I read Jane Eyre last semester and a statement that my teacher said has been weighing on my mind lately: In the 18th century, it was better to be married than single, even if the marriage was violent. I have been thinking of this subject a lot lately, especially while watching Sex and the City, and I have come to the conclusion that you could edit that declaration into “In the 21st century, it is better to be in a relationship than single, even if the relationship is violent.”
Ok, the divorce rate now is 50% and people are waiting till their 30s or 40s to get married, which was not even thinkable in Charlotte Brontë’s time. But think about the times we live in where “in an open relationship” and “it’s complicated” are valid choices for a relationship on Facebook and in society. The term “sex buddies” or “f*ck buddies” are common terminologies for society.
With the terms “sex buddies,” “in an open relationship,” and “it’s complicated” being the norm, the definitions that go with them are pretty much self explanatory—it’s a relationship without the committed. As common as the terminology is the repercussions of a non-committed relationship: someone always gets hurt. Someone always feels a connection with the other person and thinks that if he or she stays with the other person, then there will magically be a happily ever after with a relationship. However, deep down inside, that someone knows that the non-committed relationship will end in tragedy.
The question I am presenting today is, if someone knows he or she will be hurt, then why go through it? Is a non-committed relationship really better than being single? It seems to me that people are trying to escape from being alone, even if he or she knows that the relationship can’t end well. Is being single that scary that one is willing to hurt him or herself?
Jane Eyre still applies to today. Being in sex buddies, it’s complicated or in an open relationship with seems like a luxury, but this will only end in Titanic tragedy.