Does Romantic Love Exist?

[ST88]

Poets and other writers have taken on this subject extensively, and even science has speculated that the combination of psychological longings to connect combined with pheromones produces what might be called "love." But is the societal concept of "romantic love" an actual thing that can be measured, or is it an ideal to strive for that has no real basis?

Does romantic love exist? And, if it does, what form does it take?

[Corvus]

An ideal to strive for that has no real basis. There is no doubt that people feel, initially, a certain exciting feeling from being in love, but I think this is more a delusion that has little to do with being in love and more to do with being loved, and of dominating another.

La Rochefoucauld, who penetrated the depths of human nature, had this to say about love:

Maxim 68

It is difficult to define love; what can be said is that in the soul it is a passion to dominate another, in the mind it is a mutual understanding, whilst in the body it is simply a delicately veiled desire to possess the beloved after many rites and mysteries.

So love, as I see it, is an attempt at ownership and limiting the freedom of another, and a feeling of pride at being able to have such power. Thus it is with interest that I read theories on kibbutzim, that a life without private property leads to a difficulty in making strong emotional commitments, such as falling in love, though some scholars have suggested other reasons as to why this happens.

[BeHereNow]

Having suffered a broken heart, I intuitively know love exists.

[ST88]

Having suffered a broken heart, I intuitively know love exists.

Not to cause you to bare your suffering before us, but does this mean you think that love can only be defined after it has ended?

[BeHereNow]

ST88: Not to cause you to bare your suffering before us, but does this mean you think that love can only be defined after it has ended?

No.
For one thing, I’m sure many have been in love (known it), and never suffered a broken heart. So it is not that it can only be defined this way, but that of all the ways to define it, this is one. And for me, the one that first came to mind.
I use "define" because you do. I'm not sure this is the right word. I did not define love (to my way of thinking), but rather stated why/how I know it exists.

I had the occasion for a few years to deal with nursing home patients. No exact statistical evidence, but it was amazing how many times if one spouse died, within 3 three months the other died. In many cases it was within a week or less. The romantic in me thinks the second may have died of a broken heart.
I’m sure there might be other explanations.

[ST88]

La Rochefoucauld, who penetrated the depths of human nature, had this to say about love:

Maxim 68

It is difficult to define love; what can be said is that in the soul it is a passion to dominate another, in the mind it is a mutual understanding, whilst in the body it is simply a delicately veiled desire to possess the beloved after many rites and mysteries.

Ah, yes. La Rochefoucald: Mr. Sentimentality. The above quote is very cynical, and, if I may say so, indicative of the way love was viewed in the halls of nobility in 17th century France. A modern viewpoint of the ideal would be very different. For example, what are we to make of the relationship where both parties strive to dominate each other?

So love, as I see it, is an attempt at ownership and limiting the freedom of another, and a feeling of pride at being able to have such power. Thus it is with interest that I read theories on kibbutzim, that a life without private property leads to a difficulty in making strong emotional commitments, such as falling in love, though some scholars have suggested other reasons as to why this happens.

I would also suggest other reasons. Bettelheim, the brain behind the "private property" hypothesis got a number of things wrong about kibbutzes, so it's not hard to imagine that he got this wrong also (possibly having La Rochefoucauld in mind). I susbscribe to the theory that the members of the community are so close-knit that they have developed into a larger family unit, making romantic relationships undesirable. There's a psychological term for this that escapes me at the moment. A "Possession" hypothesis strikes me as either blanket cynicism or sour grapes at the very least.

[Corvus]

La Rochefoucauld, who penetrated the depths of human nature, had this to say about love:

Maxim 68

It is difficult to define love; what can be said is that in the soul it is a passion to dominate another, in the mind it is a mutual understanding, whilst in the body it is simply a delicately veiled desire to possess the beloved after many rites and mysteries.

Ah, yes. La Rochefoucald: Mr. Sentimentality. The above quote is very cynical, and, if I may say so, indicative of the way love was viewed in the halls of nobility in 17th century France.

Oh, you may say what you wish, but La Rochefoucauld is always relevant. He's my guidebook on human behaviour and I'm pleased you've encountered him before. A similar theory about love being possession was expressed in Andre Gide's.... The Immoralist, I believe.

A modern viewpoint of the ideal would be very different. For example, what are we to make of the relationship where both parties strive to dominate each other?

That, my friend, is a relationship that works. It's entirely expected that both partners make a few sacrifices to retain their domination of the other, though rarely are the sacrifices seen by the sacrificers, even if without them, the value of such a relationship would not be as great, since it would be without cost. In a way, it's something like an invisible contract. The ideal dictates that you refrain from doing all sorts of fun stuff that you would normally do when single, as well as invest time, money and emotion into your partner. Your partner does the same. All sorts of rules are introduced, like the fact that one should only show intimate emotions with one's partner, buy them regular gifts, spend time with them and, if you're a tad unlucky, refrain from saying certain things you think. Some sort of ineffable bliss is supposed to be the result. This is all well and good if both partners keep to the terms of the contract, but if one partner realises it's not all that great, which frequently happens when that inexpressible bliss dissipates, then love turns quite ugly, and the desire to dominate rears its head.

Though perhaps the love doesn't die. Perhaps it turns into a platonic form of love, which is far more healthy and less dominating, but not really romantic. I don't know. My limited experience with love resulted in boredom on my side, hysteria on the other, and that should give you some indication of how I arrived at this view.

La Rochefoucauld says;
Where love is, no disguise can hide it for long; where it is not, none can simulate it.

There are few people who, when the love for each other is dead, are not ashamed of that love.

I would also suggest other reasons. Bettelheim, the brain behind the "private property" hypothesis got a number of things wrong about kibbutzes, so it's not hard to imagine that he got this wrong also (possibly having La Rochefoucauld in mind). I susbscribe to the theory that the members of the community are so close-knit that they have developed into a larger family unit, making romantic relationships undesirable.

I would agree. It's still an interesting hypothesis, even if it's unproven. To what extent are our characters and emotions shaped by our environment?

A "Possession" hypothesis strikes me as either blanket cynicism or sour grapes at the very least.

Oh, pooh. Do I really seem that way to you?

[ST88]

Oh, you may say what you wish, but La Rochefoucauld is always relevant. He's my guidebook on human behaviour and I'm pleased you've encountered him before.

Here's my favorite La Rochefoucauldism:

What we call virtues are often just a collection of casual actions and selfish interests which chance or our own industry manages to arrange. It is not always from valor that men are valiant, or from chastity that women are chaste.

THAT, mon ami, is cynicism. Though my opinion of human nature in general tends towards the base motivation, we are still endowed with a conscience, however instinctive it may be. I don't think that people need a selfish motivation to be "good" (though it helps). I can imagine that in the halls of power at that time, the regular toady would be as transparent as our more crass politicians are now -- and I don't think he spent much time outside this sphere of pretense. Hence the theory.

It's entirely expected that both partners make a few sacrifices to retain their domination of the other, though rarely are the sacrifices seen by the sacrificers, even if without them, the value of such a relationship would not be as great, since it would be without cost. In a way, it's something like an invisible contract. The ideal dictates that you refrain from doing all sorts of fun stuff that you would normally do when single, as well as invest time, money and emotion into your partner. Your partner does the same. All sorts of rules are introduced, like the fact that one should only show intimate emotions with one's partner, buy them regular gifts, spend time with them and, if you're a tad unlucky, refrain from saying certain things you think. Some sort of ineffable bliss is supposed to be the result.

Love as a transaction of mutual disappointment? I think you're describing modern views of marriage, not love. There's a long-running musical in San Diego at the moment, called "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change." Myself, I haven't seen it, but the title alone makes me think of this transactional analysis, if you will.

As a culture, (at least in the U.S.), I think we're addicted to change. Despite all protestations that people don't like change and are hesitant to accept new things, I think we all crave different things that fall into familiar pigeonholes. Most of us, if we are left too long to marinate in our own juices, as it were, tend to picture our perfect mates before we meet them. These images are unchanging. But even if we meet someone who fits all those internal pictures, there are things we would change about the other person if we could. And some of us try to impose our will. I don't call this love, though some might. The love that I would wish for would be someone who recognizes that there are things about me that she would change if she could, but she doesn't try. But is that love? I don't know. I don't know if that's even possible. What do we say about a policeman's wife who urges him to change jobs because she fears for his life? Does she love him enough to want to keep him safe, or is her motivation a selfish one to keep him around so she can feel better? We'd have to interview her, I guess, and read between the lines.

A "Possession" hypothesis strikes me as either blanket cynicism or sour grapes at the very least.

Oh, pooh. Do I really seem that way to you?

Not you personally. I was thinking of that French guy. Personally, having been through a few serious relationships over the course of about a third of a lifetime (I hope), I would have to reject the possession hypothesis. At the very least, there can be a mutually beneficial collaboration of experiences and ideas between two people who would ordinarily not be exposed to them, and perhaps the interest of one partner is enough to build interest in the other. Trying to control or dominate the other person, in my opinion, doesn't lead to love, but some other type of relationship similar to psychological dependency.

[Corvus]

It's entirely expected that both partners make a few sacrifices to retain their domination of the other, though rarely are the sacrifices seen by the sacrificers, even if without them, the value of such a relationship would not be as great, since it would be without cost. In a way, it's something like an invisible contract. The ideal dictates that you refrain from doing all sorts of fun stuff that you would normally do when single, as well as invest time, money and emotion into your partner. Your partner does the same. All sorts of rules are introduced, like the fact that one should only show intimate emotions with one's partner, buy them regular gifts, spend time with them and, if you're a tad unlucky, refrain from saying certain things you think. Some sort of ineffable bliss is supposed to be the result.

Love as a transaction of mutual disappointment? I think you're describing modern views of marriage, not love. There's a long-running musical in San Diego at the moment, called "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change." Myself, I haven't seen it, but the title alone makes me think of this transactional analysis, if you will.

As a culture, (at least in the U.S.), I think we're addicted to change. Despite all protestations that people don't like change and are hesitant to accept new things, I think we all crave different things that fall into familiar pigeonholes. Most of us, if we are left too long to marinate in our own juices, as it were, tend to picture our perfect mates before we meet them. These images are unchanging. But even if we meet someone who fits all those internal pictures, there are things we would change about the other person if we could. And some of us try to impose our will. I don't call this love, though some might. The love that I would wish for would be someone who recognizes that there are things about me that she would change if she could, but she doesn't try. But is that love? I don't know. I don't know if that's even possible.

I would say that's love, but I wouldn't say that fits the romantic ideal. "True love is blind", they say. The romantic ideal is often held up as unconditional love, though very often it has many conditions, the biggest being that one is only permitted to love a single person at a time.

What do we say about a policeman's wife who urges him to change jobs because she fears for his life? Does she love him enough to want to keep him safe, or is her motivation a selfish one to keep him around so she can feel better? We'd have to interview her, I guess, and read between the lines.

I wouldn't want to interview a policeman's wife, and have no doubt La Rochefoucauld could have guessed why that is...

But romantic love is often considered selfless to the point of there being no "self" left, and it being all invested in one's lover. But how far does that selflessness extend? About as far as the leash attached to your lover's arm. In the original script for the ballet, Giselle commits suicide by throwing herself on her lover's sword after learning that he is betrothed to another woman. We are innundated with similar images of

A "Possession" hypothesis strikes me as either blanket cynicism or sour grapes at the very least.

Oh, pooh. Do I really seem that way to you?

Not you personally. I was thinking of that French guy. Personally, having been through a few serious relationships over the course of about a third of a lifetime (I hope), I would have to reject the possession hypothesis. At the very least, there can be a mutually beneficial collaboration of experiences and ideas between two people who would ordinarily not be exposed to them, and perhaps the interest of one partner is enough to build interest in the other. Trying to control or dominate the other person, in my opinion, doesn't lead to love, but some other type of relationship similar to psychological dependency.[/quote]
I would say that's another word for love. It is the attachment to a possession. True beauty s

[ST88]

I’m sure many have been in love (known it), and never suffered a broken heart. So it is not that it can only be defined this way, but that of all the ways to define it, this is one. And for me, the one that first came to mind.
I use "define" because you do. I'm not sure this is the right word. I did not define love (to my way of thinking), but rather stated why/how I know it exists.

Yes, "define" has a strange connotation to it in this instance.

I had the occasion for a few years to deal with nursing home patients. No exact statistical evidence, but it was amazing how many times if one spouse died, within 3 three months the other died. In many cases it was within a week or less. The romantic in me thinks the second may have died of a broken heart.
I’m sure there might be other explanations.

Does your romanticism possibly color your views on whether or not love exists? The only reason I ask this is because the reverse may be true also. An extreme cynic might not believe it exists because of cynicism in general. I.e., All these fools! Sopping all over one another because of their need to believe in love!