For instance, the probability of a first marriage lasting 5 years is 20%. However, after 10 years of marriage the chance that it will end in divorce is 33%. According to the study the probability of separation or divorce depends on the woman’s age and whether or not she was herself raised in a two parent home, whether she is religious, and whether her family was considered high or upper middle class. The report showed that marriages don’t always end in divorce. Some end in separation, with neither party formalizing the relationship into a divorce. White women are more likely to divorce after just 3 years. That figure is in fact 91%. Separated Hispanic women divorce at the rate of 77%, while Black women divorce at the rate of about 67%.

The probability that these women will get married again within 5 years is 54%. The statistics show that white women will usually get married again, Hispanic women may get married again while Black women might not get married again. In fact, the probability that divorced women will marry for a second time, has been declining since the 1950’s. During the ’50s more than 65% of all women married for a second time. Divorce rates have leveled off, however marriage rates are still on the decline with a large number of children being raised today living in single parent homes.

More than half of all Black children live in single parent homes, meaning their parents divorced or were never married in the first place. This compares to 20% of white children. The study also shows that more people are putting off getting married. This applies to men in particular. 17% of all men aged 35 to 39 have never married. Never married women in the same age group total 11%. Within the never marrieds 35% are Black men. Overall, a quarter of Black men do not live in any kind of family grouping. The rate for white men is 28%.

Many sociologists blame outside economic factors for the decline in marriage. They also make note of the fact that women are putting off child bearing in favor of advancing their professional careers. This has pushed the median age for first marriage upward to nearly 27 years for men and 25 years for women.

Others blame a loss of moral compass in society, and lax divorce laws. Many contend that getting a divorce is simply too easy and that the law should be strengthened.

Some argue that allowing same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage in general, yet studies in Scandinavia where same sex marriage started years ago, suggest otherwise. Some allege that children are negatively affected by having two parents of the same sex. But no credible study has ever been able to document this allegation. Some conservatives argue that allowing same sex marriage opens the door to other things such as polygamy. They don’t back it up with any real evidence just the charge that this will happen. Another allegation is that SSM will make heterosexual divorce too easy. Critics shoot back that heterosexual divorce can’t get too much easier because it is already at nearly 60% of married couples who seek divorce.

Opponents of SSM claim that schools will be forced to teach tolerance in schools, meaning the schools would be forced to teach straight kids to be nice to gay kids. Tolerance is apparently no longer a Christian principle according to the conservative right. Allowing SSM also opens the door to same sexed couples being able to adopt children and this would be a way for homosexuals to recruit naive children into the ranks of militant homosexuals. This charge belies the fact that homosexuality just like heterosexuality is a born characteristic, not a learned characteristic.

Allowing SSM would mean that straight foster parents would now have to undergo sensitivity training, for so far, unclear reasons. This is one of many allegations that have no basis in fact or common sense but still viewed as legitimate arguments by Christian conservatives. Similar reasoning applies to the argument that Social Security can’t afford to pay for same sex couples. The so called justification for this allegation is convoluted with no basis in fact. One other argument claims that SSM would hinder evangelists in doing their job. In other words, that SSM would impede religion and religious practices.

Still others maintain that allowing SSM will bring divine retribution from God. These conservatives claim that God will destroy America or other tolerant countries in the same fashion as Sodom was destroyed. Those in favor of SSM view it simply as a civil right that has nothing really to do with religion but everything to do with equality of all people.

Throughout the course of the play, Wilde portrays each of the main characters in a way that reflects his views of the English aristocracy. Algernon Moncrieff and Jack(Ernest) Worthington represent the prototypical male bachelors. In the opening act, set in Algernon’s flat, the two meet and display what appears to be their usual daily activities. Neither is employed, and it is apparent that their only occupation is the pursuit of leisure activities and social matters, subjects of major importance to them. When Algernon inquires as to the purpose of Ernest’s visit to town, Ernest replies, “Oh pleasure, pleasure! What else should bring anyone anywhere? Eating as usual, I see Algy!”. Algeron and Ernest are characterized by their extravagance, a luxury affordable only because of the money accrued from family inheritance. Neither displays any notion of an appreciation for money. In fact, when Algernon’s butler hands him bills that have just arrived in the mail, Algernon simply rips them up.

Wilde’s conception of deceit as an accepted custom in English aristocracy is also existent in this scene. The practice of “Bunburying” is established, an act where each man lies to his family about an imaginary invalid friend present somewhere else, in an attempt to pursue leisure activities elsewhere. It is in this discussion that Jack admits to his friend Algernon that he has been lying to his friend in order to maintain the disguise. Thus, it seems as though the very relationship between the two men is founded on deceit. Later in this act, Lady Bracknell and Gwendolyn are introduced. Even though Lady Bracknell is married, it is obvious that the two women are merely female counterparts of Algy and Jack. Both spend the day making visits to others in their social sphere, as Algy and Jack do, holding these visits with utmost importance.

It is at this point, also, that the reader is presented with Wilde’s views of marriage practices. Earlier in the scene, when Ernest(Jack) announces his intention of proposing to Gwendolyn, Algernon does not congratulate him, rather he denounces the entire institution. At Ernest’s announcement of the proposal, Algy exclaims, “I thought you had come up for pleasure?- I call that business”. Later, Algy’s comments support the idea of adultery once one is married. When Ernest finally does propose to Gwendolyn, he first must proceed through established flirting rituals followed by a formal proposal. These rituals, such as Gwendolyn’s demand for a formal proposal, demonstrate Wilde’s conception of outward appearances being more important than true love. In fact, Ernest’s love for Gwendolyn seems rather arbitrary while Gwendolyn indirectly admits that she loves Ernest only for his name. Thus, this relationship, too, seems entirely based on deceit. This idea is substantiated when Lady Bracknell re-enters and informs Ernest of some preliminary qualifications that he must meet before being engaged to Gwendolyn. These include money, family, and politics. When Ernest does not meet the qualifications, he is denied Gwendolyn. In the second act, the relationship between Algy and Jack’s ward, Cecily, parallel Ernest and Gwendolyns relationship. After certain flirting rituals, Cecily admits to Algy that she loves him for his name, Ernest, and his image of being “wicked”. When Algy proposes, Cecily declares that they had already been engaged for three months, an engagement that she had imagined. When the proposal is announced, Cecily is only accepted by Lady Bracknell because she has enough money to support Algy’s lifestyle. Through the two relationships of Ernest(Jack) and Gwendolyn and Ernest(Algy) and Cecily, Wilde conveys the notion that love of such kinds is entirely arbitrary, and relationships are based on deceit. Marriages, he contends, are simply an alliance between families to preserve the aristocracy.

The end of the play culminates in the planning of marriages of Ernest to Gwendolyn and Algy to Cecily. These marriages are made available only because Jack(Ernest) discovers his true identity as one belonging to the Bracknell family. When this is established, Ernest is allowed to marry Gwendolyn and it seems as though he will allow Cecily to marry Algernon. However, the identity Ernest discovers is the same that he has lied about throughout the entire play. Thus, the relationships forged arbitrarily on deceit and convenience are legitimated at the end of the play. Although Ernest declares, “I’ve realized now for the first time in my life the vital importance of Being Earnest”, the statement is actually ironic because he had never been earnest at any point. In fact, the end is only the result of a coincidental twist of fate.

Some people tend to have a lot of sex. They say they do it for the satisfaction. They believe sex is fun. It is perceived to be a great thing from the time one is young. Going to elementary school kids always talked about the day they were going to have sex. They looked forward to it. Where they got the idea that sex was such a great thing is a question that one must ask? The movies, maybe. The magazines that one sees when digging through the drawers of an older brother, uncle or ones father. Sex is all over society. You can not watch cable television without seeing people kissing intimately, or even having sex. Just because cable does not show full nudity does not make it any better to let an eight year old child watch a television show full of sex.

In today’s society women are not held to that same standard as men are when it comes to having sex.

Now that the reasons people are having sex has been somewhat discussed and is out of the way, let us discuss the consequences that come with having sex, such as A.I.D.S. This is a deadly virus that kills ones immune system. A person never dies from the actual virus. They die from the diseases that they would not have otherwise contracted if they still had a strong immune system. The immune system doesn’t die slowly either it take at least five years for the immune system to eventually give out. A person can die from a simple cold if they have contracted the A.I.D.S virus. They cold starts of as a normal one does but it just keeps getting worse and worse. People suffer before they die from this disease. This disease has been responsible for killing millions of people. The way this virus is contracted is through exchange of bodily fluids. Sex is the number one way this virus is spread. What people are not realizing is this disease is deadly and by having premarital sex and not being monogamous they too can contract this disease. People are very aware that this disease is out there but they do not understand that it can affect them.

There are lots of other diseases out there other than A.I.D.S that are caused by having sex. Most other sexually transmitted diseases are deadly but they are curable if found before they cause your body damage. Let’s not forget how painful these diseases are. All I can say when I think of contracting something as painful as a disease as painful as these have been described is ouch! Why would someone even want to take the chance of contracting one of these horrible diseases? There is a very simple solution if one would want to avoid contracting one of these horrible diseases. It’s just as easy as not having sex.

Let’s not forget how bad a reputation could be damaged if people found out that a person had a sexually transmitted disease. They would be laughed at and ridiculed. People would think that a person was dirty if they knew they had diseases. What kind of feeling would a person have knowing that they have a disease that they have contracted through sexual intercourse.

Maybe a better question is, what kind of feeling could a person walk into a church with knowing that people know they have a disease that they have contracted while having sex before they were married?

The major religious belief in the United States is Christianity. Christianity teaches that having sex before getting married is wrong. Having sex is a sin and when people sin they go to hell. Lots of people have sex with other people just to do it. They don’t think of that others feelings. Christianity teaches people to treat others as they would like to be treated. I’m sure no person likes getting his or her feelings hurt. People should think about others before they do such things such as use others for sex.

Christianity also teaches that lust is a sin. It is one of the seven deadly sins and it should not be taken lightly according to religious teachings. Lust leads to sex, and if sex is taken lightly people more and more people will begin to have children out of wedlock.

Pregnancy is also a result of sex. Those who are not married and have children don’t only make their own lives harder by burdening themselves financially but they also make it harder for their children to live without both of their parents there for them at all times. In some cases children are left with just one parent and have to grow up the rest of their lives feeling unwanted because their biological father did not stick around. A child cannot comprehend the fact that his or her father just had was with his or her mother to have sex. How could you explain this to a child? You couldn’t and if you did there would definitely be something wrong with you. An even worse case is a child who is put up for adoption. He or she knows nothing about his or her real parents and is never given the oppurtunity to be given the love that every child deserves from his or her parents. I believe it would be hard not to know who your parents were. It would kill me to think that I could have had a mother and father like most normal people but parents didn’t want me.

Sex is not entirely bad. In my opinion sex should be treated like everything else and be done in moderation. People should learn to understand one another and understand that sex is a big step in relationships. If it were not a big step there would be no point to get married. Why would a person want to buy a used car when they could buy a new car? Sorry that it has to be put that way but that is the harsh reality of it. People who have slept around are not going to have an easy time finding a life mate. Nobody wants somebody who had slept with all of their friends. Why would you? How could you? It would be really awkward having all of my friends standing in my wedding knowing that had all had sex with a person that was going to be my wife in a couple of hours.

Hopefully people will begin to look at everything they can lose from having sex before marriage. The same goes for those who can not be monogamous. People should hold themselves to a higher standard. If people had more confidence I believe that they would feel they needed to have sex to impress people or to make people happy. Sex should be a result of love and should have more meaning than it does to some people.

The entire point is sex has before marriage has consequences. There are many and I’ve only touched based on a few. If I were to go over every reason that sex was wrong the list would never end.

Domestic violence is known by many names including spouse abuse, domestic abuse, domestic assault, battering, partner abuse, marital strife, marital dispute, wife beating, marital discord, woman abuse, dysfunctional relationship, intimate fighting, male beating and so on. McCue (1995) maintains that it is commonly accepted by legal professionals as “the emotional, physical, psychological, or sexual abuse perpetrated against a person by that person’s spouse, former spouse, partner, former partner or by the other parent of a minor child” (although several other forms of domestic violence have become increasingly apparent in today’s society). Whatever name is used to refer to it, however, domestic violence is a very grave and difficult problem faced by Australian society.

Although domestic violence can include the abuse of parents, children, siblings and other relatives, it predominantly involves violence against sexual partners with women being the most common victims and men being the ‘aggressors’ (Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce 1991). It is inadequate to view domestic violence as an aspect of the normal interpersonal conflict which takes place in most families. According to McCue (1995), many families experience conflict, but not all male members of families inevitably resort to violence. It is not the fact of family disputes or marital conflict that generate or characterize violence in the home. Violence occurs when one person assumes the right to dominate over the other and decides to use violence or abuse as a means of ensuring that domination (Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce 1991).

Although all forms of domestic violence are pressing issues of equal importance, this essay is more specifically directed at spouse abuse and aims to delve deeper into the issue of domestic violence by examining its causes with respect to the socioeconomic status of the particular family and its effects upon women in Australian society.

The FACS (Family and Community Services) booklet (1995), defines domestic violence as follows:

‘when a woman suffers persistent physical, verbal, economic or social abuse from her partner with the result that she suffers a sustained emotional and, or psychological effect.’
 

Domestic violence is the most common form of assault in Australia today. However, it remains a hidden problem because it occurs within the privacy of the home and those involved are usually reluctant to speak out (Healey 1993). Actually, it extends far beyond merely physical abuse and incorporates a range of behaviours aimed by the male to his partner. These behaviours include assault, psychological or emotional abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, spiritual abuse, social abuse and economic abuse. The belief that the perpetrators of domestic violence are typically stupid, mentally ill, aggressive males with criminal records and a generally vicious and barbaric nature is surprisingly incorrect. According to McCue (1995), many of the men who present most violently in the household portray themselves quite differently to the rest of society. They are generally not lawbreakers, but rather appear to be charming, often handsome law-abiding citizens outside of their own homes who maintain an image as friendly and devoted family men. In fact, it is likely that many such aggressors aren’t even aware of the major impact their actions have upon their partners. Violence occurs in families of all kinds and from all cultures and socio-economic profiles (McCue 1995). As stated previously, the majority of violence in the typical Australian household is perpetrated by men against women. In Australia, all available data on family violence indicates that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence in the home. According to the Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce (1991), data obtained by police in Victoria since the proclamation of the Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987 revealed that between the 1st of June and the 30th of November 1989, in 88% of reported cases where physical violence was used against a person in a family violence incident, the perpetrator was male.

The reasons for men being abusive towards their wives are many and varied. However, whilst the experience of family violence may differ according to factors such as socioeconomic group, class, culture, race and the age and health of the victim, the Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce (1991) maintains that it has not been demonstrated that these factors play any casual role in the origins of family violence. Instead, the most consistent impression to be gained is that violence in the home is best understood in the context of unequal power relationships between men and women. An example of this lies in data obtained by the Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce (1991) which indicates that there is a high correlation between traditional views of women’s economic subordination to men and approval of husbands’ violence against their wives. According to the FACS booklet (1995), men from many different cultures often enter a relationship with a traditional perspective on the roles of husbands and wives, considering their wives as some sort of possession and therefore believing they have the right to control them. Subsequently, many of these men feel that violence is an acceptable means of enforcing this control. It is important however to consider the fact that such ideas about the role of women may be antiquated in our western culture but may be considered acceptable in others. Thus arises the major issue concerning whether or not it is morally acceptable to impose the ideas and beliefs of western society onto another culture.

The booklet from the Dept. of Family Services (1995) states that:
 

‘…research shows that men who grew up in violent families are six times more likely to beat their wives than men who did not.’

Thus, it is obvious that the ideas and practices which are within the family network reflect upon the customs and concepts that a male will bring into his own family.

According to O’Donnell and Craney (1982), domestic violence can also arise in response to various social structural factors. This fact explains the apparent concentration of domestic violence occurrences within families of lower socioeconomic status since these families are more likely to suffer stressful conditions such as poor health, unemployment, unsatisfactory housing and lifestyles along with many others. However, in complete contrast to such beliefs that domestic violence occurs mainly in lower socioeconomic groups, data collected by the Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce (1991) indicates that family violence is prevalent throughout all class boundaries.

Spouse abuse occurs throughout all aspects of society. However, as shown in Figure 1, it rates around two times higher among families where the male partner is unskilled (and thus more likely to be unemployed) relative to families where the male partner is skilled or trained in a particular field (and therefore more likely employed). These statistics are unlikely to have improved with an increase in unemployment over the last fifteen years (O’Donnell and Craney 1982).

It is evident that a complete and sound understanding of domestic violence would rely on explanations which place responsibility for the violence with external factors such as stress and alcohol. The excessive use of alcohol is often linked to domestic violence as indicated by Figure 2 where in 48% of abuse cases, alcohol was a predominant factor, (Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force booklet, 1988). Although society may believe that alcohol is a possible cause of domestic violence, the Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce (1991) maintain that it is more of a contributing rather than a causative factor of family violence. In addition, Larouche (1986) maintains that although alcohol may lower both awareness and self-control, a person who uses it is responsible both for drinking and for their behaviour.

Somewhat contrary to other studies, Van Hasselt (1988) maintained that occupational status rather than employment status seems to be a significant stimulus to violence where women of higher socioeconomic status than their partners are at a higher risk of being victims of domestic abuse. It is still commonplace (although rather old-fashioned) in our society for men to see themselves as the ‘breadwinners’ whereas women are not expected to be so success-orientated, but rather are expected to look to men for economic support. When men think of themselves as providers for their family but see that they are no longer in a position to perform this duty as their wives are of higher occupational status, abusive men tend to experience intense feelings of insecurity and a deep sense of failure. Thus, men who cannot cope with this particular type of failure are most susceptible to violent behaviour. (O’Donnell and Craney 1982)

The Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce (1991) indicates that other factors related to inferiority and superiority such as levels of intelligence or education have also been linked to domestic violence. For example, the level of one’s education is a component of socioeconomic status which greatly influences the risk of domestic violence within a family. According to Steinmetz and Strauss (1974), female abuse is recorded as highest among men who have not achieved a great deal academically. This reasoning explains why domestic violence is more prominent in the poorer sectors of our community where members of society are generally less educated. Steinmetz and Strauss (1974) also suggest that men in the violent group are often less educated than their wives and so by abusing their partner, these male aggressors may feel that they are able to compensate for their low academic status by maintaining their supremacy at home.

A study conducted by Steinmetz and Strauss (1974) establishes that full time employment of the male partner is related to lower rates of spouse abuse, and that higher rates of spouse abuse are associated with women having more education and/or higher occupational status than their male partners. Thus, it seems that a relationship exists between lower socioeconomic status and a greater tendency to domestic violence. Such a relationship can be interpreted into terms of frustration, low self-esteem or oppression.

Consequently, it seems imperative that a community education and awareness program be targeted at the more socioeconomically deprived groups in the community with the primary objective of increasing society’s overall awareness of domestic violence and the drastic and quite permanent effects it can have on the abused. Additionally, it is essential that those community members of higher socioeconomic status be involved in such an education program, for it is evident that domestic violence also presides in the many of the homes of these theoretically less susceptible social groups. However, it is important that community education on domestic violence should not be considered a substitute for legal action against serious offenders.

The effects of domestic violence on the individual are quite severe and traumatic. Reported cases have suggested numerous forms of abuse ranging from the more common forms of physical abuse to psychological and emotional abuse. There are even some cases that involve various forms of sexual abuse. Although vastly different, all forms of domestic abuse leave the victim permanently scarred. It is apparent that even in cases that involve physical abuse, the wounds may heal although the emotional damage can never be repaired. O’Donnell and Craney (1982) suggest that as a result of having been a victim of domestic violence, many people will spend the rest of their lives in fear of the opposite sex. Aside from simple fear, there are many other emotional scars that the perpetrator inflicts upon the victim such as a permanently low self-esteem and possibly, the belief that they are insane (Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce 1991).

All families and relationships have their problems, although violence should never be regarded as a solution. It is no longer tolerated in the workplace, nor is it tolerated in the schoolyard. Why, therefore, should it be tolerated in the home where all should be striving towards building a safe, caring, loving and happy environment?

References
 

Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs booklet (1995).

Family and Community Services (FACS) booklet (1995).

Family Violence Professional Education Taskforce (1991): FAMILY VIOLENCE: EVERYBODY’S BUSINESS, SOMEBODY’S LIFE, Sydney, Federation Press.

Healey K (1993): A VIOLENT SOCIETY?, N.S.W. Spinney Press.

Larouche G (1986): A GUIDE TO INTERVENTION WITH BATTERED WOMEN

McCue M L (1995): DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, California, USA, ABC-CLIO Inc.

O’Donnell C and Craney J (1982): FAMILY VIOLENCE IN AUSTRALIA, Melbourne, Longman Cheshire.

Report of the Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force (1988): Beyond These Walls.

Steinmetz S and Strauss M (1974): VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY, New York, USA, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

Van Hasselt V B (1988): HANDBOOK OF FAMILY VIOLENCE, New York, USA, Plenum Press.

With things heating up in the Paula Jones case, the President asked Lewinsky to lie about visits to his office. Turning her back on Lewinsky, Tripp taped telephone conversations between herself and Lewinsky about the affairs with Mr. Clinton to setup him up. Lewinsky, allegedly quoting Mr. Clinton, said, “Look them in the eye and deny it.” After anonymous tips are given to a firm connected with the Paula Jones case, Lewinsky decided to leave the government and find a new job.

On January 7, 1998, Monica Lewinsky signed a sworn affidavit in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, stating she did not have an affair with the President. Following this, Linda Tripp brought the recorded phone conversations to Independent Counsel for the Paula Jones case, Kenneth Starr. With assistance from the FBI, Tripp wore a wire while Lewinsky lead her step-by-step through her entire sexual relationship with Mr. Clinton. The following day, Lewinsky gives Tripp points on how to respond to Paula Jones’ lawyer’s questions. After receiving news of this Starr requested from a federal panel, the ability of an expansion of his ongoing investigation. The following day, President Clinton, who was under oath, denied an affair with Lewinsky. Four days later, the story of the tapes became public knowledge. The President stated in an interview with Jim Lehrer of PBS on the same day, “There is no improper relationship”(Clinton 1998). He also stated in this interview that he “didn’t ask anybody not to tell the truth.”(Clinton 1998). In using a double negative, Mr. Clinton could possibly be telling the people of the United States that he did have an affair, without expanding on it. With all of the allegations against the President seeming to the public to be against his favor, he will be found guilty and should be impeached. If this is a conspiracy against him, the conspirator or co-conspirators will face major indictments.

Benedick was a smart, good-looking, and funny guy. He was very witty, and always had a response to anyone’s comments. For example, when he was talking to Beatrice, he always had a comment to finish of the conversation. He also didn’t like the idea of marriage. Benedick thought that marriage led to the trapping of men. When he heard about Claudio getting married, Benedick thought that Claudio was crazy, because Benedick felt that marriage was going to change the way Claudio lived. Benedick was also very stubborn. He never wanted to give into other people’s ideas, and that was why he didn’t want to give into the idea that marriage could be a good thing in a person’s life.

Beatrice was a character very similar to Benedick. She was a very independent person, and didn’t want to rely on anyone for support. She also was very smart. She enjoyed reading poetry, and thought about things a lot. She also was against marriage. During one conversation, she even said that she would rather die than get married. Another characteristic of Beatrice was that she was very emotional. She often changed her mood all of a sudden for no apparent reason. Also, Beatrice kept many of her feelings inside her. Sometimes she would be angry but wouldn’t show it,because she always had to feel strong, and look like she didn’t need anyone.

The traits and characteristics of Beatrice and Benedick were what brought them together, and also what separated them. Beatrice and Benedick were separated because, they always thought that they had to be independent, and not need each other. Another factor that kept them from coming together was that they always fought with each other. In trying to seem strong, they were actually fighting with each other, and hurting each other’s feelings. The final thing that kept Benedick and Beatrice from coming together was that they both thought that marriage was a stupid institution. If neither of them wanted to get married, it would be very hard for them to have a relationship. Some factors brought Benedick and Beatrice together though. First, they never got bored of each other. Because they disagreed on many issues, and were both able to argue well, Secondly, Benedick and Beatrice had very similar personalities. They both were strong and independent. They both were against marriage, and both were happier alone, or so they thought. Finally Benedick and Beatrice needed each other. They would be bored and somewhat lonely if they didn’t have each other around, even if they were arguing.

Benedick and Beatrice both had very strong personalities, and for a while it kept them from coming together. Both of them were independent, and thought that marriage was for the birds. But really both of them were lonely, but hiding it in order to look strong, and eventually with a little help, they realized that love and marriage were a great thing. Also, they both were so similar that they were the perfect match but didn’t want to admit it, and when they finally did they were much happier.