Katrina Wright
HUMA-1100
What is Love: Baby Don’t Hurt Me
Love. We all talk about it, see it on TV, witness it first and second hand, and have an idea of
what it means to us; but what is it really? Is love something procured by media executives to enhance
sales? Is it the lightheaded feeling we get in the pit of our stomachs whenever we think about a certain
someone? Is it an excuse to procreate? The dictionary gives love five definitions and considers it both a
noun and verb, meaning it is a thing and an action all in one. The definitions are as follows: 1. a
profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person; 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or
deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend; 3. sexual passion or desire; 4.a person toward whom love
is felt, beloved person, sweetheart; 5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the
like): Would you like to see a movie, love? 1 But what does this all mean, and how do each of us feel and
use love in our daily lives? People are all so unique and diverse, how is it felt worldwide and what
changes to cause the experience to be different for everyone?
Scientifically, love can be described and divided into three different ideas based on patterned
research over time: chemical, theoretical, and evolutionary. Love can be chalked up to a simple chemical
reaction in the brain. Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the
attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long
term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments. Sternberg (1986) introduced a
triangle model of love that has three dimensions. Depending on the strength of any of those three
dimensions will dictate what type of "love" that may be. For example, if someone has a high level of
passion, but very little commitment, then that relationship may be simply infatuation. 2 For Fisher
(1994), love is a deep seated brain activity that has evolved over thousands of years due to the survival
advantages monogamy affords a helpless offspring. Fisher also classifies love as composing of two
dimensions, attraction and attachment. The Sternberg Theory addresses the maintenance of close
relationships by continuing to keep each of the 3 dimensions exercised. Relationships need passion,
intimacy, and commitment for it to be truly fulfilling and enduring. Fisher (1994) on the other hand
believes that our falling in and out of love tends to be cyclical with other mammals and breeding cycles.
Thus, we may be preconditioned to be monogamous during periods, and then become restless and
wander during other periods. This is commonly referred to as the "4 year itch". 3 While these theories on
love have been shown over time, they are still unable to be proven as fact (just as all other theories),
meaning they could change or be proven false at any time.
We see love portrayed and convened to us through many different forms. Some of us have
parents that love one another and we can exhibit it firsthand in a home environment; others may have
parents who have deep anguish towards the other and we grow up with a distorted view of what love
can and might look like. Another good source of “seen” love comes from the media. We unknowingly
have it constantly shoved down our throats on a daily basis, subconsciously associating the feelings of
love with products and images, and we build a perception of love and what it is based on what we see. If
a person watches any romantic comedies/dramas/etc, they can see love in a form that is nearly
unrealistic and sometimes frightening. Whether we like it or not, most people base a lot of their lives on
what they see on TV, and when the media shows love as something outlandish and unattainable for the
average person, it conveys a hopeless feeling because we are unable to acquire the love we see in
movies, commercials, and other forms of media.
Media Awareness Network compiled a list of stereotypes 4 often associated with the male. They
include: The joker, the jock, the strong, silent type, the big shot, the action hero, and the buffoon. Males
are often portrayed as heterosexual, they are more related to the public sphere of work, they reinforce
the idea that men are linked to masculinity, power, dominance and control, and those of them who
aren’t Caucasian exhibit more problems on average. Women were described in a completely opposite
stereotype light and were more often associated with the femme fatale, the supermom, the sex kitten,
the nasty corporate climber; they are mostly white, skinny, attractive (unless they are playing a comical
role), and normally dressed up more than an average woman would be. Women are also more often
associated with food, diet, household chores, and mothering. For example, how often do you see a man
using a Swiffer or preparing a meal? Seeing these roles growing up and having them constantly repeated
no matter where we are can drill the idea into our heads that women and men are required to behave a
certain way in relationships, leading to a distorted perception of love. These stereotypes can encourage
us to stay in something that is unhealthy or dangerous simply because we are trying to live up to the
“celebrity image” that is love. We all want the beautiful, rich, ambitious, romantic, spontaneous,
amazing lover that we see in films, but we have to find that in ourselves and inspire it for our
relationship to succeed.
Doing research and having a small, yet varied group of individuals both male and female ages 862, it was surprising how often people of all ages felt the need to conform to the type of love they’ve
witnessed through the media. Three-fourths of all applications filled out concluded that people
associated more with the stereotypical male and female roles in life. Women had a much more romantic
idea of love and what it entails, most of them sounding straight out of a romantic movie; while the
majority of my male participants included a response that was similar to a joke (many stating that to
them love meant food, inanimate objects, and sexual favors and chores from their wife), leading me to
believe that they are more uncomfortable with expressing their emotions than females. Most men in
the media are also seen this way, rarely crying, feeling shame, sympathy, or other “weak-appearing”
emotions, while women are usually crying or being over-emotional to compensate and it appears
completely normal. Another common trait I noticed was that children had a more fantasy-like idea of
love and the older adults became, the more cynical their descriptions. Men are stuck in their provider
roles, seeing relationships and love as more of something that is supposed to be, while woman are in a
“damsel in distress” state and keep waiting for Brad Pitt to sweep them off their feet with stalker-ish
tactics and over-the-top pleas for their affection.
Much of our roles in relationships can be derived from what we see, and sadly, it hasn’t been
shown the best. Males and females correlate their responsibilities in love based on poor examples from
the media and possibly their parents and other adult relationships they’ve witnessed. Love cannot be
forced, controlled, or changed; it has been shown to be a simple chemical reaction in our brains that
targets both good and bad feelings and our rewards center, boosting or depressing us based on effort
and result. Love will always be something else to someone else, but what it means to us and the person
we are in love with is the most important aspect of it. We cannot base our own relationships with love
off of what is portrayed on TV or by others because each person is unique and thus each experience
with love will vary. Love can be whatever we create of it, but no matter how you size it up, it is love;
unexplainable, emotional, overwhelming, and amazing all at once.
References:
1 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love
2 Fisher,
HE (1994) The Nature of Romantic Love; The Journal of NIH Research 6#4:59-64. Reprinted in Annual
Editions: Physical Anthropology, Spring 1995
3 Sternberg,
4
R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135.
2007 Media Awareness Network; http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/index/cfm