Joan,
I think the concept of love is a construct that we use to rationalize genetic and evolutionary determinism. IMO we need to recognize it as rationalization, not an independent physical reality. People engage in sexual activity because it feels good -- like scratching an itch. They tend to stay with a single partner for some period of time for the same reason. So, when you light-heartedly asked Does it really matter what women want, or what men want? They are not likely to get it, anyway...<gg> you raised a very profound question. What each of us desires depends on our individual rationalization of the sex drive, but what the species wants (I hate to be teleological, but I can't help it here) is another matter altogether.
The poet in us tends to avoid the question of why love exists at all, but the scientist understands full well that reproduction is a necessary precondition for the survival of the species. We try to convince ourselves in so many ways that we are different from the animals, but in point of fact, except for our insistence that we are different, we are really no different.
Unfortunately we have mucked up our reproductive lives with taboos, and rules, and guidebooks that run counter to where our instincts lead. From a biological perspective, sexuality is entirely reproductive in nature, as is monogamy (simply because it has survival value for the offspring). The separation of procreation from recreation inevitably invites some to engage in rewriting the rules; consequently we are dealing with issues that are needlessly complex.
This is a long, and drawn out way of saying that I agree with you provided we agree that the concept of love is a distinctly human rationalization of a set of behaviors and instincts.
Nevertheless I still enjoy the poetic rationalizations and the sexual fantasies.
But like you, what do I know?
CTC |
