The main idea that love is important in a marriage is actually recently new. The essay’s, “The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love,” by Stephanie Coontz and, Aviva Patz, author of “Will Your Marriage last,” I learned that Patz and Coontz argue throughout their studies, that love doesn’t make a strong foundation in a marriage; therefore making marriage and love not an essential part of the union, but a bonus.
Coontz claims that, “only rarely in history has love been seen as the main reason for getting married.” (Coontz 253) She states this because in many cultures love was discouraged within the marriage, too much love was considered a sin. Other’s culture develops love after they got married, that was a method many cultures use to incorporate …show more content…
Patz points out that, “lackluster marriages are not prone to divorce.” (Patz 300) Proving that love is not as important in a marriage and still survive. However, in Coontz essay she states that, “people have always fallen in love and throughout the ages, many couples have love each other deeply.”(Coontz 253) This helps us to understand that even if love was not the main purpose to get married, it was still possible to fall in love with their spouses, and have a long lasting union. Patz studies also give us examples: “Happily married were very “in love” and affectionate as newlyweds. They showed less ambivalence, expresses negative feelings less often.”(Patz 300) This indicates that love can be present, but it develops stronger with time, even when the honeymoon stage pass, the value for each other was there without all the affection …show more content…
Patz and Coontz connects that, western civilization idea of marriage for love was not always ideal. The fact that, “there is no erosion of a western-style romantic ideal.”(Patz 300) Emphasis Coonzt multiple examples of the different culture marriages, based on other that love: “In many cultures, love has been seen as a desirable outcome of marriage but not a good reason for getting married.”(Coontz 255). They both have an agreement that western civilization were not the first one to introduce love in marriages, but western civilization validated the reason to marry for
Coontz claims that, “only rarely in history has love been seen as the main reason for getting married.” (Coontz 253) She states this because in many cultures love was discouraged within the marriage, too much love was considered a sin. Other’s culture develops love after they got married, that was a method many cultures use to incorporate …show more content…
Patz points out that, “lackluster marriages are not prone to divorce.” (Patz 300) Proving that love is not as important in a marriage and still survive. However, in Coontz essay she states that, “people have always fallen in love and throughout the ages, many couples have love each other deeply.”(Coontz 253) This helps us to understand that even if love was not the main purpose to get married, it was still possible to fall in love with their spouses, and have a long lasting union. Patz studies also give us examples: “Happily married were very “in love” and affectionate as newlyweds. They showed less ambivalence, expresses negative feelings less often.”(Patz 300) This indicates that love can be present, but it develops stronger with time, even when the honeymoon stage pass, the value for each other was there without all the affection …show more content…
Patz and Coontz connects that, western civilization idea of marriage for love was not always ideal. The fact that, “there is no erosion of a western-style romantic ideal.”(Patz 300) Emphasis Coonzt multiple examples of the different culture marriages, based on other that love: “In many cultures, love has been seen as a desirable outcome of marriage but not a good reason for getting married.”(Coontz 255). They both have an agreement that western civilization were not the first one to introduce love in marriages, but western civilization validated the reason to marry for