To Live, or Not to live..in that time-- Focault's History of Sexuality

In reading Focault's The History of Sexuality, I found something very interesting, and then asked  myself would I or would I have not liked to live in that time? Up until the eighteenth  century "the marriage relation was the most intense focus of constraints; it was spoken  of more than anything else; more than any other relation, it was required to give a  detailed accounting of itself.  It was under constant surveillance.."  As suffocating as that sounds, maybe that is the reason why marriages lasted then, and  why they do not now.  The marriage relation is definitely not an intense focus now and  not so much spoken more than anything else.  If I had lived back then, I would feel safe  and secure in my marriage. That is very fortunate.  However,  "If it was found to be lacking, it had to come forward and plead its case before  a witness."  The only way to divorce someone was if there was debauchery, adultery, rape, spiritual or carnal incest, sodomy, or beastiality. So, even if I am not happy in my  marriage, or fall out of love, or my husband beats me, I could not get that divorce.  That  would be unfortanate.   So, my question still remains.  Would I have wanted to live in those times?  Considering  the pro's and con's, I would have to stick with living in the now.  I would rather make my  own choices than be forced to stay with someone that I don't want, or who doesn't want  me.