First Fact: Somewhere in the evolution of plankton and Bon Jovi, apes developed the capacity to be emotionally attached. The emotional bond would later be referred to as “love,” and change would eventually produce many artists who hail from New Jersey who would make millions by singing cheesy songs about the subject.
Second Fact: Humans developed the ability to bond to one another–that is, the capacity to love each other, as it was necessary to endure. This isn’t romantic or sexually attractive, but it’s the truth.
We didn’t create huge fangs, massive claws, or gorilla strength. That is wild. Instead, we developed the capacity to connect emotionally to families and communities where we grew to work together. These families and communities proved more efficient than any claw or fang. Humanity was soon the dominant species on Earth.
Third Fact: Humans naturally develop love and loyalty for those who display the most significant loyalty and affection. It’s what love is: an inexplicably high amount of love and devotion for someone else, to the point where we’ll let ourselves be hurt or even commit suicide for the person. This cozy warm fuzzy symbiosis has ensured that the species could rely on each other long enough to live through the savannas and then populate the globe and create Netflix.
Fourth Fact: We should take a moment to thank our evolution to Netflix.
Fifth Fact In the ancient Greek philosopher Plato claimed that the most significant type of love was this non-romantic, nonsexual affection for another, known as “brotherly love.” Plato believed (correctly) that romance, passion, and sex are often the reason we perform regrettable absurd actions, such as a passionate love between two family members or two intimate friends represented the highest form of the human condition. Plato, like most people of the past, considered romantic love with skepticism or even complete dismay.
Sixth Factor: As with many items, Plato got it right before anyone else did. That’s why love that is not sexual is frequently described as “platonic love.”
Seventh Factor: For the bulk of the history of humanity, romantic love was seen as a form of illness. If you look at it in the context of it, it’s not difficult to understand why romantic passion can cause some people (especially younger people) to do foolish actions. Believe me. When I was 21 years old, I sat out of class, purchased tickets for a bus, and traveled through three states to impress a woman I loved. The girl was a bit shocked, and I soon found myself on the bus returning home, exactly as single as I was when I arrived. What a fool.
The bus trip seemed an excellent idea back then because it seemed appealing. My feelings were soaring all the time. I was in a fantasy realm and loved it. It’s now something embarrassing I did when I was a kid and ignorant and didn’t know anything else.
This kind of ineffective making led to the ancients becoming skeptical about the benefits of romantic love. In contrast, many cultures see love as an unlucky disease that we all traverse and conquer throughout our lives, similar to chickenpox. In reality, classic tales such as The Iliad and Romeo and Juliet were not a celebration of love. They were cautionary tales about the negative consequences that could be triggered by romance and how romantic love could destroy everything.
In the course of the history of humanity, couples didn’t get married due to their feelings for each other. The feelings didn’t matter in the past.
Why?
Because it’s a fuck feeling. There are fields to plow and cows that need to be fed. And holy goodness! Attila the Hun has just killed your entire family following the village.
There was never a moment to indulge in romance. There was no tolerance for the reckless behavior it promoted within the population. There was too much life-or-death work to be done. Marriage was intended for the birth of babies and a sound financial foundation. 5 Love for romance, if allowed at all, is reserved for the sexy realm of fuckboys and mistresses.
Throughout human history, throughout mankind, their food and survival depended on a single thread. People lived longer than the cats my mom raised. Everything you did was executed for the sole purpose of survival. Marriages were planned by families not because they were in love and, especially, not because they liked each other and their farms were in good harmony. Families could trade some barley or wheat in rain or drought.
The marriage was purely an economic arrangement meant to help the health and wealth of both families. Therefore, if Junior notices tingling inside his pants and wishes to escape with the milkmaid to another town, it isn’t just an inconvenience but a threat to the community’s survival. It was treated like that. In actuality, this kind of behavior was considered so dangerous among young men that traditional societies cut a lot of boys’ balls to avoid having to face their philandering. This also had the advantage of creating fantastic boys’ “choruses.”
It was not until the industrial era that things started to change. The population began to shift to jobs in urban centers and factories. Their earnings, and consequently their future economic prospects, were no longer tied to the land, and they could earn money without the help of their families. They weren’t reliant on family connections or inheritances like they used to, which meant that marriage’s economic and political aspects didn’t make much sense.
The economic changes of the 19th century crossed-pollinated with ideas of the Enlightenment regarding individual rights and happiness. The result was an Age of Romanticism. It was the 1800s, and people’s feelings were suddenly important. The new idea was not just to marry to love but also that the love would live in bliss for a long time. So, it was only 150 years before the enduringly popular “happily ever after” ideal was created.
