Where is the love

This weekend, I saw a couple from my community walking ahead of me in the long underground corridor between Monument and Bank stations. They walked stiffly apart from each other, the boy carrying his shopping, the girl carrying hers. There was no physical contact, no talk or laughter, no chemistry between them. Walking 50 metres behind, I could feel the tense cold wall of anger between them.

I looked at them and wondered what kept them together? Of course I know that all couples have their moments. All couples quarrel, fight, make up, make out in a passionate cycle that celebrates the glory of the freewheeling roller-coaster ride of emotions that is love. But all too many I think, fall into a rut. In that case, what keeps them together? Is it a force of habit? The idea of security blanket, a safety net? A matter of convenience? One of apathy, inertia? The fear of being alone?

Watching the two before me, I wondered if they still truly loved each other. Or whether it had all gone into cruise control, and it was a matter of: Oh since he's there, oh well.

That thought hollowed out my insides. I felt like the bottom of my heart had fallen out. And I thought, you know... that's complete bullshit. I could never buy into that. And frankly, maybe I'm not a relationship kind of girl at all. What's the point of holding on to something that's on life support?

My cousin said that she'd read somewhere that the feeling of "being in love" wears away after 2 years anyway, so it's completely natural, and you need to have foundation of something more than just that stomach-churning feeling of love.

And if one thinks about it, that makes complete sense. All living creatures are genetically engineered to have one fundamental goal—that of perpetuating their species (more specifically, their own genes). In which case, 2 years make perfect sense. The first year for the requisite courtship, subsequent mating, and then the 9-month pregnancy during which the male needs to guard over the mother and her unborn child. Year 2: in the first year after the baby is born, the mother is still weak and needs to nurture the infant, and is thus unable to fend for herself (e.g. return to work, or defend her home, or whatever the case might have been in pre-historic hunter-gatherer societies) and therefore the male must needs have that protective instinct that feeling of "being in love" generates in order to safeguard the continuity of his line.

Therefore, it seems possible and logical that humans are genetically built to only have relationships that last for 2 years (or at least fewer years that the "forever" of 40, 50 years that marriage entails). And who are we to fight against the very laws of nature?

Better that we all take part in a great game of "musical partners" than to remain apathetically, unhappily, aye - unnaturally! in monogamistic relationships. But of course that only works if everyone participates. And also, ideally, if both parties "fall out of love" at the same time (or all parties switch affections as clockwork at specific points in the cycle).

There is something to be said for free love . Or at least the social acceptance of the freedom to love and leave at will without the pressure and pretense of marriage.

I'll probably regret spouting these arguments. Especially when I'm old, decrepit, alone and in danger to being gnawed to death by my nine cats. Also, I have a sneaky suspicion that when the time comes for me to fall in love again, I will recant my argument.

But till then, I remain cynically yours.