by Beloved » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:34 pm
Ask Marilyn
by Marilyn Vos Savant
reprinted with permission of Marilyn
Is "falling in love" nothing more than a cruel biochemical trap? The chemicals responsible for the wonderful feeling we call "love" evaporate after a year or two, leaving us wondering what happened. During that time, many of us have married, produced a child, altered career paths and bound ourselves to someone in whom we then lose interest. Under what conditions does "love" survive this chemical exit? Is there any way to tell early on what's going to happen? Or did our caveman ancestors, who apparently practiced serial monogamy, do what we are really designed to do. As a young female biologist who used to be happily romantic, I have become hopelessly cynical about the situation. Can you help? What is romantic love anyway?
M.G. Pittsburgh, Pa.
I think that romantic love is essentially all psychological in origin and that it's the presence of this attitude that produces the chemicals that send us soaring. After all, if those reactions were produced by casual physical proximity, we'd be easily attracted to all sorts of people who just happened to be nearby, and we know that's not the case.
For example, suppose a bear is crouched outside our front door, and we don't know that. If we merely approach the door, nothing will happen. But if we open the door, our psychological reaction will bring us one heck of a chemical jolt. Our mental processes turn on the body chemistry.
Now suppose there's just a stray dog out there. We may still have a chemical reaction, but it'll probably be a weaker one. And it may be a positive reaction. Our attitude toward stray dogs -- and this particular one -- will make the difference. Humans are unique among animals: Our incredibly powerful minds mediate our behavior.
So I believe we become psychologically interested in another person for a multitude of individual reasons, and if the interest becomes intense, then chemistry begins to take part. But we need that attitude first. Together, I think, those two essentials -- psychology plus biology -- constitute what we call "romantic love."
Unhappily, if psychological interest wanes, chemical reactions will wane too.
This alone is a reason for long engagements. Much interest will ebb within a year or two. And, for many, it will continue to diminish with each passing year. If love remains, it will be either the friendly or the familial kind. So, after a long engagement, if the kind of love left is sufficient -- a precursor of the situation to come -- we can go ahead and get married. And as the married years go by, if this love is positive enough to satisfy us, we'll stay married.
This doesn't mean we'll be fulfilled. Consider what tends to happen when someone falls out of love psychologically. Without children, there are fewer obstacles. With them, at least the partners will have the kids as a common interest. (This is why so many marriages become stale after the children grow up and move out of the parental home. Some marriages may even become unstable if and when the kids lead truly separate adult lives.)
And if the marriage is sturdy, he or she will have the comfort and security of friendship. This is no small reward for decades of selfless devotion, Having a cherished companion in life is surely a worthwhile goal for a marriage. But the physical result is the same: disinterest. Sometimes the disinterest is so profound that the person almost completely shuts down sexually.
If such an individual ever becomes intensely interested in someone again, he or she is often shocked, not to mention thrilled, when that old chemical magic returns. And no wonder it's so thrilling. Romantic love -- psychology plus biology -- inspires us mentally, keens the physical senses and opens the purest avenue of communication between two people: body and soul. When these feelings are shared, the two lovers awaken to the delights of simply being alive in such a way that people who have never experienced romantic love cannot possibly imagine.
But the biggest question remains: What about psychological interest that remains strong enough to keep those precious chemical fires lighting up our lives? That is how can we have romantic love that stands the test of time? (And to those disillusioned young people like you who wonder if it even exists, I assure you it does; I know it for a fact.) If you ask me -- and you did --I'd say there's good news and bad news.
Romantic love depends on personal interest, which usually starts with a likable fresh face but can continue only with persisting curiosity (something like the way we're endlessly fascinated with certain famous people). It escalates -- often greatly with growing personal stature and professional success.
The good news is that if we are continually broadening our capabilities, extending our intellectual reach and becoming increasingly desirable in the world, we' ll inspire that personal interest. Like a great metropolis or an expanding universe, we'll be unknowable -- probably even to ourselves. But this is not usually the case; in fact, it's not even common. Relatively few of us will find the time -- or take it -- to live an ever-enlarging life, but those who do will always be romantically intriguing.
The bad news is that we can't make anyone else do this. In other words, to a great extent we can choose to be desirable, but we can't make our partners choose to be desirable. So, while we can go a long way to keep others attracted by us, there's little we can do to continue to be attracted by them. We don't flunk chemistry, chemistry flunks us. In other words, even if we do everything right, it still takes two to dance life's most radiant tango. And, in my opinion, that's the heart -- and disappointing crux -- of the matter. We cannot control the appeal of another human being, nor should we try to.