"Love is the delusion that one [person] differs from another." ~
Henry Louis MenckenA lot of people are gonna hate this, but I think it's an interesting idea. Though it's a very cynical way to view romance, there may be some truth to what Mencken said.
Yeah.
I went there.
Firstly, I'd like to state that I certainly don't believe that everyone is the same. I'm sure Mencken knew as well that the odds of you falling in love with one person aren't the same as everyone else in the world. But I do believe you have way more options than one, and that the idea of a "soul mate" is ridiculous and delusional.
Obviously the fact that I'm single makes this easier to say. At the same time, I think being infatuated is like being on a drug. It alters your mind and prevents you from thinking straight all the time. Anyway, I'm well aware that this isn't the kind of conversation you go and have with your girlfriend, so if you were thinking about bringing this up with your significant other you should probably smack yourself in the face.
Twice.
I'll wait.
Anyway, I'm gonna go off on some tangents.
I honestly think you can't believe in true love without being a least a little bit religious. Isn't the idea supposed to be beyond scientific explanation? I know I'm assuming that all atheists are fierce advocates of logic above all else, and maybe that's not true, but I think the concept of love has a lot of religious undertones. A lot of people see it as a kind of supernatural/spiritual force that united two individuals. But is there a way to break down love with logic?
From what I've learned in Comm. and Anthro. classes, there are pretty solid explanations for why people fall in love. Obviously it all starts with initial attraction.
There are certain characteristics that practically everyone can agree make the opposite (or same?) sex attractive.
These characteristics are almost always highly correlated to fertility, e.g. high levels of testosterone in men gives then strong jaw, broad shoulders, and other things that women find attractive.
Females also tend to be attracted to males with power. (I use "male" and "female" because I'm not exclusively talking about humans.) This power is usually determined by size, strength, hunting capability etc. For humans, it can also be determined by wealth, charisma, etc. Then there's the cliche things like sense of humor, intelligence, talent (which are often the things that combine to make a person charismatic. Note to self: charisma = important).
OK here's where my thoughts come in. Maybe this is a stretch, but I think it's possible. If you were able to learn all the tiny things that affect a person being attracted to another, couldn't you figure out how to manipulate these traits to trick anyone into potentially falling in love with you?
I know it sounds pretty f*cked up, but isn't this KIND of similar to what "players" or "pick-up artists" (whatever you wanna call them) do?
Suppose it were possible to manipulate someone into falling in love with you. Would that make Mencken's statement valid?
The idea of love also changes when you look at it from an evolutionary perspective. It's been proven that men overestimate women's interest in them, while women overestimate men's sex drive. These both make sense, as male mammals are ideally supposed to "spread their seed" to as many females as possible, while females must be cautious and make sure the male they are impregnated by is the best choice possible. Because men invest very little in childbirth, it is in their best interest to sleep around (by animal/evolutionary standards) and because women invest very much in childbirth, it is in their best interest to be selective with their men/man.
It's hard not to be cynical about "love" when it starts to seem as simply a way to make reproduction a smoother process.
Feel free to disagree. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'd love to be proven wrong.
