What’s love got to do with it?

Over at Collectors Weekly, Hunter Oatman-Stanford offers a tonic for those craven types who continually extol the virtues of “traditional marriage” without having the foggiest idea of what they’re actually referring to.

Though the murky concept known as “love” has been recorded for all of human history, it was almost never a justification for marriage. “Love was considered a reason not to get married,” says Abbott. “It was seen as lust, as something that would dissipate. You could have love or lust for your mistress, if you’re a man, but if you’re a woman, you had to suppress it. It was condemned as a factor in marriage.”

In fact, for thousands of years, love was mostly seen as a hindrance to marriage, something that would inevitably cause problems. “Most societies have had romantic love, this combination of sexual passion, infatuation, and the romanticization of the partner,” says Coontz. “But very often, those things were seen as inappropriate when attached to marriage. The southern French aristocracy believed that true romantic love was only possible in an adulterous relationship, because marriage was a political, economic, and mercenary event. True love could only exist without it.”

This entry was posted in Scathing Social Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to What’s love got to do with it?

  1. pt dismal says:

    you know, in a way, maybe gram is responsible for the sad-ass situation of “country” music today. since he is one of the first visionaries to fuse country with rock’n’roll (along with r&b, motown, and folk, among other things), the “bad rock’n’roll” diagnosis might be traced to him. except, of course, he drew on good rock’n’roll (along with r&b, motown, folk, etc.), so he is not to blame for the lameness of these peoples’ music. but, nonetheless, he was one of the innovators that led to such fusions.

    however, that being said, the eagles are perhaps more to blame. i would bet you every one of these “country” douchebags would cite the eagles as an influence. what i also find innarestin’ (as william burroughs would say), is the content, which sucks about as much as the music. i drove up the central valley a couple of weeks ago, and what is on the radio is mexican music, christian stations, and this type of country. the novelty aspect of the lyrics in almost every country “hit” of the moment is glaring–the “i shaved my legs for this?” kinda crap. it always involves the most shallow of the country music themes, motifs, or, if i may, topoi. pick-up trucks, fishin’, and one’s dumb cousin earl.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s