Falling In Love: Why We Choose The Lovers We Choose Part 7

This bud of love, by summer's ripening breath, May prove a beauteous flower when next we meet.

-Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet Romeo and Juliet "

I met him when I was a freshmen and he was a senior. We lived in met him when I was a freshmen and he was a senior. We lived in the same dorm and he was always a nice guy, but you know, I really the same dorm and he was always a nice guy, but you know, I really wasn't interested in him because he was so much older. I mean, three wasn't interested in him because he was so much older. I mean, three years can seem like a lot [laughs]. Here I was taking Freshman English years can seem like a lot [laughs]. Here I was taking Freshman English and he was finishing his major. I mean, he was big-time. He was and he was finishing his major. I mean, he was big-time. He was friendly and asked me out a couple of times, but nothing more than friendly and asked me out a couple of times, but nothing more than that at first. My heart didn't beat real fast. It wasn't love at first sight. that at first. My heart didn't beat real fast. It wasn't love at first sight.

We were just buddies. I never even thought about it for a year and a half. After that period we started getting closer. We were talking on the half. After that period we started getting closer. We were talking on the phone a lot.... We started doing things together. We liked a lot of the phone a lot.... We started doing things together. We liked a lot of the same things.... There was some tension at first because I still thought same things.... There was some tension at first because I still thought of him as a friend, but he didn't necessarily think of me that way. I felt of him as a friend, but he didn't necessarily think of me that way. I felt great actually." great actually."

"I thought she was gorgeous. From the first time I saw her I was really attracted to her. And then I got to know her. We were in a couple really attracted to her. And then I got to know her. We were in a couple of cla.s.ses together and we would do homework together and just joke of cla.s.ses together and we would do homework together and just joke around. And so sooner or later we just started going out.... She was a around. And so sooner or later we just started going out.... She was a really neat person, fun to talk to...fun to get to know, and fun to hang really neat person, fun to talk to...fun to get to know, and fun to hang out with, fun to goof around with or be intimate with." out with, fun to goof around with or be intimate with."

"I didn't feel physically attracted to him until we went out a couple of times. So it was a kind of gradual thing. It took a year before we of times. So it was a kind of gradual thing. It took a year before we were really close.... We knew each other because we went to the same were really close.... We knew each other because we went to the same school. He was a kind of all-around nice guy, friendly, warm. He had school. He was a kind of all-around nice guy, friendly, warm. He had a friendly presence, a warm presence. And he was a kind of lively, a friendly presence, a warm presence. And he was a kind of lively, good-humored sort. And I thought he was cute, nothing stunning, good-humored sort. And I thought he was cute, nothing stunning, down to earth." down to earth."

"It was a cla.s.sroom relationship. We sat next to each other and we sort of became good friends for a period of time, several months. I can't sort of became good friends for a period of time, several months. I can't rememher who wanted to become intimate, her or me, but it rememher who wanted to become intimate, her or me, but it 83 83 84.progressed.... She's very pretty [laughs]. Others noticed it too."

"I didn't like him at first. I didn't like him at all. He didn't like me either. We would kind of b.u.t.t heads when we first met. We had the me either. We would kind of b.u.t.t heads when we first met. We had the same job, even though we were in different branches.... We were in same job, even though we were in different branches.... We were in cla.s.s together and there was only one seat available and I sat next to cla.s.s together and there was only one seat available and I sat next to him. I didn't like him. I don't know.... He started talking to me, so him. I didn't like him. I don't know.... He started talking to me, so we ended up being friends. And he was there for me after the divorce.... we ended up being friends. And he was there for me after the divorce....

He was there for me and I guess it just went on from there. It was different from any other sort of attraction. It was the way he treated different from any other sort of attraction. It was the way he treated me, his ideas, his att.i.tudes, his overall values and views about life." me, his ideas, his att.i.tudes, his overall values and views about life."

Content a.n.a.lysis of the romantic attraction interviews shows that in one-third of the cases, falling in love was described as a gradual process. Only in about one-tenth of the cases was love at first sight.1 When people fall in love, different variables play roles in different stages. The backdrop of the entire process is cultural. From birth we are inculcated with certain expectations about falling in love. In Western society, the romantic ideal calls for a man and a woman, rather than a same s.e.x couple, to meet, fall in love, marry, and live happily ever after. When a man and a woman meet, they share these expectations of the way things ought to progress between them.

In the getting-aquainted stage-more likely when a couples lives or works at the same geographic location, and, preferably, when in a state of emotional arousal-physical appearance is very important, especially to men. But in order for a romance to spark, the partners need to feel a mutual attraction to each other's personality. In order for the romantic spark to ignite, the partners need to perceive that they share a similarity in such things as background, personal a.s.sets, att.i.tudes, and emotional health. And for a romance to evolve into a committed relationship, the partners need to feel that their love is reciprocated and gratifies their needs. This chapter describes the process that combines these different variables, namely, falling in love.

A romantic relationship starts in different ways. It may be love at first sight-"From the first time I met him there was something that attracted me to him," or it may develop after years of friendship-"We knew each other five years, no, four years, as friends.

I called him when I moved up here and then it started getting more serious." A romantic relationship may start at a significant encounter-"It was a set up. We talked the whole night," or evolve into a deep connection over time-"At first, I wasn't attracted to FALLING IN LOVE AS A PROCESS 85.her, [but] we talked a lot and became closer and closer.... Then I became more attracted to her."

In all cases a state of acquaintance, such as friendship or mere physical attraction, develops into a state of pa.s.sionate, romantic love- a development that has been doc.u.mented in many studies (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). In secular Western society, at the end of the twentieth century, romantic love is considered a very important element in the choice of a mate. And even in the arranged marriages of some traditional societies, romantic love is an important background criterion (de Munck, 1998).

Despite the different starting points and different rates of development among romantic relationships, there is usually a certain point at which both partners say "This is love!" This turning point starts a series of physiological changes (Fisher, 1998) and is often preceded and marked by a very special mutual gaze. Victor Hugo described the power of this gaze in Les Miserables Les Miserables (1862): Few people dare now to say that two beings have fallen in love because they have looked at each other. Yet it is in this way that love begins, and in this way only. The rest is only the rest, and comes afterwards. Nothing is more real than these great shocks which two souls give each other in exchanging this spark. (1862): Few people dare now to say that two beings have fallen in love because they have looked at each other. Yet it is in this way that love begins, and in this way only. The rest is only the rest, and comes afterwards. Nothing is more real than these great shocks which two souls give each other in exchanging this spark.

THE STAGES OF How do people fall in love? Several theories rest on an a.s.sumption that romantic relationships go through certain steps that occur in a certain order; thus, the falling-in-love process is described as a series of stages. In some theories falling in love happens in two stages, and in others, it happens in three or even four stages. But all stage theories a.s.sume that there is a qualitative difference among the different stages.

According to the two-stage theory two-stage theory of love proposed by Judith Rodin (1987), falling in love involves a two-step screening process. People screen first for those they consider unsuitable. They don't notice these people when they meet, and they forget them right away. A typical example is screening for age. Many young people don't even notice older people because they don't perceive them as potential romantic partners. When someone doesn't fit our selection criteria we simply don't notice them. Thus the unsuitable becomes invisible. of love proposed by Judith Rodin (1987), falling in love involves a two-step screening process. People screen first for those they consider unsuitable. They don't notice these people when they meet, and they forget them right away. A typical example is screening for age. Many young people don't even notice older people because they don't perceive them as potential romantic partners. When someone doesn't fit our selection criteria we simply don't notice them. Thus the unsuitable becomes invisible.

86.In the second stage, people select the most appropriate partners among those who are judged suitable.

The initial automatic screening of unsuitables is influenced by social norms that dictate for us the category of people that contains suitable marr iage partners. Robert Winch coined the ter m "candidates field of eligible spouse" to describe the range of people with whom we are permitted to fall in love and marry (1958). In other words, the society or specific sub-culture in which we live determines the first stage of screening that happens even before we start operating our own love filters. The Berkeley sub-culture, for example, tolerates inter-racial marriages more than most other sub-cultures in the United States.

Most societies use similarities in background and social a.s.sets as their main selection criteria. Societal norms tend to prefer that marriage partners be from the same race, social and economic cla.s.s, religion, and age group. A person who doesn't conform to these social dictates, such as an old man who marries a very young woman, is often criticized and ridiculed, and can become the object of jokes and gossip. Reactions of this sort teach both the person to whom they are directed, as well as the people watching from the sidelines, who is appropriate and who is inappropriate as a marriage partner.

Societies influence the screening process of romantic partners in two major ways. Most prominently, social norms reward people who follow the norm and punish those who deviate, as, for example, when friends and relatives shun or express outright criticism of an unsuitable, potential partner. Secondly, societies arrange meetings between people who are judged to be suitable romantic partners, meetings such as parties in schools, workplaces and clubs, or social events arranged for single people of a certain age group and a certain social or economic status (Kerckoff, 1974). Societal agents such as parents, teachers, friends, and the media teach the social norms. They reward and encourage suitable romantic connections and discourage unsuitable ones.

Only after people pa.s.s through this social screening and choose a suitable partner from the field of eligibles can falling-in-love take place. And, according to another stage theory of love, it, too, happens in two stages. In the first stage, shared values are most important; in the second stage, compatibility of needs is most important. A study that inspired this theory looked at predictors for the continuance of relationships. Agreement about values served as the best predictor for couples who had been together less than a year and a half, whereas the best predictor for couples who had been together more than a year and a half was complementarity (Kerckoff, 1974).

FALLING IN LOVE AS A PROCESS.

87.It seems that in the first stage of a developing romantic relationship, a similarity in values and interests is especially important.

Disagreement about values that even one of the partners considers central to his or her life significantly limits the possibility of a romantic relationship. Consider, for example, a devoutly religious woman who finds herself attracted to a man who is a committed atheist. If she cannot see herself building a life with this man, she will no doubt try to quench her attraction to him. Or, as in the plot of a recent movie, consider a cowboy who loves open s.p.a.ces and makes his living raising cattle; he is attracted to a urban woman who loves theatre, concerts, the opera, and works in the publishing industry.

Since it is unlikely that two such people will be able to make a living and be happy and contented in the same place, it is unlikely that a relationship between them will succeed in going beyond the stage of attraction or romance.

It is important to recall, however, that when people are strongly attracted to each other, they are very capable of ignoring such glaring differences; they a.s.sume that they can overcome incredible odds with the sheer power of their love.

Only growing intimacy can provide couples with the foundation of trust that enables them to reveal their deeper psychological needs to each other. Most people have to feel a certain degree of security in the relationship before they can remove their defenses and admit their more infantile, immature, and, some say, neurotic needs. This is why complementary emotional needs become central in the later stage of the relationship.

The most famous three-stage theory three-stage theory of love was proposed some twenty years ago by Bernard Murstein (1976). According to this theory, in the first stage of a love relationship, the of love was proposed some twenty years ago by Bernard Murstein (1976). According to this theory, in the first stage of a love relationship, the stimulus stimulus stage, external features such as physical appearance have the greatest impact. stage, external features such as physical appearance have the greatest impact.

In the second stage, the value value stage, the attraction is based primarily on finding similarity in values and interests. In the third and last stage, the stage, the attraction is based primarily on finding similarity in values and interests. In the third and last stage, the role role stage, the couple examines whether they function well in the various roles related to their ident.i.ty as a couple, the friend, lover, roommate, husband or wife components. stage, the couple examines whether they function well in the various roles related to their ident.i.ty as a couple, the friend, lover, roommate, husband or wife components.

In the stimulus stage, people know only what they can learn from minimal interaction. Attraction is a function of the other's physical, mental, and social attributes. Potential partners a.s.sess and arrive at an overall evaluation of the other, which each compares to his or her own overall attractiveness. Only if both partners perceive each other's attractiveness as roughly equal to their own can the relationship progress to the value stage. When a man and a woman begin dating, they talk about their att.i.tudes toward different things.

88.If they discover that their att.i.tudes are similar, their attraction grows and they can move to the role stage in which they become concerned about their ability to function as a unit. How is each member of the couple expected to act in certain situations or roles? How are holidays and birthdays celebrated? When one is depressed is the other expected to help, or leave him or her alone? Should a wife develop an independent career? And so on. When both partners discover that the other behaves in a way that fits their expectations, and that their needs and roles are complementary, the relationship can become highly satisfying.

Even though all three components-stimulus, value, and role- influence the development of a romantic relationship, each component becomes central only during one developmental stage.

For example, in the second stage the attraction is based primarily on similarity in values and less on physical appearance or satisfying role requirements.

Other stage theories talk about four stages of falling in love. One of these theories focuses on rewards and roles rather than compatibility in deep psychological needs. In this theory, the development of a romantic relationship happens in the following four stages: 1. the exploration stage, in which rewards and cost of the relationship are weighed; talk about four stages of falling in love. One of these theories focuses on rewards and roles rather than compatibility in deep psychological needs. In this theory, the development of a romantic relationship happens in the following four stages: 1. the exploration stage, in which rewards and cost of the relationship are weighed; 2. the negotiation stage, in which the relationship is defined and the behaviors that bring the most rewards to both partners are learned; 3. the commitment stage, in which mutual dependence develops between the partners as a result of their deepening involvement with each other; 4. the final formalizing stage, in which both the couple and the people around the couple view the relationship as sanctioned by society (Backman, 1981).

Not a word about love!

According to yet another multiple-stage theory of love, all romantic relationships start with the attraction based on similarity, which causes feelings of comfort and closeness-"You also love staying in bed and reading on stormy nights?! That's incredible!!" When couples feel close and comfortable with each other, they start opening up and self-disclosing. Only after they feel and express empathic understanding for each other in the stage of self-disclosure, can the relationship move on to the next stages. The final stages of a love relationship demand compatibility in the interpersonal roles that FALLING IN LOVE AS A PROCESS 89.have to do with being a couple, meaning the way in which each makes a commitment to the relationship and contributes to the ident.i.ty as a couple (Lewis, 1973).

One of the most complex and comprehensive stage theories of love was proposed by Avner Ziv (1993). The theory is based on interviews with men and women, young and old, married and single, who were asked to describe an experience in which they fell in love. a.n.a.lysis of the interviews suggested that falling in love involves emotional, behavioral, mental, and social components. Ziv combined all these components into a four-stage model of falling in love.

1. Attraction. This stage results from past experiences and physical attributes, physical beauty being the most prominent among them.

2. Examination. The partners examine the extent of their social compatibility in terms of social and economic background, their intellectual compatibility derived from education and areas of interest, and their emotional compatibility or feeling of comfort with each other. Since both partners know at this stage that they are on trial, they try to present as positive a picture of themselves as possible.

3. Self-revealing. This is the stage in which intimacy is created, the stage in which deeper thoughts and feelings, including negative ones, are revealed to the partner.

4. Mutual expectations and satisfying needs. In this stage, each partner learns about the expectations of the other, and makes a conscious effort to respond to these expectations in all economic, emotional, social, and s.e.xual areas.

When a couple first meets, if there is an attraction between them, the romantic relationship will start. If there is no attraction, it will not. As the relationship progresses, and they examine each other, if there is no social, intellectual, or emotional compatibility, the relationship will end. If compatability exists, the relationship will continue evolving. With intimacy growing between them, the couple starts revealing vulnerabilities and negative sides to each other. If either partner doesn't understand or fears what is revealed, the relationship ends. If they understand and are empathic to each other's vulnerabilities, the relationship continues to the stage of mutual expectations. If partners don't satisfy each other's needs and 90 expectations, the relationship is terminated. If the needs and expectations of both partners are filled, the result is love-mutual dependence respectful of each partner's independence.

Which one of these stage theories of love is the correct one? Or, better still, is any of the theories correct? One critical question in the evaluation of any stage theory is the question of the order of the stages. In Murstein's theory, for example, does the value stage always precede the role stage? Or are couples able to deal with role issues- "Will she be able to be a professor's wife?" "Can I invite him to the office?"-before they have examined their similarity in values? A number of studies have shown weak evidence for the existence of fixed stages in the development of intimate relationships. One of these studies referred specifically to Murstein's stage theory (Stephen, 1987). Another study asked newly-wed couples to describe how their relationship had evolved. a.n.a.lysis of their stories revealed different patterns of development-from the first meeting until the marriage (Surra & Hyston, 1987). The romantic attraction interviews that served as the basis for this book also show that, in the development of their relationships, couples go through different stages at different times and at different paces.

Even if we accept the a.s.sumption that romantic relationships change and evolve with time, it does not mean that we have to accept the existence of definite stages in which different variables play key roles.

Indeed, there are several theories that describe in great detail the evolution of an intimate relationship without needing to describe distinct stages. Here is the evolution of a romantic relationship according to one such theory. The couple starts meeting more frequently and for longer periods of time. They feel comfortable when together and make efforts to meet again and again. They become more open with each other, are less reserved, and are ready to express negative feelings. They develop a unique style of communication. They develop an ability to predict each other's expectations, feelings, and views. They adjust to each other's behaviors and goals. Their investment in the relationship and its importance for them grow. They consider each other in their goals. They feel growing affection, trust, and love.

They view the relationship as unique and irreplaceable. They see each other as partners (Burgess & Huston, 1979).

In another example, the development of a romantic relationship is described in terms of the growing influence and interdependence of the partnership. As the partners' influence on each other grows, and as their mutual dependence grows, the relationship becomes closer and more intimate. Since this is a gradual development that takes time, only long-term relationships can achieve true closeness, intimacy, and love (Kelley et al., 1983).

FALLING IN LOVE AS A PROCESS.

91.In yet another example, couples first choose each other according to physical traits, but only stay together or marry if they are also similar psychologically. The proof? While married couples and dating couples have a similar number of shared physical traits, married couples have significantly more (11 to 1) shared psychological traits (Keller & Young, 1996).

Finally, I would like to propose that falling in love is the result of a funnel-shaped screening process. funnel-shaped screening process. There are no distinct stages in this process, but "love screens" at different points of the funnel (Pines, 1996). There are no distinct stages in this process, but "love screens" at different points of the funnel (Pines, 1996).

The first five chapters of this book described these various love screens. Now we can see how they operate in the funnel-shaped process of falling in love.

In order to enter the funnel, people need to grow up in a society that acknowledges and values romantic love; they need to be socialized to expect falling in love (the subject of the introduction).

When potential partners meet and get to know each other, such determinants as geographic proximity (the subject of the first chapter) define the pool of potential romantic partners. A state of emotional arousal (the subject of the second chapter) increases the probability that a pleasant encounter will be defined as romantic love. Only after they meet and are ready to fall in love, are potential partners likely to notice each other's exciting appearance and pleasant personality (the subjects of the third chapter). Having noticed each other and concluded that they deserve each other's romantic attention, they start discovering through heart-to-heart talks whether they have similar backgrounds, values, and interests (the subject of the fourth chapter). The greater the similarity in social, intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and psychological traits, the greater the feelings of comfort and validation, and the greater the desire for closeness.

The greater the discrepancies between the partners, the more misunderstandings and conflicts that can break up the relationship.

A notable exception, however, to the rule of attraction to the similar, lies in the existence of areas, many of them unconscious, in which the attraction is to the opposite or the complementary. With the growing intimacy, a couple's deeper, more infantile, psychological needs are revealed, and, with them, each other's mutual ability to satisfy those needs, which increases the reciprocal attraction (the subject of the fifth chapter).

Even this summary doesn't do justice to the complexity of the process of falling in love. Perhaps it is better this way, because the result is the subjective feeling of every couple that their experience of falling in love was unique only to them and could have happened 92 to no one else in the whole world. Han Suin says it most poignantly in the preface to A Many Splendoured Thing A Many Splendoured Thing (1952). (1952).

"Do you really think, then, that other people get as much pleasure and happiness out of their bodies as we do?"

"Dear Love, even the paunchy, ugly people of this world believe they love as much as we do and forever. It is the illusion of all lovers to think themselves unique and their words immortal."

I cannot end the discussion of stage theories of love without mentioning my favorite theory proposed by one of Italy's great sociologists, Francesco Alberoni (1983). According to Alberoni, the significant stages of a romantic relationship are simply "falling in love"

and "love." If falling in love is like taking off or flying, then love is like landing. Falling in love is being high above the clouds. Love is standing firmly on the ground. If falling in love is like a flower, then love is like a fruit. The fruit comes from the flower, but they are two different things. "And there is really no point in asking if the flower is better than the fruit or vice versa. By the same token, there is no point in asking whether the nascent state is better than the inst.i.tution. One does not exist without the other. Life is made of both."

Falling in love is a positive, energizing process that causes both physiological and psychological changes. Arthur Aron demonstrated the positive influence of love on people's self-concept. Over a ten-week period, he followed students who were in love and students who were not in love. Results of the comparison revealed that the students who were in love expressed greater self-confidence and higher self-concepts. In addition, they expanded the scope and range of their self-definitions, probably as a result of their partners admiring certain aspects in their personalities that they had ignored or under-appreciated (Aron et al., 1995). In other words, falling in love helps develop self-confidence and more expansive personalities. Clearly, falling in love is a very positive and highly recommended experience.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE PROCESS OF.

In the romantic attraction study, a very small gender difference divided the frequency with which young men and women described falling in love as a process.2 However, a significant difference divided the FALLING IN LOVE AS A PROCESS 93.genders in their perceptions of the direction of the process. Men were more often initially attracted to the physical appearances of the woman, followed by a discovery of their personalities. Women, on the other hand, frequently felt no initial physical attraction. The attraction followed the development of friendship and emotional intimacy. To put it more bluntly, for many men, the physical attraction caused the relationship; for many women, the relationship caused the physical attraction.

Here are examples of the way women described the development of their relationships.

"The relationship started as a friendship. I was actually going out with his roommate so I spent a lot of time in their house and we with his roommate so I spent a lot of time in their house and we became close friends. We got to know each other really well. We got to became close friends. We got to know each other really well. We got to be close friends before we became involved. As soon as the other be close friends before we became involved. As soon as the other relationship was over, he and I became very romantically involved. I relationship was over, he and I became very romantically involved. I felt very attracted to him because I loved him so much. He had been felt very attracted to him because I loved him so much. He had been attracted to me ever since we met. He initially told me that he loved attracted to me ever since we met. He initially told me that he loved me. I wasn't interested in him. Then I started falling in love with me. I wasn't interested in him. Then I started falling in love with him." him."

"I wasn't attracted to him at the beginning, but he was there during the difficult time. He's not a macho type. I didn't have to put on an the difficult time. He's not a macho type. I didn't have to put on an act. He was always nice to me, really understanding when I was upset. act. He was always nice to me, really understanding when I was upset.

Now we have a friendship behind the relationship. It's like he's my best friend. It's pretty serious right now. We're talking about moving best friend. It's pretty serious right now. We're talking about moving in together." in together."

"I didn't find him particularly s.e.xy. We were just buddies. Then we started getting closer. On our first date I didn't really know what to started getting closer. On our first date I didn't really know what to expect, I wasn't really thinking about him in a romantic way. I guess he expect, I wasn't really thinking about him in a romantic way. I guess he had a different idea than I had. So there was some tension at first had a different idea than I had. So there was some tension at first because I still thought of him as a friend." because I still thought of him as a friend."

And here are examples of how men described the development of their romantic relationships.

"I liked her. She would tell you it was for the wrong reasons because I was always looking at her. She's slightly top heavy and my eyes I was always looking at her. She's slightly top heavy and my eyes were always wandering. And she knew it too.... Before we really got were always wandering. And she knew it too.... Before we really got into the relationship we talked about a lot of things." into the relationship we talked about a lot of things."

94."I thought she was gorgeous. From the first time I saw her, I was really attracted to her. And then I got to know her. She was a really really attracted to her. And then I got to know her. She was a really neat person." neat person."

"It started initially as a s.e.xual thing. I met her in the student's office. office. She was a secretary in the office. We started talking. There were She was a secretary in the office. We started talking. There were interesting things about her physically.... Also her personality. She's interesting things about her physically.... Also her personality. She's one of the nicest people I've met." one of the nicest people I've met."

These quotes suggest that for many men the initial s.e.xual attraction is dominant. It makes them listen to the woman they are attracted to, be attentive and supportive. For many women, the attention, the listening, and the support are the most attractive, and are what make them fall in love. Men should remember this when they want to conquer a woman's heart!

What is the reason for this gender difference? One explanation has to do with gender stereotypes and gender roles that define the correct courtship behavior for men and women (Basow, 1992).

During the getting-acquainted stage, men are supposed to take the initiative. Women can hint their interest by flirting, but not initiate directly. One study discovered fifty-two nonverbal courtship patterns of women flirting with men to attract their attention (Moore, 1985).

Despite the s.e.xual revolution and the openness and tolerance that characterize romantic relationships today, women who take the initiative with men are often still perceived negatively (Green & Sandos, 1983).

According to young singles' scripts for a first date, men are expected to be more influenced by the physical appearance of their dates and women are expected to be more influenced by the emotional closeness and intimacy. For both men and women, s.e.xual attraction is expected to be important. All these expectations are part of a well-defined social script. The script is so familiar that when young men and women are asked to describe the order of events on a first date, the similarity in their descriptions is amazing (Rose & Frieze, 1989).

The feminine script of courtship behavior emphasizes attractive physical appearance, ability to carry on a conversation, and control of s.e.x, usually by refusal. The masculine script covers planning the date, be it a dinner, a concert, or a movie, paying for it, and taking the initiative in s.e.x. For example, women who break the script by taking the initiative s.e.xually, are perceived as aggressive and masculine.

Men who break the script by demanding that the woman pay her share of the meal, are perceived as cheap and ungentlemanly. These scripts structure and exacerbate the differences between men and FALLING IN LOVE AS A PROCESS 95.women. The penalties for breaking their scripts force men and women to comply with them.

Gender differences exist in courtship and in the move from courtship to committed relationship. While women tend to be more cautious during the courtship stage, men tend to fall in love faster and stronger (Rubin et al., 1981). In the move from courtship to committed relationship, women tend to move faster, while men tend to be more cautious.

Women's cautiousness, especially about s.e.x, can function not just as part of a script, but also as part of a social norm. In a survey conducted among American female students, for example, it was discovered that 30 percent of these young and educated women sometimes said no to s.e.x when they actually meant to say yes.

Women's token resistance to s.e.x is culturally prescribed and is part of the mating game (Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988). It is comforting to note that after the initial stages of courtship in which both s.e.xes behave according to the socially prescribed scripts, men and women tend to fall in love at a similar pace and level of intensity.

Another explanation for the gender differences in the process of falling in love arises out of the difference in men's and women's innate programming for mate selection. This difference is a major topic of evolutionary theory, which we will discuss extensively in the next chapter. As we will see, according to this theory, different evolutionary developments have dictated different courting strategies for men and women (Buss, 1994).

Before concluding the discussion of gender differences in the process of falling in love, I want to address an a.s.sumption in the evolutionary theories. According to this a.s.sumption, these gender differences, because they result from evolutionary dictates, are universal. This a.s.sumption has received a great deal of criticism arguing against a universal, biological, explanation and in favor of a cultural explanation. The findings of an anthropological study that examined the courtship patterns in several North American countries support this criticism (Perper, 1989). These findings show that courtship is a well-defined process of specific meaning and prescribed verbal and nonverbal content. The subjective experience of this process is the development of strong mutual feelings of attraction and s.e.xual arousal. None of this is very new, of course. But the findings are augmented by comparing the parts of the falling-in-love process that were shared by different cultures to the parts that were not shared. Since the latter were found to be unique to each culture, it was possible to conclude that the gender differences in courtship are not universal. This suggests that the evolutionary 96 theories that present themselves as universal, may be nothing more than ethnographic theories that describe how men and women in certain cultures view the process of mate selection, a description that includes some very narrow a.s.sumptions about the roles of men and women. In other words, even if there are certain differences between men and women in their approach to falling in love and choosing a mate, there are also some powerful social and cultural influences that can account for these differences.

Furthermore, as most people know from personal experience, there is a very personal and private aspect to falling in love. This is the aspect that lies behind the choice of a particular man or woman from all the eligible, appropriate, and attractive, potential partners that people meet. It is this choice of one particular person from all the appropriate people in the world, that gives love its magical quality.

In the words of the 15th century poem, The Nut-Brown Maid: The Nut-Brown Maid: For in my mind, of all mankind For in my mind, of all mankind I love but you alone.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PEOPLE SEEKING LOVE.

Be aware of your love screens. Think about the two people with whom you were most in love. What do, or did, they have in common?

Was it something about their looks, their personalities, their intelligence, their social standing, their s.e.x appeal, the way they treated you, or the fact that they loved you? The quality, or qualities, they have in common says more about you than about them. The commonalities point to the screens you use for choosing a romantic partner.

Once you have identified your love screens, try to evaluate to what extent these screens are truly yours. Are they part of a social script you adopted that doesn't really suit you-or doesn't suit you any longer? The more honest you are with yourself, and with potential partners, about your true love screens, the more likely you will be to find a partner who will pa.s.s through them successfully.

It is also important to recognize the mating script in your own social group. But be ready to abandon, as fast as possible, the gender related part of the script in order to a.s.sure yourself of a genuine and authentic love relationship.

7.O N G E N D E R A N D L OV E ,.

S TAT U S A N D B E AU T Y.

Solomon Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast dove's eyes behind thy veil; thy hair is like a flock of goats, that cascade down from mount Gil'ad....

Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy mouth is comely; thy cheek is like a piece of pomegranate within thy locks....

Thy two b.r.e.a.s.t.s are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, which feed among the lilies....

Thou are all fair, my love; there is no blemish in thee....

The Daughters of Jerusalem What is thy beloved more than another beloved, O thou fairest among women? What is thy beloved more than another beloved, that thou dost so charge us?

The Bride My beloved is white and ruddy, distinguished among ten thousand.