day marriage trends show that people are looking for partnership or soul mates, not for the most traditional reasons of the past. The idea that one person is supposed to be with one person for the rest of their life is no longer relevant. It is possible to have many happy years with one person, but that does not mean that these people will die together. People can have a falling out. Situations change—people do grow. If people stayed stagnant their whole lives, where would society be? With the way

Modern, contemporary society’s mindset on marriage has shifted considerably over the years. Some research has noted the increase in early sexual experiences, greater acceptance of cohabitation and the increase in narcissistic tendencies, are complicating and muddying the ideals of what marriage means to people today. Research done on this subject resulted in several studies that found that spouses who did not believe that marriage would last forever, were less likely to commit to the relationship financially and were more likely to have extramarital affairs.

Marriage is a relationship is about coming together in which two people have promised themselves being with each other. However, marriage in the United States has changed in the 1950s from what it is today. Marriage in the 1950s was different because there was no such idea of a divorce because women had to fix their marriage. (Tartakovsky). Yet, marriage that occurs today people can get a divorce in America. Marriage is better today in America than in the 1950s because of more freedom and not being pressured into marriage in society. This time period 2015 for me is more preferable to live in for marriages instead of in the 1950s. Although marriage is a union between two people, there is a

“Marriage and Love”, a short essay by Emma Goldman, gives a wonderful argument regarding love and marriage, in fact, she nails it. Marriage does not equal love or has anything nothing to do with it. Not only that, but the marriage could also easily kill whatever relationship was there prior to the declaration. Marriage is simply a social construct, one that imposes control by religion, tradition, and social opinion (Goldman 304). However, if marriage is such the ball and chain that we all joke about, then why do people get married?

Marriage unites two people for better or worse, in sickness and health, until death they do part. In earlier times, some people might say wedding vows were taken more seriously; other say divorce was different back in the day. Looking at Katie Chopin and Nathaniel Hawthorne, who both exemplify martial vows in their short stories, “The Story of an Hour” and “The Birthmark.” It is clear in one instance, it was because divorce was different but then on the other hand the stories demonstrate the seriousness of the wedding vows. However, these stories express a husband-dominated relationship, in which the men possess ideals such as possession, perfection, and being all knowing.

Marriage has changed dramatically over time in the many years it has been around. What do think Marriage was like 100 years ago? The article, “American Marriage in Transition”, describes how many different types of marriage there are and how people have changed their view on it. Andrew Cherlin (the sociologist of the article) does a great job going in depth explaining American marriage. He arranges the different marriages in three different categories; Institutionalized which was the earliest type of marriage, then Companionship around World War II, and currently we are considered Individualized.

Stephanie Coontz is a sociologist who is interested in marriage and the change in its structure over the time-span as love became a main proponent of the relationship involved in marriages. In her article, “What 's Love Got to Do With It,” Coontz argues that the more love becomes a part of the equation the less stable the institution of marriage becomes. Marriage at one point was a social contract that bound two families together to increase their property and wealth as well as ally connections. Each party entered into the contract knowing their roles and if one partner failed to meet the expectations, they were still contractually obligated to one another and were not allowed to divorce. As love became part of the equation, each partner was less sure of their obligations and often chose to end their marriages if at all possible.

Marriage has often been described as one of the most beautiful and powerful unions one human can form with another. It is the sacred commitment and devotion that two people share in a relationship that makes marriage so appealing since ancient times, up until today. To have and to hold, until death do us part, are the guarantees that two individuals make to one another as they pledge to become one in marriage. It is easy to assume that the guarantee of marriage directly places individuals in an everlasting state of love, affection, and support. However, over the years, marriage has lost its fairy

Marriage has been a heated controversy for the past few years because people often marry for the wrong reasons. Anyone who thinks of an ideal marriage would think of two people loving each other and sharing a personal bond or goals together. Marriage is regularly defined as the legally or formally recognized union of two lovers as partners in a personal relationship. This definition remarks there is an actual connection between two people in marriage, but do people actually consider this when committing to “love” and “support” their partners forever? As research and studies have shown, people ultimately get married for many reasons, except love. This philosophy can be easily applied to the short poem, “Marriage” by Gregory Corso. In this emotional poem, the author argues marriage is more effectively understood or known for culture and convenience rather than through the abstract considerations of love. Here, we can identify people generally decide to marry for the incorrect reasons, for instance the story of the author himself. Corso finds himself confused multiple times, wondering if he should marry to not be lonely, for tradition and for his physical and mental health. He disregards love, a relationship or a connection with his future wife. General ways of convenience like loneliness, health and economic status between cultural stereotypes and religion are usually the true reasons of why people chose to have the commitment of marriage with another person.

When we are young we play house and we play doctor, we pretend we are husbands and wives to the kids we play with. Marriage is imbedded into our minds at a young age and we value marriage as we get older. We see examples of marriages through personal experience, the TV, and through the media, but how much has marriage changed now compared to the 1950’s? The idea of marriage has been altered and improved since the 1950’s because of feminism, views about individualism, and views of same-sex marriage.

The stark divide between love and marriage shown right the way through cannot be comprehended fully by the twenty-first century reader: in today’s society marriage and love are mutually exclusive - you very rarely get one

Was anyone aware that forty to fifty percent or more of marriages will end in divorce (“Marriage and Divorce”)? It could be said that one of the largest contributing factors to that is how everyone does not really know what marriage is anymore. The entire Western Civilization is spending so much time trying to figure out what marriage means. They are letting their own marriages crumble. Is a marriage made to be between a man and a woman, or does a marriage really boil down to some form of gender roles? One way to try and decipher this mystery would be to look for the definition of the word itself. Marriage

It is because of Coontz that we know that different family lifestyles have been present in human culture from the beginning of time and persist into the present day. Although it has been established that the “traditional” family does not actually exist, there are certain trends that are expected when it comes to current relationships and marriages. The trends reflect a culture that has continued without much change until just recently. For example, the women in relationships are constantly being undervalued and this has caused continuous inequality between genders. It is because of this that there is evidence to support the idea that the institution of marriage stems from a disparity amongst genders regarding overall satisfaction, as well as provides support for the growing selfishness that is present in society. As Americans continue to produce the newest forms of technology, political and economic ideas have begun to shift, as well. Because of the differences in opinions, norms that were once die-hard trends are simply afterthoughts when it comes to entering a relationship. The changes that are constantly being made drag along with it a new school of thought and redefine the institutions of marriage and serious relationships as we know them.

Throughout the last half of the century, our society has watched the divorce rate of married couples skyrocket to numbers previously not seen. Although their has been a slight decline in divorce rates, “half of first marriages still were expected to dissolve before death.” (Stacy, 15, 1991) Whatever happened to that meaningful exchange of words, “until death do us part,” uttered by the bride and groom to each other on their wedding day? What could have been the cause of such inflated divorce rates? Perhaps young married couples are not mature enough to be engaged in such a trremendous responsibility, or, maybe, the couples really do not know each other as well as they thought. Possibly, they have been blinded by infatuation rather than by