Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, August 2, 2007 | Science : Psychiatry and Psychology | print version Print | Comments

Document Are antidepressants taking the edge off love?

by Susan Brink

Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-antidepressants30jul30,1,5710039.story?coll=la-utilities-health&ctrack=1&cset=true&vote31482270=1

Sure, we know about the sexual side effects of SSRIs. But researchers now wonder if that's the only aspect of romance the drugs can influence.

LOVE'S first rush is a private madness between two people, all-consuming and, if mutually felt, endlessly wonderful.

Couples think about the other obsessively -- on a roller coaster of euphoria when together, longing when apart.

"It's temporary insanity," says Helen Fisher, an evolutionary anthropologist at Rutgers University.

Now, from her studies of the brains of lovers in the throes of the initial tumble, Fisher has developed a controversial theory. She and her collaborator, psychiatrist J. Anderson Thomson of the University of Virginia, believe that Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil and other antidepressants alter brain chemistry so as to blunt the intense cutting edge of new love.

Fisher and Thomson, who describe their theory in a chapter in the book, "Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience," aren't talking just about the notorious ability of the drugs to damp sexual desire and performance, although that, they believe, plays its part. They think the drugs also sap the craving for a mate -- perhaps even the brain's very ability to fall in love.

And that would be bad news, given the widespread use of antidepressants in this country -- about 10% of adult women and 4% of adult men take the drugs, according to a 2004 report by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

Though they still lack solid evidence that more Americans are having trouble falling in love these days, the scientists do have animal and laboratory science along with some human studies to whet their research appetites.

For one thing, there's brain chemistry. The chemicals involved in the heart-pounding fall over the cliff into another's life, including dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin, are the very chemicals altered by many anti-depressants.

Fisher cites animal studies showing, for example, that female prairie voles, naturally loyal to one mate, lose interest in him when dopamine is suppressed. The early human version of mate-pairing -- romantic love -- is also associated with increased activity in dopamine pathways. And SSRI antidepressants suppress that activity.

SSRIs are also known to curb obsessive thinking, the kind of focused state that is central to the first blush of romance.

For both these reasons, Fisher suggests that SSRIs could jeopardize intense romantic love.

There are few studies on the effects of antidepressants on aspects of love beyond libido and sexual performance. But in an intriguing experiment, one Canadian psychologist, Maryanne Fisher (no relation to Helen), reported evidence in a small 2004 study of what she termed "courtship blunting" in women taking antidepressants.

Asked to rate the attractiveness of men's faces, women taking the drugs rated the men more negatively, and breezed through the pictures faster than women not on antidepressants.

There is also anecdotal evidence -- and although such stories may be anathema to hard science, they can provide the basis for research questions. Thomson collects them.

A 20-year-old man who had been on antidepressants from the ages of 15 to 18 was reluctant to take them again, despite feeling depressed. "No one told him about the sexual side effects. In retrospect, he realized he had the sexual side effects and that might have contributed to his not dating," Thomson says.

Any drug that has sexual side effects, Thomson says, could well blunt other chemicals the brain uses to intently focus on one person or to work up the obsession necessary to fall in love in the first place.

Then there was the 42-year-old single woman who had not been on a date in the eight years she had been taking an antidepressant. "She had not felt any desire [to date] for at least that period of time," he says.

Jerry Frankel, a urologist from Plano, Texas, who's been married for more than 40 years, was so conflicted about his experience on antidepressants he wrote to a national newspaper.

"My usual enthusiasm for life was replaced by blandness," he wrote. "My romantic feelings for my wife declined dramatically." He was willing to risk depression again in order to regain his old zest for romantic depth.

Fisher and Thomson's theory is new enough that many therapists say they've never heard it discussed.

But Richard Tuch, psychoanalyst at the New Center for Psychoanalysis, says he has long been concerned, especially for adolescents, that if pharmaceuticals interfere with sexuality, they may also be interfering with a basic system that teens require to learn about the opposite sex. Still, he's cautious about sounding an alarm. "Antidepressants can save a person's life," he says.

Mental health experts like him already fear that, with recent publicity about suicidal risks in adolescents taking antidepressants, people whose lives could be improved or even saved with medications won't take them. Prescriptions for antidepressants for people 18 and younger fell by 20% since the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning in March 2004 that the drugs may increase the risk of suicide, according to research published in the Sept. 2, 2005, issue of Psychiatric News.

If people think the drugs will hamper their ability to find Mr. or Ms. Right, psychiatrists say, even more might avoid the potentially life-saving medications.

Fisher doesn't quarrel with the drugs' benefits for many with chronic, severe depression. But she worries about people who take the drugs to get through a break-up, a death or a job loss, then keep taking them.

"I'm concerned about well-adjusted men and women who go through a crisis and start taking antidepressants," she says. "They continue taking them, not realizing they may be suppressing these other systems."

Physicians, she says, aren't asking enough of the right questions when they ask their patients about side effects. Lack of awareness of a potentially troubling side effect -- becoming blase about romance -- is reminiscent of the years immediately after the first SSRI, Prozac, was approved in 1988.

At that time, reports were that only about 6% of patients suffered sexual side effects, but the low rate is now understood to have resulted because doctors failed to ask questions about sex and patients were reluctant to bring it up. A later analysis put that figure at about 30%, and a 2001 study at as high as 73%. It is one of the top reasons that people stop taking the drugs.

Doctors may be getting savvier about warning patients about the potential for sexual side effects. But most probably are not asking patients if they feel a blunted drive to search for love.

So far, there is no evidence that a dulling of romantic interest is a universal antidepressant side effect. And when it does appear in people who need the drugs to live and function, doses might be adjusted, or medications changed, Fisher says.

Some scientists dismiss Fisher and Thomson's theory. "Antidepressants tend to tone down the emotions. But they don't interfere with the ability to fall in love. No," says Otto Kernberg, director of the Personality Disorders Institute at the New York Presbyterian Hospital and author of six books on love.

But Tuch says the theory is challenging. "I think it's a call to the psychiatric community to study this. She's raised the question. Now it's our responsibility to look into it," he says.

Until more is known, Thomson has some suggestions for people on antidepressants.

"Regularly ask, 'Do I still need to be on them?' If you're having sexual side effects, ask if everything is being done to mitigate them, because those responses might also be linked to unconscious romantic desires.

"And ask yourself, 'How is this affecting my relationships?' "

susan.brink@latimes.com

Comments 1 - 20 of 20 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #60575 by _J_ on August 2, 2007 at 9:42 am

 avatarI read about this suggestion two years ago. I'd been a bit surprised it hadn't been picked up more broadly by the media then. It makes such a good scare headline, after all.

Other Comments by _J_

2. Comment #60585 by hungarianelephant on August 2, 2007 at 10:57 am

 avatarFunny, I was reading "What is your dangerous idea" on the train this morning, and it includes this argument from Helen Fisher herself.

Decreased libido is a known side-effect of Prozac (see its label at http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2006/018936s076lbl.pdf and marvel at some of the nonsense Eli Lilly managed to slip past the FDA). Even without this research, it seems reasonable to suppose that it will have bad effects on relationships.

Of course, depression is also damaging to relationships. I'm all in favour of treating the drugs with some respect, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the SSRIs have been hugely beneficial for a large number of people (my personal experience that it was worse than the ailment notwithstanding).

I really hope we don't see the scare headlines. Journalists don't seem to realise that they cost lives. Every scare about some trivial and unproven long term effect of the contraceptive pill is followed by a huge spike of unplanned pregnancies, a small number of which result in serious illness or death.

(Sorry if this is a cheerless post. Happy Thursday, everyone.)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

3. Comment #60600 by IQHQ on August 2, 2007 at 11:36 am

 avatarTo those of you who have read about this topic, a question:

I'm aware that scientific enquiry into such issues is at an early stage, but does anyone know if there are any thoughts about "permanent" side effects? That is, if one was to be on such medication and felt that it was inhibiting their natural sexual (or romantic) impulses, could they remedy the situation by simply coming off the medication, and thus return to normal? Or are the effects more than likely of a permanent nature?

Thanks in advance.

Other Comments by IQHQ

4. Comment #60614 by scottbly on August 2, 2007 at 12:55 pm

IQHQ
from what I've seen, the effects of SSRI's go away generally after 2-3 weeks. The neurotransmitters begin to regulate by themselves towards equilibrium, although the mechanism may be dysfunctional in people who require SSRI's. They've only been around for ~20years, so there may be some subtle permanent effects which haven't been found yet. There are also some indications that use in children may inhibit normal development, but nothing confirmed.

HOWEVER, the effects of major depression are confirmed and are much more serious than anything suggested about antidepressants, including inhibited development, hypertension, suicide, and pretty much everything that would be imaginable if you went through life like nearly every day was the one when you broke up with your first love.

Of utmost importance is that no one on antidepressants should stop cold turkey, as this can lead to a catastrophic failure of the neurotransmitter system. definitely wean yourself off slowly if you're going to stop taking them.

Other Comments by scottbly

5. Comment #60630 by IQHQ on August 2, 2007 at 2:13 pm

 avatarscottbly

Thank you for your reply. I don't actually take the things, but know someone who does. Anyway, thanks.

Other Comments by IQHQ

6. Comment #60677 by Cartomancer on August 2, 2007 at 4:30 pm

 avatarHmm... I wonder...

Most people, I suspect, would consider any demonstrable link between the use of these drugs and loss of emotional capacity, particularly in a romantic context, as a universally bad thing. I agree wholeheartedly that attaining a fuller understanding of the effects of our medicines on our bodies is a vital endeavour - as with so many things ignorance can be very dangerous. However, might these findings not have a silver lining? Might not the suppression of romantic urges, obsessive thinking and the ability to form emotionally dependent attachments be a good thing in some contexts?

It is perhaps a product of our overly sentimental culture that romantic love, like religion, is afforded a special and privilleged position in modern discourse. From media as diverse as mainstream Hollywood schmaltz and nauseating christian apologetic we are daily bombarded with the idea that romantic love is a good thing in and of itself, irrespective of the consequences it might have on the individual and the society they belong to.

Attempts to point out the negative consequences of romantic feelings are generally met with the same sort of derision that we atheists get when we confront the certified religious nutcases: anti-aphrodites or anti-erotics or whatever we might be called are generally labelled, even more than atheistic Darwinists, as cold, soulless people who want to wring every drop of compassion from human existence.

Nevertheless a dispassionate and detached view of the evidence indicates that as well as having powerful and measurable positive effects on some individuals, romantic love has equally if not more powerful negative effects on others. The mental state of being in love manifests many of the symptoms normally associated with madness and delusion, as writers from classical antiquity onward have noticed. Like religion, love is a societally acceptable delusion, and acceptable to those who do not share it. Like the religion of many fence-sitting moderates it is also a delusion which most of its sufferers understand that they suffer from but cannot bring themselves to abandon, the deep-seated instinctive urges from their evolutionary past proving all too strong.

Moreover, love is dangerous. Very dangerous. How many thousands of murders are committed each year by jealous lovers or ex-lovers? Most of them the figures would seem to suggest - I suspect more people have died as a result of this basic human weakness than have ever been killed in religious pogroms, witch-hunts and ethnic cleansing. How many suicides result from the deep abyssal despair of unrequited love? How many lives are ruined by unwise choices made in the throes of this divine madness?

And here, perhaps for the first time, we might have an answer to these problems! Of course more study is needed. Of course we should be scrupulously careful and responsible. Of course we should not start prescribing powerful drugs to every teenager complaining about their crushes and insecurities. But surely it behoves that we entertain the possibilities presented by such drugs to make things better in situations where loss of romantic inclinations would be a positive thing?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

7. Comment #60789 by Enlightenme.. on August 2, 2007 at 8:54 pm

 avatarHmm... I also wonder...
It seems to me that sister Teresa of Avila would have greatly benefited from a course of SSRI's to relieve her of those 'blessings of tears' she became afflicted with!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

8. Comment #60954 by Mushroom on August 3, 2007 at 7:07 am

Cartomancer: Nevertheless a dispassionate and detached view of the evidence indicates that as well as having powerful and measurable positive effects on some individuals, romantic love has equally if not more powerful negative effects on others.


Huey Lewis said it best:
The power of love is a curious thing
Make a one man weep, make another man sing

...

First time you feel it, it might make you sad
Next time you feel it it might make you mad
But youll be glad baby when youve found
Thats the power makes the world go round


Other Comments by Mushroom

9. Comment #60962 by Cartomancer on August 3, 2007 at 7:28 am

 avatarThe problem, however is that not everyone does find it. Some people will live their entire lives without finding someone who loves them back, and will suffer terribly because of it. Some people pine and waste away yearning for someone that they cannot have - someone who already has a partner and could not reciprocate even if they wanted to, or who they cannot be with because of circumstance, or who simply is not interested in them in the first place.

Likewise, some people do find such a person, become obsessive about them, lose them and cannot get over it. Sometimes they might even resort to stalking or to murder. These are all commonplaces of our culture and commonplaces of the psychiatrist's couch. There is a debate to be had over whether using medication to alter the brain chemistry of mentally ill people is effective, ethical and safe, but if we accept the premise that in principle it is (and we do, since we already dispense such drugs in large numbers) then I fail to see why it is ok to treat someone who is severely depressed with drugs to alleviate their depression, but not to treat someone whose life is hopelessly poisoned by the pain of unrequited love with drugs to alleviate their desire.

In fact the two often proceed hand in hand.

The universe is, at bottom, a cold, indifferent, heartless place. It does not owe us comfort, it does not owe us love, it does not owe us happiness. We can seek love for ourselves, and if we find purpose and meaning and satisfaction in it then so much the better, but there is no great celestial observer, no benevolent sky-tyrant or law of narrative causality which will reward us in some way just for looking. Some people are happy with the search, and sanguine if they fail to find love, but others are hurt tremendously by it and develop feelings of inadequacy, despair and bitterness. Surely in some cases it must be better to cast hope to the wind, and cut off the sources of that hope - not for nothing did Hesiod say that it was the last of Pandora's evils, clinging stubbornly beneath the lid of her box.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #60965 by kevolved on August 3, 2007 at 7:41 am

 avatar
Mushroom:Huey Lewis said it best:


Huey Lewis!?
I agree the quote does describe love well but Huey Lewis. Mushroom, I am embarrassed for you knowing Huey Lewis well enough to quote his lyrics. ;)

Other Comments by kevolved

11. Comment #60967 by Mushroom on August 3, 2007 at 7:53 am

You were never a fan of Back To The Future?? My mother warned me the internet was full of weirdos ;)

As to the quote, with Google at my fingertips, I can remember all lyrics. Soon I will reach God-like omniscience, mwa ha ha ha ha!

As you were.

Other Comments by Mushroom

12. Comment #60971 by cynthax on August 3, 2007 at 8:03 am

I agree with Cartomancer in many ways. My point of view may be biased, because I take an SSNRI (acts on serotonin and norepinephrine). First of all, it took me a while to agree to take meds for depression. I've been on them for two years now and it's been one of the best decisions of my life.
The reason for my initial reluctance is that nothing in this field is very certain. Descriptions of the medications are always worded as "thought to be", "believed to act", "seems to work" etc. So it's really scary!
One thing about these medications is that it takes a while to find the right combination of chemicals and dosages. For example, the one I tried first made me kind of bland, then an increase in dosage just made me ridiculously sleepy all day. Then my doctor switched meds, combined two of them, and we finally got to the perfect combination. It's a bit painful, you're kind of experimenting on yourself, but it's well worth it.
Because of that personal experience, I'm here wondering if these people that would rather live with depression than go on antidepressants again didn't just have the wrong prescription the first time around. It's not easy, you're at a time in your life when you're afraid of trying, you dread the possibility of failure, and you can't even decide what you want on your pizza, much less what to do about your life. So it's less painful to just stick to good old familiar depression than to risk having unpredictable side effects. It's understandable, but sometimes to recover we've got to be brave.
I agree with Cartomancer that passionate love can be, like religion, a way to deal with difficulties, an that the problem is when you think someone else can save you, when you need to rely on someone else for your own happiness. Passionate love can give you a surge of all the "feel-good" chemicals that a depressed brain fails to do on its own. But that's just blinding yourself to reality, which means that once it's gone, you're left with nothing. Getting out of depression is like getting rid of religion: you take off your dark glasses and can finally see the world clearer. This may lead your brain to "decide" that it doesn't need passion or someone else to be in equilibrium. As for the Pandora's box thing, have you guys ever been on therapy? It's always a Pandora's box, because you start being aware of things you do that you're not usually aware of, and that's frightening. But finding the truth is not always easy, is it? The process of getting out of depression includes discovering a series of self-destructive behaviors you have that are not easy to accept, and at first you deny deny deny.
In short, blandness and indifference (which if you think are actually a step further from hopelessness) are potential results of antidepressants, but usually of the wrong antidepressant. It doesn't have to be like that.
Just for the record, after starting to treat my depression I got out of a harmful relationship and am now happily in love with my current boyfriend. Love is possible with antidepressants! :)

Other Comments by cynthax

13. Comment #61025 by detox on August 3, 2007 at 11:11 am

 avatarTo declare an interest - I've recently taken myself off SSRI's for the first time in 5 years. It seems I was not taking the right ones as cynthax suggests because the ones I took never alleviated the symptoms.

Though in a loving relationship, I finally cracked on the libido issue because it was becoming unfair on my partner and I had to stop the medication.

In the context of this research my personal experience is that my love for my partner does not seem to have been affected by the drugs, before, during or after. What has been affected is the libido which took a bit of a nose-dive, whether due to the depression or the SSRI's I can't say. I can say that months after stopping the meds I still seem to have mislaid my mojo. Which is depressing - though I actually feel fantastic apart from that.

Cartomancer, I have to take issue with you:

"Moreover, love is dangerous. Very dangerous. How many thousands of murders are committed each year by jealous lovers or ex-lovers? Most of them the figures would seem to suggest..."

I may not be a scientist but at least my observations are qualified (if not quantified) by personal experience. Do you have a citation for these figures?

And:

" - I suspect more people have died as a result of this basic human weakness than have ever been killed in religious pogroms, witch-hunts and ethnic cleansing. How many suicides result from the deep abyssal despair of unrequited love? How many lives are ruined by unwise choices made in the throes of this divine madness?"

Really? Isn't this an unscientific description of depression? Not my intention to start a flame war but given that this is Dawkins's forum shouldn't we try at least to avoid expressions like 'divine madness'? Even in jest?

Other Comments by detox

14. Comment #61061 by Cartomancer on August 3, 2007 at 1:47 pm

 avatardetox,

Personal experience is a bit of a double-edged sword when it comes to psychological investigations, indeed to scientific studies in general. I too could argue passionately from personal experience and present a similarly skewed view of the facts. There is plenty of personal experience I could bring to bear to illustrate how psychologically damaging and emotionally sapping romantic love can be for those who love the wrong people, but that isn't going to convince anyone that I have a point, which is why I stick to discussing general trends.

I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, but as you indicate statistical evidence is necessary before we try to come to some kind of conclusion. I am not a professional criminologist but I have read a number of studies which indicate that domestic arguments, sexual jealousy and the breaking up of relationships are by far the most common motives for one-off incidents of murder. I do not keep notes on absolutely everything I read so I can't point out which specific studies I have looked at in detail in the past, but a quick internet search for statistics turns up numerous studies which bear out this conclusion, for instance

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi110.html
http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/library/graphs/12.htm

Now, if indeed it can be shown that there is no link between romantic love, sexual jealousy and acts of violence then I would be the first to admit that my conclusion does not hold water. However, it seems pretty well substantiated and often appears in most respected journals of criminology, so it should at least be entertained. That's all I'm saying really - let's get away from our unscientific cultural predisposition to think of romantic love as an incontrovertably good thing that must be protected at all costs and take a more objective view of how it affects individuals and society.

Maybe I was being slightly hyperbolic in my comparison with religious pogroms and ethnic cleansing, but a problem need not be the greatest problem we face before we take action to solve it. Actually I might speculatively suggest that my conclusion is a very likely one. For a few million years our ancestors lived in small tribal family units on the savannah and weren't really subjected to the organised religious pogroms, witch hunts and ethnic cleansing that we see in historical times. They would, however, have been subject to sexual jealousy and the other emotional strains of finding a mate, and all with only a very basic tribal moral code to regulate their behaviour. Millions of years of jilted lovers, a few thousand of faith atrocities - an entirely ridiculous notion to entertain?

Finally, regarding the phrase divine madness. I will apologise for my self-indulgent tendency toward high-blown rhetoric, but this is an almost ubiquitous pseudonym for romantic love that has been a staple of literary language since classical times. Originally from Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium I think, though commenting on earlier theories of love. I was aware of the conflation of religious and romantic sentiment the phrase conveys, which given the intention behind my rhetoric I thought was rather effective. Maybe I was wrong. You live and learn.

And it was not supposed to be a scientific description of clinical depression, but rather a rhetorical exhortation to consider another point of view. Even then, note, I was careful to qualify it with "I suspect", and to present questions for debate rather than statements of incontrovertable fact. In that sense, yes, it is scientific - it begs questions that need investigating, the gathering of evidence, the analysis of that evidence to produce working theories and so on. The answers might eventually be along the lines of "well no, actually this idea doesn't describe how the psychology of it works very well...", but then again they might just direct research and technology toward a fruitful way of solving some difficult medical problems.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

15. Comment #61064 by roach on August 3, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I'll keep my crappy love thanks.

Other Comments by roach

16. Comment #61087 by Cartomancer on August 3, 2007 at 2:49 pm

 avatarAnd I'll keep trying to ditch mine. There, we're all happy...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

17. Comment #61319 by ? on August 4, 2007 at 3:41 pm

 avatarAnyone else notice that the psychiatric drug craze has at least one positive social effect for our side?--it got (an admittedly vulgarized) version of the scientific materialist view of consciousness and behavior into the cultural mainstream!

This may not be as impressive in Europe, but its fascinating to hear someone in the US who is normally Evangelical or New Ager attribute human thoughts and feelings to brain function when they or their loved ones are in serious trouble.

Normally they would hate you for suggesting that their precious spirit realm is really inside their skulls (though, to be fair, consciousness is no less fascinating for being rooted in matter). Dualism is fine and dandy until philosophies and ideologies based of it can do nothing to get rid of symptoms that are destroying your life.

My problem with psychiatry is not the theory, its the sloppiness of many of the practitioners. "You doing O.K.? Great! Here's your perscription. See you in 4 months." They are often making their decisions based on little knowledge of what is going on in the patient's life and how the medication is actually effecting them. As has been noted on this thread, finding the right drugs and dosages is serious, complicated business.

Other Comments by ?

18. Comment #61327 by _J_ on August 4, 2007 at 5:07 pm

 avatarcartomancer (and also cynthax's and detox's input),

Just wanted to say I'm finding your comments here very interesting and worthwhile. The angle you're pursuing, cartomancer, has been playing on my mind for a couple of years while I've been on-and-off trying to write a play that relates (a little bit) to them. There are some interesting questions about how we see ourselves and our emotions, what we regard as desirable and undesirable, what seems essential to the human experience and so forth in this topic. And you're spot on that romantic love is fetishised in our culture (well, in mine, anyway) to the point that it's peculiarly difficult to make any reasonable criticisms of it. (After a recent reading of a little extract from my script-in-progress, someone enthused about how interesting they thought it would be to see the play go on to compare 'real love' with the 'just chemicals' idea. Ah yes: because there's no way super-duper magic love could be just about chemicals, of course.)

It does all relate interestingly to the religion theme on this website, too. If our criticism of religion conceives of its target as a common human delusion capable of empowering its holders to extreme acts and emotions, some positive and productive, some agonising and destructive, then we could equally well be describing romantic (/manic) love. It's fascinating to think about whether the train of thought that leads us to criticise religion ought also to lead us to similarly criticise love - and if not, why not.

Anyway, just thought I'd chip in my thanks and applause. (Time for bed - better take of my pointy ears.)

Other Comments by _J_

19. Comment #61426 by detox on August 5, 2007 at 5:53 am

 avatarAn apology. There are, I would suggest, few things more tedious than someone banging on about their particular personal circumstances and using the resulting 'evidence' as proof of a given hypothesis. As an argumentative technique it ranks right up there with 'because it says so in the bible'. My previous post was merely expressed in terms of the original conceit regarding the potential effects of SSRI's on the ability of a lover to emote in the 'conventional' manner.

Forgive the solipsism.

Cartomancer: I have to admit that picking you up on a couple of expressions was perhaps churlish given that I had a certain amount of sympathy with your argument. The concept that romantic love should be seen as something to strive for is not necessarily beneficial in modern society. If 'love' per se is a function of our brains that can be seen in terms of chemical reactions and by abstraction a result of evolutionary development then I would suggest that the idea of achieving love as some sort of goal to be attained may be nothing more than a meme that has been given credence by virtue of its longevity.

I may well be wrong about the meme but I am reminded of the story in TGD about the guy staring at the photograph of Stalin, with tears rolling down his cheeks in some sort of quasi-religious trance and expressing his admiration for Uncle Joe in terms of love.

I understand where he is coming from. I've done that sort of thing myself. Firstly as a child gazing on the bloodied and bowed face of my saviour on the cross. Later as a callow youth clutching a photo of my latest paramour. Since I've (thankfully) been disabused of the reciprocal love relationship between myself and the unfortunate character who may or may not have been crucified millennia before I was conceived then it follows that I could equally be disabused of the 'logic' of pining for an absent lover.

Having come to realise that god is a fantasy I'm happy to be told that the reason I 'loved' him was because the chemicals in my brain predisposed me towards having those feelings. What I'm less clear on is the case of my absent lover: tell me that my feelings are nothing more than biologically controlled reactions and I might reply that I know my lover exists and I know their absence causes me pain.

Perhaps then we should advocate the use of SSRI's or future enhanced versions to control love. Could it be as simplistic as: chemicals = love, love = religion, remove the chemicals = remove the religion?

I know I've drifted into the first person again, for which further apologies but if I'm not advancing the argument, the onanistic process is at least enjoyable.

Other Comments by detox

20. Comment #77252 by Kirby on October 8, 2007 at 9:12 pm

 avatarHi all

My concern is this. If our morality is based in our 'wiring' - if our altruism, our love, our ability to both individuate and cooperate come from this – then 'blunting' our wiring means blunting our morality, our personal and communal growth. A'Brave New World' where fed the 'soma' pill we can 'enjoy' Utopia and escape the 'Savage Reservation'?

Other Comments by Kirby
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@latimes.com