Love and Romance

I know these last few blog entries make it seem that I think of marriage as a clinical legal decision, void of real feelings. I do think the object of marriage is a practical consideration, true. One can have marriage without love, and it work, just as readily as one can have love without marriage, and it work. I think both benefit from romance which, though often mistaken for it, is not love. I think the notion of whirlwind romance, sweet sentiment, and constant longing are part of a more romantic time and the pleasure of those who have the leisure to enjoy it. But that isn't love, that is a chemical response to someone else. 

Love, in my opinion, is bigger, deeper, and less conditional on the presence of the beloved. Real love remains untouched by circumstance or behavior. I posit that to be really in love has little to do with romantic feeling, although, one can have a kind of romance as well as love and marriage. I also think romance is a mere gateway to lasting love and successful marriage. A biological function that serves the purpose of putting people together. Just as fight or flight are protective measures meant to separate. Is it always right, that rush of emotion? Does it always act in our best interest? Hardly, but it's pushed on us as the penultimate. That where there is romance there should be love. Just as where there is love there must be marriage. I don't agree with either.

Some people move from gush to gush, romantically speaking, without ever giving real love a chance. New Relationship Energy which is the modern community's term for that rush of emotional energy on first connecting with someone is pretty much chemical, nature's way of saying; "Hey this is biologically attractive for mating, check it out." And it is temporary. NRE usually only lasts a year or two at most then as they say, the honeymoon is over. Some people expect love and marriage to be this high level of romantic tension but no one can maintain such dizzy heights indefinitely. So what is the point of romance then?

It serves a useful purpose for if we entered a relationship with eyes open we would too soon talk ourselves out of love altogether. Confronted immediately with someone's flaws, or expectations as they really are we might run and hide from love. It could be possible to say that romantic feeling is a way to get us to have sex more than to create relationships on. It would explain why women tend toward the alpha male jerk instead of the man she has so much in common with but feels no spark. I have long pondered that as a species we might be better off if we mated with useful genes and lived with those who were especially caring and tender with whom we connect more readily. There is a security in love that does not exist in romance. But having been so poisoned by the notion that romance is love we needlessly create crisis where there should be none. But the notion of breeding with studs and marrying our best friends seems more appalling than divorce. Not that studs aren't good providers or are somehow incapable of love is not an issue but they are more inclined to spread their seed readily, create sweeping feelings in the objects of their infatuation, and leave with the self assured knowledge that their work here is done. If we, as a culture, saw this as normal it would be a game changer. Slutty alpha males could be so with few social repercussions, women who wanted children but preferred security could mate and marry another with no social issues and children might be reared in a more stable environment. 

Sometimes a stud drops out of circulation in favor of love and marriage, sometimes the beta has all the genetic qualities a girl might want in her offspring, that too could be normal. But then, what of love. When I say it, I mean a strong bond of mutual contentment and benefit. To want to be with the person in spite of their flaws, mistakes, or odd behavior as well as the joys, admiration, and commonality. Love rises above gushing emotion. But there is a consolation, for long history with another in contented love, does sometimes give way to another kind of romantic feeling. The kind that you see in the long married elderly couple holding hands, or the wife who tenderly attends a husband, not out of servitude but as a gift to his happiness, or a man who sends flowers for no reason. Love is born of mutual respect and trust, romance, of mutual attraction. Though I have separated them here, I do believe it possible for love to evolve from the murk of romance. For it to emerge to form the arms and legs of service and tender contentment love requires. I, personally, prefer love over romance. Romance is exhausting and expensive. Love, however, is easy with the best match and marriage easier still with love. 

Our society anchors so much on spontaneous romantic feeling, it never gets around to telling us what happily-ever-after looks like. Maybe the mystery is intentional, maybe the thing we don't know about the fairy tale is that happily-ever-after is a daily individual choice rather than an automatic process. Love must grow because it is based on things that develop over time, trust, respect, compromise, honesty. None of which can or should be expected to just appear automatically. It takes consciousness and an unselfish maturity to grow love. Love is a child that must be nurtured and cared for attentively, romance is there or it isn't. Attraction is often instantaneous but cultivating love is an ongoing process of two steps forward and one step back, a thing infinitely more gratifying, unless of course you thrive on tension which is the medium of romance. 

Would I then abolish romance from the menu? By no means! I only wish it were not so readily mistaken as the end of the matter. I have no need to abolish what serves a purpose but neither do I feel it imperative to hold on to something beyond its usefulness.