 
So from what I hear, you don't believe in love. What are you going to tell me next, that there's no heaven or the Easter Bunny either?
 
Ah, so you already equate love with the Easter Bunny. I see my work here is done.
Listen, I'd like to hold on to my naïveté as long as possible. Hasn't life taught you that that's a good idea?
Actually, holding on to the naïveté of the popular conception of love can be a decidedly bad idea.
Well, the popular conception of anything is unlikely to sit well on my plate, but what do you mean?
Let me first acknowledge that "Love Does Not Exist" is not a popular position to take... certainly not with any woman in my life.
I assume you have little horns coming from your head.
And I imagine you as a Hugh Grant figure. But I think that this idea of "Love," popular conception or some other version, causes more harm than good in relationships, and promotes an unrealistic view of how relationships should work.
Ah ha. Not that it doesn't exist, just that it can get in the way. And, yes, Hugh Grant is often my body double.
Nope, it actually doesn't exist. Here's what does exist:
Loyalty.
Compassion.
Sexual attraction.
Patience.
Those are real and measurable and the components of a great relationship.
Well, I hope all those things exist, though I'm not sure anyone would ask me to prove any of them. As to love, why couldn't it simply be defined as "a feeling toward someone/thing that's as good as you're capable of feeling"? That wouldn't be a bad component of a relationship, now would it?
Well, we could go with that if you really want to come up with a definition, but I think you can agree that's not what most people mean. Most people imagine there's some magical state that exists, that just HAPPENS.
Okay, you'd rather believe in electrical neurological impulses than kismet or fate or amour fou.
Please hold while I google "amour fou."
Whatever you attribute it to, if I'd give you the last ice cream bar before I'd eat it myself, just because making you happy makes me happy — that's not bad, right?
Why not just call that thoughtfulness?
Hmm, I don't trust the brain very much, and I do trust my feelings. But I do think it's sad to imagine that love is enough, that it will always save the day, that it is the be-all and end-all of a relationship. That's very dangerous.
Here's the thing: I hope sincerely that the woman that I choose to be with doesn't believe that love exists.
What if you make her all aglow? Or — worse! — she makes YOU all aglow!
Well then, I'll bore the glow right out of her with my tedious argument against the existence of love.
Yes, you will, you sweetheart.
I just want someone who doesn't try to wrap the word love around some warm and often fleeting feeling. I want a connection that can sustain itself over time. A connection like that requires a deeper understanding than you find in Sleepless in Seattle.
True. But to me, love is the word to use when you feel that all other words are coming up short. To say, "Baby, I'm maxed out with feeling." And even if that's fleeting, it's a good thing to express, no?
Don't you think we tend to use the word a little carelessly though?
Well, I do, but here's the wrinkle: to me, love is whatever someone is capable of calling love at whatever time. It's like pain: if you think it's there, it is for you, even if you're "wrong" — i.e. it disappears quickly. It's not an absolute state. And we grow in our capacity (hopefully) as we grow as people. Just because the word is used loosely, doesn't mean it isn't incredibly useful. Think about "unique."
Sure, it's a useful word. But my argument is with the overly romanticized view of "love."
But again, don't we have to be patient with ourselves and others as we grow into more "valid" uses of the word? It seems draconian to make people wait to use it till they can do that.
If we better understood what actually makes us compatible in relationships, and weren't all aglow from the romantic notions of love fed to us by the culture, we would have more successful relationships.
That's a good point. That's what I mean about the danger of thinking that love will save the day.
And by culture, I'm not just talking Whitney Houston and the Magnetic Fields. I'm including Shakespeare as well.
Well, he was playing to the crowd. Hey, if you'd like to start a Responsible Amorists League, I'm in. Just don't stop me from telling my baby that I love her oodles.
What will melt women's hearts more than being a card-carrying member of the Responsible Amorists League? Look, I like those happy endings as well. Except of course when good things happen to Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. And I'm sure in your case she's a real schoompie. But when you guys have a real-life problem that needs real-life solving, all the oodles and wittle babies in the world won't save you.
Very true. And listen, I was in an all-love, no-functionality relationship and I had to end it. The one I'm in now started with incredible functionality, and the love came in more slowly. But the love I've come to feel for her is inordinate — though so different from the flames-licking-up-the-church-walls type I had before.
So contrary to the Beatles, you'd say that love is not all you need?
No fucking way. In fact, I'd argue that if the love precedes the relationship having any depth, it might not even be beneficial — as I think you believe. But it's still love!
I think love is a great word and concept, but it's just a concept, not a real state. But don't be naive. When you wonder at night looking at the stars why they burn so bright, be aware that it's because of nuclear fusion.
And here I thought God was winking at me for being such a good boy.
Ha! Some would argue of course that we all have the selfish gene. That love does not exist. That when a mother saves her baby, it's not love but a biological need to protect the future propagation of her genes...
Well, if self-interest makes you want to be caring and giving to someone so they do it back to you, I'm all for it. And she's free to use me that way too.
...but for the record, I'm not going that far. I just side more with the ancient Greeks, who had five different words for love. I believe in chemistry at first sight. Desire at first sight.
And lust at first sight, of course.
Indeed.
But listen, if I make it to ninety and am still walking hand-in-hand with my sweetie by choice, then will you grant that I won?
You won at life, at companionship, at making work the most beautiful thing that life offers.
Bingo. Call it what you will.
Share this article:     22 Comments
LC commented on 11/30
JL commented on 11/30 RAE commented on 11/30 huh commented on 11/30 BR commented on 11/30 CPR commented on 11/30 KHAL commented on 11/30 LPC commented on 11/30 OHUH commented on 11/30 LMJ commented on 11/30 GD commented on 11/30 srr commented on 11/30 ja commented on 11/30 SMN commented on 11/30 dc commented on 11/30 ad commented on 11/30 cas commented on 12/01 K commented on 12/01 Sara commented on 12/02 vt commented on 12/07 ask commented on 12/08 fum commented on 12/08 Previous Hooksexup Debates
|
 |
|
Sex Advice From World of Warcraft Players by Eric Larnick Q: What has World of Warcraft taught you about dating? A: People who spend a lot of time in front of the computer have excellent imaginations. /advice/ |
|
Front-Row Tweets: When in Rome, Edge of Darkness, and Saint John of Las Vegas by Various Exactly how much do Twitter users want Josh Duhamel to get on top of them? Find out here. /entertainment/ |
|
Edge of Darkness by Scott Von Doviak Can this revenge thriller restore Mel Gibson's reputation? /entertainment/ |
|
Talking to Strangers by Sean McGurn and Meghan Pleticha Hooksexup asks deeply personal questions to people we just met. |
|
Awesome Advice, Way to Go! by Erin Bradley Is it possible for a boyfriend to not be jealous enough? /advice/ |
|
Culture Wars: Are the Creators of Lost Making It Up As They Go? by Scott Von Doviak and Andrew Osborne Theories on Season 6. /entertainment/ |
|
Savage Love by Dan Savage An all-threesome spectacular! /advice/ |
|
The Internet Meme Hall of Fame: The Venn Diagram by Various |
