The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

The true nature of romantic love

In the West we spend a lot of time thinking about, promoting, and even consuming the idea of romantic love. If I am not mistaken, it was the West that championed the idea of marrying for the sake of love, unlike much of the world that, to this day, still adheres to the tradition of arranged marriages.

But what is romantic love?

So that we may better define—or confine—this discussion thread, let’s start by excluding a few things:

1.) Let us not be concerned with inanimate things that we claim to love, i.e., I love chocolate, I love to golf, I love my new car, or I love my country.

2.) Let’s exclude the love we may have for our parents or children, as this love is familiar, often involuntary, and quite often obligatory.

3.) Let’s also exclude the love we have for our pets, which lacks romantic connotations (hopefully), and which is probably not reciprocal (or at least not on the same level, if it is).

4.) Finally, let us exclude love as a consumerist expression, such as sending roses and giving diamonds as a representation of love or commitment.

Let’s talk only about romantic love here—the love we long to give to others, and hope to win from others in return. The love that brings with it joy, eagerness, light, and, quite often, a greater sense of self-worth. Let’s look at the bare bones of love and try to figure out what motivates and sustains it.

As a child and teenager, I had very idealized and romanticized notions of love. I grew up in a home where I did not feel wanted or loved, so the idea that someone could one day choose to love me appealed to me greatly, and occupied a prominent place in my thoughts and hopes.

When I was in college, a great deal of my art and writing centered on the nature and quality of desire, and it struck me that humans are little more than a bundle of desires—diverse, ceaseless, and unquenchable.

I even toyed with the idea—though never really taking the concept seriously—that humans were nothing more than vehicles for desires, and that the various desires were the true life forms, the true sentient beings; incorporeal, alien creatures who used us much like we use tools or machines to achieve our goals. We existed for their benefit only.

As a young adult, I decided that love was nothing more than need fulfilled. In other words, we all have needs—needs for security, affection, attention, and sex to name a few. When another person satisfies or fulfills those needs, we convince ourselves that we love them, when it would probably be more accurate to say that we gain satisfaction from them.

I still hold to that belief today. It seems obvious to me that we cannot love someone who does not sate our desires (we have little motivation to do so), and that the undesirable are equally unlovable. Consider, too, how quickly love turns to hate or animosity when desires cease to be fulfilled. Couples break up because they no longer satisfy one another’s desires for intimacy, acceptance, sex, emotional rapport, or even financial support.

Yet, in spite of that belief, I find it difficult to completely destroy all idealized notions of love, such as unconditional love and love for the sake of loving. Well, perhaps we never outgrow foolish things.

So, what are your ideas and beliefs about romantic love? Is it something sacred and unknowable? It is too elusive to attempt to define? Is it possible to have unconditional love, or is love very conditional? Have you been in love? What are your opinions on love, either personal love or the love you see shared by other couples? Is love tangible? Or is it, as I have suggested, merely the satisfaction that comes with needs fulfilled?

Please remember to confine your comments to romantic love only.

Tags: couples, desire, heterosexuality, homosexuality, intimacy, love, marriage, romance, sex

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jaume on October 22, 2009 at 10:11am

As a young adult, I decided that love was nothing more than need fulfilled. [...] I still hold to that belief today.

And how does unrequited love fit into this picture?

Permalink Reply by Dallas (on hiatus) on October 22, 2009 at 10:25am

And how does unrequited love fit into this picture?

That is a very good question Jaume. Perhaps it is only intense longing that we mistakenly call love. That's the only "love" I've ever known. :P

Permalink Reply by Jaume on October 22, 2009 at 4:02pm

You're not alone.

Does it sound stupid or sarcastic? Maybe it's only a paradox. Or a pun. Hmmm, a punadox.

Permalink Reply by Dallas (on hiatus) on October 22, 2009 at 4:06pm

Does it sound stupid or sarcastic?

I don't think so. It's just the way we speak.

Permalink Reply by Jared Lardo on October 22, 2009 at 9:24pm

It might best fit the "need fulfilled" format by being like the satisfaction that someone wandering about the desert gets just as they see some water, before they've even gotten to drink any of it and be relieved of thirst. "That will satisfy my needs!" the mind screams, and your need to find the fulfillment of the rest of the associated needs is fulfilled.

Permalink Reply by Dallas (on hiatus) on October 23, 2009 at 8:56am

Very good way of putting it, Jared.

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on November 10, 2009 at 9:20am

Unrequited love certainly is more intense sometimes b/c it's a struggle, something to be attained. Even for me, if a person is not readily available, if I'm not sure if they like me back (but there's some hope), or they're a challenge in some way...these are usually the people I really fall for. Whereas someone messaging me and wanting a date and knowing we can have sex anytime? It's just not as exciting! My ex gf told me I have a "very obscure fetish" for thinking like this. Really? I thought it was just basic human nature!

Permalink Reply by Dallas (on hiatus) on November 10, 2009 at 9:34am

Unrequited love certainly is more intense sometimes b/c it's a struggle, something to be attained. Even for me, if a person is not readily available, if I'm not sure if they like me back (but there's some hope), or they're a challenge in some way...these are usually the people I really fall for.

As I mentioned above, I often find that I also seem to fall for the unattainable, but there is no motivation on my part for that. For example, I am not more attracted to unavailable men on purpose, simply because they are unavailable, and no part of my desire is rooted in the idea of conquest--of possessing the unpossessable. I'm just not that competitive, and my desire isn't ego driven in that sense. In my case, it just seems to be how fate plays out.

Permalink Reply by Sekani Tembo on October 22, 2009 at 11:00am

"To love means to open ourselves to the negative as well as the positive - to grief, sorrow, and disappointment as well as to joy, fulfillment, and an intensity of consciousness we did not know was possible before." -- Rollo May

It's my opinion that love is an evolutionary development which is composed of emotional, physical, and intellectual attachment to another person. Since we all differ in these capacities, attempting to pin down a precise definition of the concept of love seems silly by these assumptions. As May says, love is opening ourselves to both the positive and the negative. In the Western culture, discussions of love always tend to focus on the positive aspects, but I think the attachment involved in love which forces one to accept the negative as well makes love an inherently irrational phenomena (rational being one wanting to fulfill their own desires, strictly). Simply having needs fulfilled may be a precursor to love in my opinion, but by that definition you could simply have 16 different people fulfill your desires, and call yourself in love. In my view, it's the irrational attachment to the individual that is the sole desire involved in love, and as such, imperfections in the fulfillment of our desires are almost inherent, as to expect any person besides ourselves to completely satisfy our desires is absurd because they can't all be known. For instance, how can one fulfill your desires 24 hours a day, 365 days a year? When you desire food (or sex, or communication) and your lover's at work, do you find you fall out of love because your desires are no longer satiated? I would guess probably not. If that's the case, then you've made the irrational choice (based on fulfillment of needs being rational) of committing to someone who doesn't fulfill your needs.

From my experience with love, it is sometimes simultaneously capable of complete satisfaction and utter despair. My view of love is still evolving, of course, but I don't really believe in the romantic notion of love per se. I believe most of us have the capacity for the emotion or state of satisfaction you mentioned, which we often take to be love. But, as much as we hate to accept it, our emotions are often less than under control, and as such this being any sort of tangible, eternal, "real" entity seems impossible. I think the capacity for attachment we have evolved is likely a product of the fitness it generally produces so that couples do not kill each other or their offspring. A "family unit" where offspring can be raised would have been very beneficial in the past for group defense, hunting, and childrearing; but, I don't think any of those things would be possible did we not have an irrational attachment to others which allowed us, if necessary, to even sacrifice ourselves for them if need be. I think such ideas about love being "true," or conditional, love at first sight, romantic, etc. etc. are mostly notions made up when it became clear that technology and innovation had usurped the daily possible need to sacrifice oneself to save others, or to even be involved at all in fulfilling basic desires (food, water, shelter, etc.). I mean, can you imagine the first homo-sapiens woman leaving her man with her child because he didn't celebrate their anniversary? or even because he'd slept around a bit? I doubt it, personally, because even today in societies where happiness isn't considered a birthright, sacrifices are made to allow for successful childrearing, which I don't think would be possible given individual's only cared about their needs being fulfilled, or about the existence of love. So, long story long, I currently think the irrational attachment to another individual we call love is a byproduct of its evolutionary fitness, rather than some tangible entity or our simple satisfaction.

I don't know if that was coherent, logical, or helpful, but that's all my brain could dump out right now.

Good luck with love!

PS. judging by your name, im assuming you're gay (I know, you're impressed), I think the same attachment can apply between those of the same sex, even though evolutionary this probably would've presented problems in the distant past as reproduction would be impossible...I also don't really know where I stand on romantic love of multiple people, as in the past polygamy would've been extremely effective for evolutionary fitness, but seems to have become outdated, at least in our society...I think most of my (maybe people in general) views are probably just a product of the culture I've lived in, but that's another long topic...

Permalink Reply by Dallas (on hiatus) on October 23, 2009 at 11:12am

In my view, it's the irrational attachment to the individual that is the sole desire involved in love…

You may very well be right here. There is certainly a lot of attachment inherent in love, regardless of the type of love involved.

From my experience with love, it is sometimes simultaneously capable of complete satisfaction and utter despair.

Yes, because possessing something brings with it the fear of losing it, too. Everything is a double-edged sword, isn’t it.

My view of love is still evolving, of course, but I don't really believe in the romantic notion of love per se.

But couldn’t the irrational attachment of love, which you have referred to, be described as a romanticized form of love? Romantic being not always realistic.

So, long story long, I currently think the irrational attachment to another individual we call love is a byproduct of its evolutionary fitness, rather than some tangible entity or our simple satisfaction.

Quite possibly. But this means, I guess, that it is really a biological response, and nothing more. That may be the sum of it. Certainly, it is not likely to exist beyond the realm of biology.

…as reproduction would be impossible...

True, but sexual desire does not arise in anyone out of a sole desire to reproduce.

Permalink Reply by Sekani Tembo on October 23, 2009 at 11:54am

True, but sexual desire does not arise in anyone out of a sole desire to reproduce.

That's definitely true, sexual desire may be disconnected from the desire to reproduce. I guess I'm thinking in terms of evolutionary traits, where generally reproduction was desirable. I wanted to mention in my PS that I think we are beyond simply fulfilling our basic evolutionary needs as a species due to technology, and that when we disconnect from the rules of natural selection, that we can really do what we please. Because of that disconnection, I think our society and its view of homosexuality will eventually evolve into something more tolerant. Many hardcore fundies or even just conservatives I've talked to make a big deal out of the family unit (why I put it in quotes in my previous post) and reproduction. But, if I'm anywhere near right and we're beyond these basic principles of natural selection, then our desires may very well be directed wherever we please with little repercussion to the individual or the society. For instance, allowing homosexuals to marry, or become a union, or even to have sex, is often perceived or argued as dangerous because it uses a new, or at least different from the general population, view of the family and relationship unit. This is only dangerous though if you're of the mindset that the family unit really does provide something very powerful and useful to the individuals involved. I think our society, and maybe our species to some degree, implicitly no longer accepts this idea. Simply, think about the high divorce rate we have in the US; in my opinion, having children around divorce, and knowing that your relationship is transient, is much worse for all individuals involved in our current idea of the family unit than having a solid, committed foundation of role models that happen to be of the same sex. I think we have also dropped the idea of reproduction as something associated with sex, like you said, as there's a multi-billion dollar industry in preventing, destroying, and eliminating responsibility for reproduction. This means that people should be able to do what they please with their privates between consenting individuals, PARTICULARLY if reproduction isn't a possibility, but I guess many aren't interested in making that leap. That's probably a convoluted way of putting it, but I agree that sexual desire doesn't arise out of the desire to reproduce, but I think that's historically what it's rooted in. It's (reproduction) just better and more likely to happen if it feels good (sexual desire).

Quite possibly. But this means, I guess, that it is really a biological response, and nothing more. That may be the sum of it. Certainly, it is not likely to exist beyond the realm of biology.

We always say that something simply being a biological response devalues it or somehow makes it less true. If we accept love as something purely biological, then it makes more sense (at least to me) that we can all share an idea of what love is. Otherwise, we are left guessing some assortment of abstract ideas that define love, and it simply becomes an endless argument. I find it rather comforting that it doesn't exist beyond the biological, certainly helps me be more confident in my a/thei/gnosticism.

But couldn’t the irrational attachment of love, which you have referred to, be described as a romanticized form of love? Romantic being not always realistic.

I think the irrational attachment is often what people call romantic love. I'm just of the bent that calling it romantic love is a useless addition, too often exploited today by corporations and society to impose their desires on the population. This is because romantic love is simply an abstract concept. I'm just not sure what calling it romantic love gains us, if that makes sense?

Yes, because possessing something brings with it the fear of losing it, too. Everything is a double-edged sword, isn’t it.

NO DOUBT

Permalink Reply by Dallas (on hiatus) on October 23, 2009 at 12:42pm

It's (reproduction) just better and more likely to happen if it feels good (sexual desire).

Yes, I've often looked at it like that. But I always think to ask fundies: If heterosexuality is such a virtue, then why does nature have to trick you into reproducing by making it feel good. If it was a moral virtue, the pleasure should be irrelevant.

I'm just not sure what calling it romantic love gains us, if that makes sense?

It does make sense, and that is a valid question, which I am not sure I can answer. But you are also right that notions of romantic love are basically marketing strategies for corporations.