Rather than being merely about marriage and traditional values, I view this as being more subtle -- There's certainly a degree of societal values and expectations included here; however, I view this as more generally discussing the idea that people in a relationship should not be defined entirely through their new "couple" dynamic, but remain entities in their own right. The fire in her eyes that he never wants to go out is individualism -- after all, you fall in love with an individual, not "your other half". I think it's fairly strongly implied that in informing his partner of his views on how things should be he is implicitly stating that this should cut both ways -- the narratives society wants to create for us are subordinate who what we write on the own pages of our personal books.
Rather than being merely about marriage and traditional values, I view this as being more subtle -- There's certainly a degree of societal values and expectations included here; however, I view this as more generally discussing the idea that people in a relationship should not be defined entirely through their new "couple" dynamic, but remain entities in their own right. The fire in her eyes that he never wants to go out is individualism -- after all, you fall in love with an individual, not "your other half". I think it's fairly strongly implied that in informing his partner of his views on how things should be he is implicitly stating that this should cut both ways -- the narratives society wants to create for us are subordinate who what we write on the own pages of our personal books.
Subordinate TO (not who)
Subordinate TO (not who)