Somebody to Love or Somebody You Love?

[Soul-shards]

I'd like to open a discussion about Sense and Sensibility. If you had to take a guess, what percentage of modern, western couples marry somebody they LOVE as opposed to somebody TO LOVE? Should people err on the side of #1 or #2?

Let me clarify.

1) When I say "Somebody You Love," I mean just that: undeniable LOVE all around, and a sense of absolute certainty.

You are deeply IN LOVE, and not just objectively appreciating that person. There is passion but also reason and awareness that he/she is the right person for you, without the shadow of a doubt. You could call yourselves soulmates without hesitation. Your match is like Heaven, you can't stay away from each other. You don't need to rationalize, you don't look for Psych Today columns that assure you the "soulmate" theory is just for the "immature" and that "there are many soulmates out there for people anyway, and that it's all about "good choices and commitment." Regardless, you know you have yours. You are mesmerized with their qualities but you're also aware of their defects which you love too, even knowing those are no great traits when taken separately, out of the context of your beloved. You can't imagine spending your life without this person. You would not want to change a single hair on their head (and if they have none, you couldn't care less about their lack of hair.)  Yes, you have butterflies - and everything in between. It feels real and IMPERATIVE. 

2) When I say "Somebody To Love," I mean something very much positive but much fuzzier.

Your mind and your heart send out certain vibes but for the most part, the mind takes over and guides the heart. You DO love the person but you are not in an euphoric "in love" state, despite being physically attracted to them. You tell yourself "that thing" is just infatuation for the drama-seekers who are driven by lust, hormones, superficiality, what not. You know he/she is an excellent human being you'd be proud to share your life with. Not only would you look good together in the world and your family would SO approve, but you know you could do great things together. You very much like each other and get along well. You feel safe and comfortable around this person, you can be yourself. You know this person's character is wonderful - a model citizen. Reliable, honest, faithful hard-working - the kind of partner who makes great, long-term marriages happen. Who doesn't want that? Somewhere, deep down, you have an inkling that something vague is missing that is preventing you from being head-over-heels with this person as in case #1 (butterflies). Despite that, you know this is somebody  great! Somebody TO LOVE. So you love them, you really do, and commit to doing so forever, despite not being "in love." Those who try to convince themselves they are / were 'in love' ...well , you know who you are.

Based on my observations, most western marriages depart from #2, despite freedom to pick #1. 

Modern western societies confuse the living lights out of the young as to how they should select their marriage partner.

In traditional societies they make it simple: marriages are mostly transactional, communal, and more or less arranged (no, it doesn't apply just to India). You have a family and a set of parents who want to see you settled, there is a general impetus to be married, and a not-so-generous deadline after which you are considered officially expired (cue shame, fear, guilt, self-loathing - no way are you going to risk that). You simply look around and pick the best you can find and go ahead and marry. "Settling" is a western word.

By contrast, in western societies people are told they are free to pursue happiness and pick the love of their life (not parents' love of your life, or society's). Yet when it comes down to the nuts and bolts, it turns out it's not that simple. Westerners find themselves on the dating market acting like shoppers in an enormous and terribly disorganized department store. They have to go through thousands of mixed up apparel, of all size, shapes and styles ... in the hope of coming across one cut just for them. Good luck with that! By the time a really good option shows up, store is closing. Many lose patience long before that point, so they pick something OK or walk out of the store and decide to return later, etc. Any vadavoom outfit is bespoke. 

In other words: not that simple to just go pick the 'love of your life.' Just because parents won't interfere and just because society doesn't threaten you with expiration dates, doesn't mean you'll do a whole lot better than fellow traditional marriage-seekers. 

So westerners face options #1 and #2.

The young are given mixed messages about these two options: which one is preferable? which one should they hold out for? Under which conditions it is right to proceed with marriage and when is it not, despite risk of ending up alone/no children?. The west fights with a mixture of leftover traditional wisdom and risky, "I-did-it-my-way" individualism.

People will say ideally you have both #1 and #2, but this is unrealistic. How many are so lucky to meet their excellent match from the start? 

So which one did you do? Which one would you advise? What would you do if you could go back and do over?

Add whatever you think is useful to this discussion.

Thanks!

 

   

[Lotsgoingon]

I like when people create broad categories to try to make meaning out of the seeming chaos of life.

My problem here with your categories is that for the most important matters in life, there is often degree involved, judgment involved. And no matter how strong the bond is, marriages require work and creativity and growth and active understanding and working through your own triggers and insecurities while showing some patience while the other person works through their own triggers and insecurities.

The smartest relationship therapist I know once said that picking a good partner actually involves a big of negativity. Since all of us have strengths and weaknesses, gifts and vulnerabilities, a good pairing often comes down to this. You want to pair with someone whose weaknesses don't trigger you into shame and fury and vice versa--your own weaknesses don't trigger and traumatize them. For example, she said there are people out there who can marry partners who were abused as children and that history, for whatever reason, doesn't really trigger them into thinking they picked the wrong partner. Others have to work really hard and feel resentment--and a lot of resistance and despair-- to deal with a partner who was wounded by abuse. 

Yes, people can do a better job of picking partners for sure. There are people who come on LS who report on a problem in their marriage that had to have been obvious years before the marriage if only they had been willing to see the problem and admit to it. And yes, too many people marry because they hit X age ,and think they have to be married. I can't tell you the number of divorced people I know who say, "Even going down the aisle, I knew this wasn't really going to work."

But if you read any of the work of John and Julie Gottman, the famous marriage counselors, you will get a quick sense that even the best pairings require work and growth and understanding and repeated acts of love to keep going. I agree that you want to have some passion for someone for sure, and you also want to evaluate them outside of passion. But all relationships are ongoing conflict-resolution challenges.  All. The best matched people are still wildly different. 

And then there's luck involved--and reality.  Try being in a happy marriage with a "soulmate" on a low income or with one of the partners having serious health problems. The relationship quickly has to become very practical. Fatigue itself cuts at romantic, intoxication love. One of your category 2 couples--with less stress and a better income--might live more happily than one of your category 1 couples. 

Then there is the matter of expectations. Two people who don't think marriage isn't the be-all and end-all could be supremely content, even though their marriage doesn't have the passion of other marriages. 

Back to the smart relationship therapist. She was happily married from what I could tell. Her view--and I think this emerged after she had done years of couples counseling-- was that she could have had an equally happy marriage with lots of other guys who had some of the basic qualities she wanted.

Each marriage would have been different was her idea--but (with the luck of good health and so on) would have been equally satisfying in their own unique ways. 

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Lotsgoingon

[mark clemson]

I'm not sure of what's right or wrong, but FWIW I have heard that in the end many families get made by "settling".

I have also heard that often "lower emotion" relationships are actually more stable/last longer than "madly in love" relationships. The intense "emotional energy" that attracts can also apparently lead to "repulse" or at least "break up" when differences ultimately emerge (which is probably most cases, if not all). So despite "how deeply they love each other" they don't end up staying. There is "push-pull" (even if it's not an affair) which intensifies the emotional "need" for each other.

It's kind of like the difference between a "cosy by the fire" relationship and a "blowing up gas stations" relationship. Sure, being cozy gets boring after a while, but blowing up stuff is "chaotic".

I think you probably never forget that special someone you blew up a few gas stations with, though. 🤣

Edited March 3, 2021 by mark clemson

[Lotsgoingon]

Definitely right, @mark clemson. The very qualities that we fall hard for are often differences--we see a strength in someone that we don't have, a strength that impresses us. But five years into a relationship, that strength because a difference the couple has to work out. Unfortunately in life, every gift comes with a risk.  I remember when I learned of famous politicians, people who could give amazing speeches before crowds, might not have any friends. People great in front of crows often turn out to be so so great in individual relationships. Just one example. 

The other danger of intoxicating "in love" feelings is it lures us into thinking marriage (or even a serious romance) won't involve work and won't involve negotiating differences. You love your family.  I don't really like your family. You are tight with money. I spend more freely. You are super close to your mother. I don't trust your mother. You put in super-long hours to get ahead. That leaves me alone more than I want and without a partner who has time and energy for joint hobbies. And on and on. 

Yes, it's great to have those crushes that we don't consummate. But as the saying goes "some dreams ought to remain dreams." And some crushes are probably best left as crushes. And they only remain crushes precisely because we don't enter into a complicated intimate relationship with the person. Crushes by their nature edit out all problems and potential conflicts.

[Weezy1973]

#1 doesn’t exist except in the early days where we’re not thinking straight.

 

Nobody is designed for our happiness. Nobody was put on this earth explicitly to be the best partner for the life we envision for ourselves. Accepting reality, and having realistic expectations is the key to actual happiness in a relationship.

[Soul-shards]

I should have qualified #1.

By no means am I implying the exalted romantic feeling in #1 would stay unaltered over time. However, this is often an early indication of great matching - a solid foundation for M.

This can make the humdrum and work expected in marriage later 100 times easier than a couple that starts with certain structural, built-in differences, which at first are only inklings and which they ignore. The heart often sends its signals but the mind ignores/suppresses them because the partner fits a socially desirable model.    

[Soul-shards]

19 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

#1 doesn’t exist except in the early days where we’re not thinking straight.Nobody is designed for our happiness. Nobody was put on this earth explicitly to be the best partner for the life we envision for ourselves. Accepting reality, and having realistic expectations is the key to actual happiness in a relationship.

Ad yet many people end up concluding there were deep, "irreconcilable differences" between them which no intervention could solve and that they obviously didn't catch from the start; so off to D or A they go.

Would you say to those people that they didn't accept "reality" well enough? What does that even mean?

What if the "reality" was that they were poorly matched to begin with?

[Weezy1973]

13 minutes ago, Soul-shards said:

Would you say to those people that they didn't accept "reality" well enough? What does that even mean?

What if the "reality" was that they were poorly matched to begin with?

It’s possible. Also possible they grew apart. People change.

 

 

[pepperbird2]

On my experience, the best relationships, whether they are marriages , friendships or even a working relationships comes when the people involved bring different things to the table.

My husband is very comfortable with people, I am not. He is prone to flights of fancy ( for lack of better term), while I am more pragmatic. He flies of the handle, but I am very calm.
It's hard to explain, but we sort of "fill in each other's missing pieces".

We've been married almost 25 years now, and in a lot of ways, we grew up together. We got married right out of uni., and boy, were were young and naive. We really thought love was enough, but it wasn't . We built the glue that keeps us together over all those years and all the experiences we've shared. The good ones, like when our children were born, vacations we've taken, just sitting together listening to records at the end of the day, and the bad,. like when my mom died, when our oldest got sick, when he developed PTSD, when he had an affair,  or when I got sick and was told I'm not going to get better. The " fireworks" of early love wouldn't have gotten us through all of that.

 

[Soul-shards]

2 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

 The " fireworks" of early love wouldn't have gotten us through all of that.

 

I think there is a misconception that the "fireworks of early love" must hide superficiality and emptiness underneath. This has not been my experience in observing couples. 

The fireworks I mentioned in #1 are not about "looks/lust" only, as many are quick to interpret. It's about a deep seated conviction that this person is "HOME." That the two belong together - physically, intellectually, emotionally - and there's strong attraction, which causes the passion. 

It's not about a "he's hot/she's hot" firework, as may people misread. Passion is not just about bodily attraction. That kind of foundation (and that kind only) - I dimisss from the start and it's not part of the subject of this thread.

Some people simply KNEW from the start and they were classically IN LOVE (#1).

Some people were sensible and chose mainly with the mind. They loved in an appreciative kind of way, but they were NOT IN LOVE (#2)

I do understand life is not black and white and there are degrees involved here, but I think many people can lean more towards one than the other when they think back on the earlu days of their M.   

[pepperbird2]

1 hour ago, Soul-shards said:

I think there is a misconception that the "fireworks of early love" must hide superficiality and emptiness underneath. This has not been my experience in observing couples. 

The fireworks I mentioned in #1 are not about "looks/lust" only, as many are quick to interpret. It's about a deep seated conviction that this person is "HOME." That the two belong together - physically, intellectually, emotionally - and there's strong attraction, which causes the passion. 

It's not about a "he's hot/she's hot" firework, as may people misread. Passion is not just about bodily attraction. That kind of foundation (and that kind only) - I dimisss from the start and it's not part of the subject of this thread.

Some people simply KNEW from the start and they were classically IN LOVE (#1).

Some people were sensible and chose mainly with the mind. They loved in an appreciative kind of way, but they were NOT IN LOVE (#2)

I do understand life is not black and white and there are degrees involved here, but I think many people can lean more towards one than the other when they think back on the earlu days of their M.   

Why do you assume I mean lust/looks? Do you think no one has ever felt the "home' sense you describe?
Maybe it's just me, but I don't buy the whole "soulmates" "twin flames" or what have you. That's not to say I haven't felt an instant sense of connection...I got engaged to my husband two days after I met him. The thing is there is so much more than that, and that could only come with time and building a relationship, sharing experiences, learning about each other.
we're still learning. we always will be, no mater how old we get. That's , in a large part, because we never stop growing as people. We try new things, together and on our own. I;m still learning who I am, as is he. We share what we learn with each other.

We are not interested in many of the same things. we have very different hobbies, and emotional needs. that's okay. I don't need another "me".

[Soul-shards]

31 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

Why do you assume I mean lust/looks?

Because this is what most people seem to get "early fireworks" from - physical attraction or maybe some sense of novelty like fun personality, etc. But that's a superficial trait too.

Ask people about those fireworks, and they'll tell you how steamy the sex was in the early days.    

Quote

Do you think no one has ever felt the "home' sense you describe?

Of course I don't think that! That's exactly why I asked and included it as option #1. Just wanted to make sure people don't confuse it with mere lust.

In my experience, those who had a #1 start have higher odds for a great long term marriage  because they start with a high degree of compatibility which "clicks in" from the start (the sense of Home). They have less "work" to do as they go.

The #2 people always seem to struggle to match aspects of themselves that had never matched well to begin with, in addition to the regular humdrum challenges every couple faces. That's because they selected what was socially desirable as opposed to what their soul needed. A bit like square peg in a hole.

Quote

Maybe it's just me, but I don't buy the whole "soulmates" "twin flames" or what have you.

Quote

We are not interested in many of the same things. we have very different hobbies, and emotional needs. that's okay. I don't need another "me".

I suspect this need varies among various categories.

The "opposites attract" theory seems to work for the functional, pragmatic aspects of life, whereas like-mindedness is essential for soul/inner satisfaction. People with rich internal lives are more likely to need others like themselves, compared to extroverts or just pragmatic people. One could argue that 'soulmate' love is a bit like narcissistic love.

Some people DO need another "them."  They need connection, deeper communication,  to feel understood, and to be able to relate to their life partner - not just to function in the world, in practical terms. 

[pepperbird2]

29 minutes ago, Soul-shards said:

Because this is what most people seem to get "early fireworks" from - physical attraction or maybe some sense of novelty like fun personality, etc. But that's a superficial trait too.

Ask people about those fireworks, and they'll tell you how steamy the sex was in the early days.    

Of course I don't think that! That's exactly why I asked and included it as option #1. Just wanted to make sure people don't confuse it with mere lust.

In my experience, those who had a #1 start have higher odds for a great long term marriage  because they start with a high degree of compatibility which "clicks in" from the start (the sense of Home). They have less "work" to do as they go.

The #2 people always seem to struggle to match aspects of themselves that had never matched well to begin with, in addition to the regular humdrum challenges every couple faces. That's because they selected what was socially desirable as opposed to what their soul needed. A bit like square peg in a hole.

I suspect this need varies among various categories.

The "opposites attract" theory seems to work for the functional, pragmatic aspects of life, whereas like-mindedness is essential for soul/inner satisfaction. People with rich internal lives are more likely to need others like themselves, compared to extroverts or just pragmatic people. One could argue that 'soulmate' love is a bit like narcissistic love.

Some people DO need another "them."  They need connection, deeper communication,  to feel understood, and to be able to relate to their life partner - not just to function in the world, in practical terms. 

I can only speak for me, but your assessment is way off at least in my relationship. I am not an extrovert. I am an introvert, and I am also autistic. I have an incredibly rich inner life, because that's where I spend a lot of my time. Online, I may be very "talkative", but in person, people confuse me. I can't read them at all.I am very introverted and spend a lot of time in my own head.

I think where you and I are not understanding each other is we are just very different people. There's nothing wrong with that- the world would be such a dull place if everyone was the same.
 

[Lotsgoingon]

I like the use of the word "home" for that feeling of being with the right person. Yes, that feeling transcends lust and looks.

But ... unfortunately in my experience, even that "home" feeling isn't reliable. You still have to date the person and see if you two really do complement and empower each other.  

 

 

 

[Soul-shards]

15 minutes ago, Lotsgoingon said:

I like the use of the word "home" for that feeling of being with the right person. Yes, that feeling transcends lust and looks.

But ... unfortunately in my experience, even that "home" feeling isn't reliable. You still have to date the person and see if you two really do complement and empower each other.  

 

Of course!

[Wiseman2]

Personality, I don't know anyone who chose the #2 settling option.

Seems rather sad that anyone would waste thier life coasting along "in quiet desperation", as they say.

Perhaps #2, marriages  of convenience,  are more common in people whose lives need a conventional image.

However sham marriages like those used to cover non heterosexual relationships seem like a thing of the past.

So aside from arranged marriage it's hard to understand why anyone would be in the sad situation of #2.

[Soul-shards]

^^^It may be because you misunderstood what I meant by Option #2.

Just like Option #1 is not strictly about lust, Option #2 doesn't describe a marriage of strict convenience, forced by parents or dire circumstances. People easily default to caricature extreme dichotomies, but this is not what I am going for here.

Option #2 is not a case of being secretly repulsed by the prospective partner. It certainly involves physical attraction and many other 'likes' for that person. In fact, I would venture to say most M-s start with #2 - certainly most I am aware of.  And yes, I am talking about western marriages. They are hardly a "thing of the past."

They are marriages where people like the prospective partner very much. They see them as a great person, they admire many of their qualities, they are attracted to them physically - but no, they are not IN LOVE with that person and they don't necessarily experience passion. There's a difference between "CONSCIOUS LOVE" and "IN LOVE."

CONSCIOUS LOVE is rational, intentional and grounded. IN LOVE has an intuitive, instinctive, and yes, passionate aspect to it. It is not "reasonable."

Many people take pride in choosing conscious love because they think this makes them wiser and with better odds of long-term success, unlike the sillies who fall for "butterflies", which are believed to be caused mainly by transient lust. In reality, strong butterflies can be caused by many other things including a  full package of heavenly compatibility on many fronts.

My theory is that the Intuitive Love (Option #1) is ultimately better, with higher odds of long-term success. Yes, those 'tumultuous butterflies' indicate higher odds of long-term success, long after they are gone. This is because humans' rational narratives (what they tell themselves) are corrupt by social desirability factors. See the implication we should all look to marry model citizens who could be counted on to NEVER do A,B,C.

Problem is intuitive love is hard to come by in due time. Most people settle to some extent. Very few start with #1 because this option is largely dependent on luck or an incredibly well-targeted mate search; and even then, luck would need to have its say.  

Intuitive love (option #1) automatically covers all the important traits in a potential partner that one REALLY needs, not those one THINKS they need.

Intuitive love is relentlessly focused only on what what that particular individual trully needs, even when he/she is not conscious of that.

For example, some people are lustful by nature. If their intuition constantly guides them to select partners who are very physically attractive to them as the most important factor - then that's what they should do. Love is different things for different people. In such cases, erring on the side of 'Miss Goody Girl' may be the socially correct choice, but it may not be right for the naturally lustful man.  Same with other traits.

One thing I learned is that if you are a bank robber at heart you should seek to marry another bank robber, not a 'good person' who will supposedly show you how to "be better." Chances are the bank robber will mess up the "better" partner - or they will both make a mess of  the marriage - together. I guess this goes back to the classic idea of "being true to yourself." How many do that whn they are  making their marital selection? I'd veture to say few.  If they were, we wouldn't have the avalanche of poor marriages, divorces, affairs and the like - even as partners change. People may change superficially, but at the core - they never do. The key is to select someone who matches one's self at the core - and this is not always easy. 

Young people often don't understand themselves very well when they make their marital selection. They are confused as to what kind of traits they truly need from a partner, above and beyond what society tells them they should look for (nice, respectful, hard-working, faithful, determined, etc). These are all great qualities but focusing on "great qualities" is missing the point of match-matching.

Id people follow their instincts and intuition (MUST feel IN LOVE), they can come out on top - although they risk waiting for a lifetime to find that person. 

If they follow the standard sensible advice, they are in danger of convincing themselves they are "in love," so they go for Option #2 (most).

How many people fall "in love" with Mr./Ms. "Epitome of Desirability, Success, Morality, etc." only to realize that person was indeed a fantastic catch, just not for them!  

It's a complex psychological process but it would sure behoove the young to know how to untangle it.
 

[pepperbird2]

15 minutes ago, Wiseman2 said:

Don't know anyone who is this beside themselves about who they married v who they love. But maybe us little people are too pedestrian to understand such lofty concepts?

All I know is I picked the right guy for me. I am not the am the person I was when we met 27 years ago. Neither is he. We have been able to grown and change together, and  while we may not have the "fireworks" type of love, but it is no less menaingful. I don't do "fireworks"...I never have.

[lana-banana]

I married the love of my life, the one I knew I would regret it forever if I didn't tell him how we felt. It was mutual. It was all fireworks and razzle-dazzle and nonstop intimacy at the beginning, but that laid the foundation for a real, stable, and enduring relationship. We have only been married for 3 and a half years (together since 2014) and we've had our share of ups and downs, and even through the very hard parts we are come out of it finding ways to love each other more.

I sincerely believe that most people now only marry partners they are crazy about. There's no reason to marry otherwise. You can have a perfectly satisfactory long-term relationship with someone you care about but don't really want to be tied to legally, and in fact many people do. 

[Soul-shards]

Quote

I sincerely believe that most people now only marry partners they are crazy about. There's no reason to marry otherwise.

Based on my observations of many M-s I see around, this is not really the case. There are plenty of reasons for marrying otherwise, even today - as mentioned above: confusions about values and priorities in youth, social desirability factors, time pressures, etc. It happens all the time. People convince themselves they are "in love" when in realiy they are with someone 'to love.'  The abundance of stale marriages that need constant "work," divorces, affairs, etc - all are testimony to the prevalence of #2. 

[Lotsgoingon]

Oh, I do know folks who are in the OP's category 2. Absolutely. What's insidious or sneaky is that a lot of people don't consciously think they're settling, but they are in the sense that if fewer of their friends were married or if they were younger, they would look more critically on their relationship, soon to be marriage.

But again, the great thing about life is surprise and reversal and irony. Some folks can start at #2 and actually grow well together ... and develop a quite powerful bond. 

[pepperbird2]

19 hours ago, lana-banana said:

I married the love of my life, the one I knew I would regret it forever if I didn't tell him how we felt. It was mutual. It was all fireworks and razzle-dazzle and nonstop intimacy at the beginning, but that laid the foundation for a real, stable, and enduring relationship. We have only been married for 3 and a half years (together since 2014) and we've had our share of ups and downs, and even through the very hard parts we are come out of it finding ways to love each other more.

I sincerely believe that most people now only marry partners they are crazy about. There's no reason to marry otherwise. You can have a perfectly satisfactory long-term relationship with someone you care about but don't really want to be tied to legally, and in fact many people do. 

It's interesting that you note this, and I think you're probably right. If you are it doesn't bode well for those who feel that "love is all you need" ( if by love, you just mean passion) as the divorce rate is pretty high.

Just my opinion, but if that's all there is, a marriage won't last. there has to be more. My husband is also my best friend, and in my, albeit limited experience, marriages where there is passion/friendship/ shared values etc. tend to be the ones that last and produce the most happiness.

[lana-banana]

19 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

Based on my observations of many M-s I see around, this is not really the case. There are plenty of reasons for marrying otherwise, even today - as mentioned above: confusions about values and priorities in youth, social desirability factors, time pressures, etc. It happens all the time. People convince themselves they are "in love" when in realiy they are with someone 'to love.'  The abundance of stale marriages that need constant "work," divorces, affairs, etc - all are testimony to the prevalence of #2. 

Social pressure to marry has never been lower. People are happily having children without marriages. The divorce rate has plummeted, particularly among millennials. Love continues to be the top reason cited for marriage. No one is doubting that the factors you cite exist, but the fact is most people are marrying because they want to and they feel in love with their partner.

It is very typical for posters engaged in extramarital affairs to suggest that most marriages really aren't happy and that we're all secretly miserable or settling. Marital dissatisfaction is common, but actual happiness seems to be more common still.

Edited March 5, 2021 by lana-banana

[Soul-shards]

52 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

It's interesting that you note this, and I think you're probably right. If you are it doesn't bode well for those who feel that "love is all you need" ( if by love, you just mean passion) as the divorce rate is pretty high.

Just my opinion, but if that's all there is, a marriage won't last. there has to be more. My husband is also my best friend, and in my, albeit limited experience, marriages where there is passion/friendship/ shared values etc. tend to be the ones that last and produce the most happiness.

Yes but that would fall under Option #1. Passion AND friendship AND shared values AND like-mindedness - AND everything. Few people get to marry such. 

Some marry only for passion driven by physical attraction, others mostly for friendship and shared values, others for comfort and security (they feel secure around that person), and all sorts of other combos. 

The full package (#1) is difficult to come by. Any gap in the original match can later develop into "motives" for marriage fall out.

How else can we explain the huge rate of failed marriage in societies that give the young full freedom to reach for #1? And by "failed" I don't just mean the 50% divorce rate but also the stale marriages that stay intact until the end of life and require constant "work."

[Soul-shards]

5 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

Social pressure to marry has never been lower. People are happily having children without marriages. The divorce rate has plummeted, particularly among millennials. Love continues to be the top reason cited for marriage. No one is doubting that the factors you cite exist, but the fact is most people are marrying because they want to and they feel in love with their partner.

You are not the first (or even the tenth, or twentieth, and certainly won't be the last) poster engaged in an extramarital affair to suggest that most marriages really aren't happy and that we're all secretly miserable or settling. Marital dissatisfaction is common, but actual happiness seems to be more common still.

It is true that social pressure to marry has never been lower - but that doesn't mean people (women mostly) don't eventually pressure themselves, especially when fertility fears kick in, nubility declines, etc. Such pressures will never go away just because society has relaxed standards and deadlines.

As for happiness, look at the data/stats. They contradict what you state here. Women's satisfaction has declined significantly compared to past decades, men's has stayed about the same. 

IMO, the answer  goes back to educating the young on timely and artful match-making. Neither societies of the past nor modern ones went about it the right way.