Although romantic love is often idealized as a sought-after, euphoric feeling, in reality, it is an unpredictable, uncontrollable force that hinders one’s ability to act rationally. Prevailing societal conceptions of love oversimplify its multifaceted nature, often neglecting the inherent unpredictability and uncontrollable aspects of romantic feelings. Despite all of its beauty, love can often feel more like an uncontrollable force than a deliberate choice. Romantic love is, in many ways, akin to a psychotropic drug- a feeling that seems to subconsciously rewire the brain and reshape behaviour. But if love is something that overtakes us subconsciously—something we can’t fully control—how can we engage with it responsibly? Is the romantic ideal we chase actually part of the danger?
Love is often described as unconditional, unbound from any predetermined rules or criteria that dictate its existence. In essence, love transcends logical thinking, manifesting as an inherently unpredictable and vulnerable experience that operates beyond the realm of conscious control. While healthy romantic relationships can provide companionship, joy, and personal growth, love can also exist in countless forms, some of which may be deeply harmful. People frequently find themselves falling for partners they would not rationally choose or remaining deeply attached to. Irrational manifestations of love can be seen through “toxic relationships”, the all-too-common circumstances where people attach to those that harm their mental health and/or overall well-being. These situations reveal the extent to which love can override intentions and rational judgment, often binding individuals in emotional dynamics they cannot easily escape or explain. By recognizing love as an involuntary experience, shaped by unpredictable emotional, psychological, and even neurobiological forces, we gain a more authentic and comprehensive understanding of its role in human relationships. Understanding love as an imperative and involuntary emotion challenges the myth of love as a purely deliberate choice, highlighting its power to disrupt, reshape, and profoundly influence individuals in ways that often defy their own values, intentions, and personal principles.
Prevailing philosophical theories of romantic love, particularly union and concern theories, are overly idealistic and fail to capture the inherently uncontrollable, often irrational or subconscious behaviours and emotions that characterize real-world romantic relationships. More specifically, both union and concern theories of love fail in their attempts to bridge the disconnect “between our self-image as rational, autonomous individuals and the attitudes and commitment love seems to require” (Marino 69). The union theory of love, popularized by Robert Nozick, asserts that when people fall in lov,e they merge into a “we”; two people combined to form a single entity with pooled interests, goals and purpose (Marino 72). On the surface, this notion that falling in love is finding your “soulmate” or “other half” with whom you become a part of and they become a part of you, conforms to prevalent romantic ideals. However, as Marino notes in her critical analysis of the union theory, merging into a “we” overshadows individual autonomy and identity, as this idea suggests that love involves subsuming one’s individuality into the relationship (81). Furthermore, Marino critiques Harry Frankfurt’s concern theory, which defines love as “the volition to act in ways that reflect caring concern” to promote the beloved’s well-being (Marino 87). The concern theory claims that romantic relationships strengthen autonomy by portraying the motivation to care for one’s lover as self-driven. However, Marino challenges this view, arguing that equating love with caring concern blurs the line between genuine choice and problematic deference, making it impossible to identify when care becomes excessive or harmful (95). By framing all caring actions as autonomous, the concern theory fails to recognize that excessive care may signal power imbalances or self-neglect in relationships.
Ultimately, both the union and concern theories oversimplify the complexities of love by focusing narrowly on how autonomy can coexist with love—whether as the autonomy of an individual or as a shared “we” within a relationship. These theories attempt to explain love as volitional and rational, but in reality, love is not merely a rational or idealized concept; it is an inherently multifaceted force that can rewire the way we think and act. Framing love primarily in terms of autonomy fails to capture its inherently multifaceted and often irrational nature, which is essential to understanding the emotional depth, unpredictability, and behavioural nuances of romantic relationships.
The reality of love is far less ideal than depictions provided by the union and concern theories. Neurobiological evidence reveals the true uncontrollable, addictive nature of romantic love, drawing striking parallels between love and the effects of a powerful psychoactive drug. Like cocaine or amphetamines, romantic love stimulates heightened levels of dopamine, a critical neurotransmitter in the brain’s reward system involved in euphoria that drives both sexual arousal and romantic attachment (Aron et al.). Love’s influence on the dopaminergic system explains the parallels between drug withdrawal symptoms and the depressive episodes associated with a breakup. When a source of dopamine, be that from romantic love or addictive drugs, suddenly dissipates, it results in reduced function of dopaminergic circuits in the brain and activation of stress-inducing pathways (Volkow et al.). When love, or the absence of love, activates these reward and stress pathways, the resultant feelings, despite being deeply emotional, are subconscious and unintentional. Love also suppresses judgment and limits rational thinking by altering brain activity. Neurobiological studies show that love diminishes activity in the frontal cortex, the brain region responsible for critical thinking and logical reasoning.. This neurological shift leads to a suspension of judgment, rendering individuals less critical of their romantic partners so, as the saying goes, “love is blind” (Zeki). By subduing the brain’s logical faculties, love obscures our ability to perceive flaws in our partners, creating an idealized view. In this sense, love functions like a drug, involuntarily influencing our thoughts and emotions. It overrides logical reasoning and emotional balance, leaving us powerless and vulnerable to its addictive effects.
Depicting love as a drug underscores the lack of autonomy we have over its influence, as it manifests in ways beyond our conscious control. This perspective necessitates addressing a critical question: if love is inherently uncontrollable and overrides our autonomy, is engaging in romantic relationships a worthwhile or even ethical endeavour? If love operates as a force beyond our control, then it challenges fundamental notions of free will and self-determination within romantic relationships. Entering into a relationship under the influence of an emotion that overrides judgment and blinds us to potential flaws might lead to outcomes that we would not rationally choose if we were fully autonomous. This reality raises significant ethical concerns – how can we justify a commitment based on feelings that may diminish our ability to act in our best interest or to fully recognize potential harm in a relationship? These concerns suggest that engaging in romantic relationships might expose individuals to unnecessary risks, calling into question whether the emotional highs of love are worth the potential loss of autonomy and rational judgment.
While romantic, loving relationships often involve a loss of autonomy or rational judgment, “compromises to our autonomy are the norm, not the exception” (Kukla 270), this conception distracts from a more meaningful objective. Framing the ethicality of romantic relationships solely around their potential to hinder personal autonomy distracts from the importance of cultivating relationships that prioritize trust, safety, and mutual support, rather than pursuing an unattainable ideal of complete self-determination. In her discussion of “nonideal consent”, Kukla argues that sexual relationships without some degree of power imbalance are practically nonexistent, as such these dynamics are an inherent part of human interaction (271). Extending this framework to romantic relationships highlights an essential truth: if love inherently compromises our autonomy over emotions and rational judgments, the solution lies not in avoiding love but in acknowledging that vulnerability is a fundamental and inescapable aspect of the human experience. Rather than viewing this vulnerability as a flaw, it can be reframed as an opportunity to foster deeper connection and mutual growth. Recognizing that perfect autonomy is unattainable allows us to embrace the instinctively human interdependence and emotional openness that not only defines meaningful romantic relationships but is also the foundation for the trust, empathy, and collaboration necessary for individuals and communities to thrive.
Ultimately, this analysis reveals that love’s uncontrollable nature is not a defect but an essential aspect of the human experience. Instead of avoiding romantic relationships due to their inherent risks, we should strive to create bonds grounded in trust, safety, and mutual support. Despite its irrational and unpredictable qualities, love holds the potential to profoundly enrich our lives by fostering a cherished level of emotional interdependence that is integral in forming authentic connections.
Works Cited
Aron, Arthur et al. “Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love.” Journal of neurophysiology vol. 94,1 (2005): 327-37. https://doi/10.1152/jn.00838.2004
Card, Claudia. “Against Marriage and Motherhood.” Hypatia, vol. 11, no. 3, 1996, pp. 1–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3810319.
Kukla, Quill. R. “A Nonideal Theory of Sexual Consent.” Ethics, vol. 131, no. 2, 2021, pp. 270–292. https://doi.org/10.1086/0014-1704/2020/13102-0006$10.00.
Marino, Patricia. Philosophy of Sex and Love. Routledge, 22 Mar. 2019, pp. 69–100.
Volkow, Nora D., et al. “Imaging Dopamine’s Role in Drug Abuse and Addiction.” Neuropharmacology, vol. 56, suppl. 1, 2009, pp. 3-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18617195.
Zeki, Semir. “The Neurobiology of Love.” FEBS Letters, vol. 581, no. 14, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2007.03.09