[varvar]

Let's see if this comment is still too real for the current beliefs.

It's ok people. Mandatory romantic love is a few decades old social convention. Before that it still existed and it was optional, and it was understood that people appraise one another more on ego level, and materially first. You could have marriage and children with or without romantic love. It was an extra some people had the luck to have.

We still do these things automatically, but unfortunately in secret. Before that it was done openly.

[lytefm]

> Mandatory romantic love is a few decades old social convention. [...] You could have marriage and children with or without romantic love. It was an extra some people had the luck to have.

I'd even say that the „mandatory romantic love” might do more harm than good for quite a few people. Women fall in love with abuse/violent men and stay together with them because they let their feelings decide. Loverboy ploys. Catfishing and other scams. Losing a fortune in a divorce after a rushed marriage.

If falling in love was seen seen as an optional bonus for an already healthy relationship instead of the current „all you need is love”/ Disney - ideal, a lot of harm would be prevented. After all, it's just a biochemical reaction to ensure that genes are passed on. Romeo and Juliet was supposed to be a book about the perils of romantic love, not about idealising it.