why doesn't love last, when friendship does?

Bingo!

Add to that the pervasive myth that relationships don’t require work because love conquers all, and a lot of relationships founder when the first flush of new relationship euphoria wears off. As soon as the Love Object is no longer the shiniest thing in the known universe, that’s evidence that the Love Object is not The One, and searching for The One resumes.

Some relationships end for other reasons – misrepresentation, drifting apart, say – but hell, friendships end for those reasons too.

My husband and I have been together for eight years; we’ve done it by working out our differences, a lot of negotiation, and figuring out how to live with each other (which was a doozy). My boyfriend and I have a load of work to get through, but we both think (at least most of the time) that it’s worth doing.

Oh, hey, a while back someone showed me a link to studies of marriages that last. Where is that thing . . . .
http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/pubs/parker2.html#stu
That thing cites “ability to change”, “ability to live with the unchangeable”, “assumption of permanence”, “trust”, “balance of dependencies and power”, “enjoyment of each other”, “valued shared history”, and “luck” as the major factors in marriage duration.

AHunter3–“is it your intention to assert that the generalizations you are making are reflections of built-in biological inclinations, as opposed to cultural/societal ways of organizing sex, sexuality, and reproduction? (your references to the “male nervous system” seem to imply this)…If so, how do you defend arriving at this conclusion? Have you seriously considered and then rejected the cultural/societal hypothesis regarding these differences? If so, on what basis?”

Right at the start, I’ll own up to the fact that I cannot cite any scientific studies relevant to my post.

I am a philosopher. (The bar is fairly low: see the works of Paul Kurtz.) I say that only to elaborate upon (not prove) my claim that I think about rather abstract things habitually, and take seriously my thinkings.

I’ve arrived at the attitude that, if it makes sense that a certain set of behavioral dispositions would be “hardwired” by natural selection, that is more likely to be the case than some version of the cultural learning model. Why, would make for quite a lengthy discussion indeed. So I don’t present this as a scientific matter, but as the intuitions of an informed layman.

It makes sense to me that highly-mobile, strongly motivated impregnators would move to the fore (which is what “evolve” means), ahead of those that are less mobile and less motivated. It makes sense that tough, rapacious, orgasm-driven simians would come to typify the male. Which leaves the remaining sex to balance the equation, so to speak.

In a very general way, isn’t this what we actually see–dressed up and prettified? (And remembering the compromises that society has imposed.)

Have generations of social learning theory, of the belief that human dispositions are unlimitedly mutable, of the belief that cultural mores are “taught” and can be untaught, made us better and happier? Do we value persons not ourselves more–or less? Have commitments become easier to keep–or easier to walk away from? Is intimacy with others more an attainable goal–or more a disheartening phantom?

This is not a general polemic against the modern world, much less against personal freedom from imposed gender-role expectations. I do suggest that “love” fails for both men and women insofar as they pretend that their dispositions and urges don’t exist, as opposed to admitting that they do, when they do, and choosing to control them even at some cost.

Now that the OP has provided more detail, I’m not sure this level of generalization is helpful to him, in any event.

Scott I’m not looking for help. I just think that to examine why realtionships don’t last is interesting. I used the backdrop of friendship to get some kind of perspective. It’s close to midnight here, and the hamsters need feeding, so I’ll get back to this in the morning.

I don’t believe love is something you find. It is something you create.

And I can’t imagine being in love with someone who isn’t my best friend.

So I guess I disagree with the premise of the OP. Love lasts *because * friendship lasts.

Regards,
Shodan

I’m not shure if I understand you correctly, but it seems to me that you’re saying that all relationships man-woman is based on the man’s need to penetrate. When that desire wears off, and the man loses interest, the relationship dies.
I can’t believe that you’re actually saying, and this is 2002, that women are only passive recipients of love and as long as the nurturing from the man continues, she will continue to love him.

Well, I did state that some people find eternal love. But it seems to me that the overwhelming majority doesn’t. Have you found it, Shodan? If that’s the case - let me be the first to congratulate you.

Im sorry to dirty up this thread with my 2c but Ill give my observations anyway.

Im Male, hetero, and out of college…thats all I’ll say.

Some reasons ive seen my relationships fail.

Hormonal/mental changes. Ive had 2 relationships, one of them an engagement, fail within a month or two of my GF going on birth control. Both times it was very sudden, and broke up a long term (2 year plus) relationship. Admitedly there were other factors involved.

Bad base for the relationship. Ive had 2 sex based relationships fail because at first all we did was have sex then when we tried to have a “real” relationship we discovered we weren’t good together. Both were short term relationships < 3 months.

The “In-Love” feeling. Ive had 2 relationships fail because the “In-Love” feeling went away. The first was for me (that was when I was young and stupid), the second for her. Most people dont realise that the “In-Love” feeling is a temporary hormonal reaction, and almost always goes away.

Balance. Ive had 2 relationships, one a best friendship and the other a love/sex relationship fail. Something happened to change the balance and send the whole relationship spiralling down to the rocks.

My number one thought on the matter: Females are just too darn confusing and different. At the heart of this is that Males were Created/Evolved to have sex (polygamy), while females were C/Eed to be nurturers and be nurtured(monagamy). Ill cite a show on the Disc channel as my source for these ideas. (Sorry I cant properly cite it.) PLUS females have C/Eed to be attracted to the “Dominant Male” type which is a recipe for disaster. The usual “Dominant Male” is the opposite of what the avg female wants and needs long-term (a nuturer), but is most attracted to (a fighter/protector). Ive seen this in many, many of my female friends, they all end up in abusive relationships that last for a long time, but as soon as they are in a nurturing relationship, they are more unhappy than when they were in the abusive one.

Well, this turned out to be more like my buck and a quarter then my 2c.

The whole sociobiology thing is insufficiently nuanced, notes this polygamous female.

Okay, first of all, the idea of females being monagamous is false. Considering that 1/3 of sperm is used for fertilization and the other 2/3 is used to fight and defend against other sperm, females probably slept around.

Plus, if you study anthropology, in “primitive” tribes, the females will sleep around just as much as males do.

Also, I am a female and I am the dominant one in my relationship.

Scott Dickerson

Your theory does not hold up under scrutiny.

For one, I don’t see what you find so wrong about male/male relationships. I know plenty of guys that have lasting, long, fullfilling relationships with other guys.

Secondly, you base your ideas of what it is to be male and female on inaccurant, prejudice ideas. It doesn’t hold up when you examine other cultures and ideals.

As a side note, in the eastern world, there was no concept of “love” before the europeans arrived.

I based my opinions on my own observations and on a TLC or Disc show about neanderthals, and another about monkeys.

As for the females sleeping around in primitive tribes I forgot about that :smack: .

Oh and Im not talking about ALL females, just the one’s i’ve observed.

eek

Ava–“Your theory does not hold up under scrutiny.”

If you mean that every detail of my comments don’t aply to every real-world, case…You’re absolutely right. I acknowledge that it is a generalization applying, if at all, over fairly large populations.

“For one, I don’t see what you find so wrong about male/male relationships.”

I don’t find anything “wrong about” male-male relationships. Some of my best friends are gay; including myself But I thought the question was about “love not lasting while friendship does.” My comments have to do with the barriers to love men tend to find due to their evolutionary hardwiring as males, suggesting what one might do to overcome those barriers.

“I know plenty of guys that have lasting, long, fullfilling relationships with other guys.”

Great. And I’m sure Gaspode knows many such hetero relationships. There are also men and women, gay and straight, who live in idle despair because they know only that they lack something that they believe others are finding, and wonder why. I’m suggesting some factors involved. (Admittedly, saying “it isn’t pretty” was a bit derelict.)

“Secondly, you base your ideas of what it is to be male and female on inaccurant, prejudice ideas. It doesn’t hold up when you examine other cultures and ideals.”

Your going into detail would be appropriate and interesting.

“As a side note, in the eastern world, there was no concept of ‘love’ before the europeans arrived.”

I’m the one emphasizing the notion that “love” is a cultural add-on over hardwired biological basics. However, I’d be surprised if very many persons familiar with the social-cultural history of the pre-European eastern world (Japan? Polynesia?) would give three cheers and four stars to your comment without considerable cautious modification. Whether it’s as bad a generalization as some of my own, I wouldn’t dare say!

Now, addressing everyone else–IF we define “love” in such a way that an ongoing desire to be together with a sense of mutual commitment is no longer part of the deal–if it becomes just a set of certain feelings as such (infatuation, comfort, coital pleasure)–then many of my comments are irrelevant. But that was not the sense I got from the OP.

I already heard that (and more generally that “romantic love” was a purely european, and fairly recent, construct) , but I would need some evidences to believe it

—So why do realationships fall apart? Is it the sex? Why can’t we make it last, the way we make friendship last?—

Just have sex with your friends and get over yourself.