I thought this was interesting. On love and marriage:

>From the new york times Op-Ed, Nove 06:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

November 7, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Too Close for Comfort
By STEPHANIE COONTZ

Olympia, Wash.

EVER since the Census Bureau released figures last month showing that
married-couple households are now a minority, my phone has been
ringing off the hook with calls from people asking: "How can we save
marriage? How can we make Americans understand that marriage is the
most significant emotional connection they will ever make, the one
place to find social support and personal fulfillment?"

I think these are the wrong questions — indeed, such questions would
have been almost unimaginable through most of history. It has only
been in the last century that Americans have put all their emotional
eggs in the basket of coupled love. Because of this change, many of us
have found joys in marriage our great-great-grandparents never did.
But we have also neglected our other relationships, placing too many
burdens on a fragile institution and making social life poorer in the
process.

A study released this year showed just how dependent we've become on
marriage. Three sociologists at the University of Arizona and Duke
University found that from 1985 to 2004 Americans reported a marked
decline in the number of people with whom they discussed meaningful
matters. People reported fewer close relationships with co-workers,
extended family members, neighbors and friends. The only close
relationship where more people said they discussed important matters
in 2004 than in 1985 was marriage.

In fact, the number of people who depended totally on a spouse for
important conversations, with no other person to turn to, almost
doubled, to 9.4 percent from 5 percent. Not surprisingly, the number
of people saying they didn't have anyone in whom they confided nearly
tripled.

The solution to this isolation is not to ramp up our emotional
dependence on marriage. Until 100 years ago, most societies agreed
that it was dangerously antisocial, even pathologically self-absorbed,
to elevate marital affection and nuclear-family ties above commitments
to neighbors, extended kin, civic duty and religion.

St. Paul complained that married men were more concerned with pleasing
their wives than pleasing God. In John Adams's view, a "passion for
the public good" was "superior to all private passions." In both
England and America, moralists bewailed "excessive" married love,
which encouraged "men and women to be always taken up with each
other."

>From medieval days until the early 19th century, diaries and letters
more often used the word love to refer to neighbors, cousins and
fellow church members than to spouses. When honeymoons first gained
favor in the 19th century, couples often took along relatives or
friends for company. Victorian novels and diaries were as passionate
about brother-sister relationships and same-sex friendships as about
marital ties.

The Victorian refusal to acknowledge strong sexual desires among
respectable men and women gave people a wider outlet for intense
emotions, including physical touch, than we see today. Men wrote
matter-of-factly about retiring to bed with a male roommate, "and in
each other's arms did friendship sink peacefully to sleep." Upright
Victorian matrons thought nothing of kicking their husbands out of bed
when a female friend came to visit. They spent the night kissing,
hugging and pouring out their innermost thoughts.

By the early 20th century, though, the sea change in the culture
wrought by the industrial economy had loosened social obligations to
neighbors and kin, giving rise to the idea that individuals could meet
their deepest needs only through romantic love, culminating in
marriage. Under the influence of Freudianism, society began to view
intense same-sex ties with suspicion and people were urged to reject
the emotional claims of friends and relatives who might compete with a
spouse for time and affection.

The insistence that marriage and parenthood could satisfy all an
individual's needs reached a peak in the cult of "togetherness" among
middle-class suburban Americans in the 1950s. Women were told that
marriage and motherhood offered them complete fulfillment. Men were
encouraged to let their wives take care of their social lives.

But many men and women found these prescriptions stifling. Women who
entered the work force in the 1960s joyfully rediscovered social
contacts and friendships outside the home.

"It was so stimulating to have real conversations with other people,"
a woman who lived through this period told me, "to go out after work
with friends from the office or to have people over other than my
husband's boss or our parents."

And women's lead in overturning the cult of 1950s marriage inspired
many men to rediscover what earlier generations of men had taken for
granted — that men need deep emotional connections with other men, not
just their wives. Researchers soon found that men and women with
confidants beyond the nuclear family were mentally and physically
healthier than people who relied on just one other individual for
emotional intimacy and support.

So why do we seem to be slipping back in this regard? It is not
because most people have voluntarily embraced nuclear-family
isolation. Indeed, the spread of "virtual" communities on the Internet
speaks to a deep hunger to reach out to others.

Instead, it's the expansion of the post-industrial economy that seems
to be driving us back to a new dependence on marriage. According to
the researchers Kathleen Gerson and Jerry Jacobs, 60 percent of
American married couples have both partners in the work force, up from
36 percent in 1970, and the average two-earner couple now works 82
hours a week.

This is probably why the time Americans spend socializing with others
off the job has declined by almost 25 percent since 1965. Their free
hours are spent with spouses, and as a study by Suzanne Bianchi of the
University of Maryland released last month showed, with their children
— mothers and fathers today spend even more time with their youngsters
than parents did 40 years ago.

As Americans lose the wider face-to-face ties that build social trust,
they become more dependent on romantic relationships for intimacy and
deep communication, and more vulnerable to isolation if a relationship
breaks down. In some cases we even cause the breakdown by loading the
relationship with too many expectations. Marriage is generally based
on more equality and deeper friendship than in the past, but even so,
it is hard for it to compensate for the way that work has devoured
time once spent cultivating friendships.

The solution is not to revive the failed marital experiment of the
1950s, as so many commentators noting the decline in married-couple
households seem to want. Nor is it to lower our expectations that
we'll find fulfillment and friendship in marriage.

Instead, we should raise our expectations for, and commitment to,
other relationships, especially since so many people now live so much
of their lives outside marriage. Paradoxically, we can strengthen our
marriages the most by not expecting them to be our sole refuge from
the pressures of the modern work force. Instead we need to restructure
both work and social life so we can reach out and build ties with
others, including people who are single or divorced. That indeed would
be a return to marital tradition — not the 1950s model, but the
pre-20th-century model that has a much more enduring pedi- gree.

Stephanie Coontz, a history professor at Evergreen State College, is
the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage."