*Warning* this post makes mention of sexual acts and actions.
In class recently, we read and discussed Percival Everett’s poem “Body”. This poem goes into great detail about two people having sex but does this through the use of very scientific language. As a class, we talked over the varying ways in which Everett’s use of scientific language in delivering messages to his readers arguably had little to do with science beyond the use of scientific language. A few of my classmate thought that this took the romance, or the poetry (ironically enough) out of the description of the action taking place. Initially, in the moments of my gut reaction to the poem, I agreed with them. Yet, as I thought on the topic further, I found myself disagreeing with this idea that naming the organs and the chemicals at play during the act of sexual intercourse takes away from the romance, mystery, or poetry of this intimate action.
With this poem in mind, I was reminded of a TED Talk I listened to a few years ago (and re-listened to again for the purpose of this post) about the brain on love. At the time when I first heard it, I found the talk to be both illuminating and upsetting. The first time I watched it, I was deeply enamoured with an individual, and I felt my adoration for the person I was enamoured with to be threatened by the information I had learned. Although having felt threatened by a TED Talk is a testament to the youth of that adoration, I think that the threat I felt at the time is not an uncommon reaction for many people.
[The link for this TED Talk]The woman who gives the TED Talks’ name is Helen Fisher, an anthropologist and apparently, a love expert. I draw issue with the title love expert, I do not think that anyone can be an expert on love, but that is an argument for another day. Regardless, Fisher explains how she has done many studies of the brains of human beings in love. For one experiment, she and her colleagues used an MRI machine to study the brains of such persons, to see which areas of the brain were active while in love. They discovered that the area of the brain that lit up when the person in the MRI machine discussed their loved one or thought of them is very close to the area of the brain that is activated when a person consumes cocaine. From this study alone, it could easily be deduced that love affects the brain in a way that is very similar to a drug and thus only a series of chemicals released in the brain.
Many who learn or hear that love has to do with chemical released by one’s brain, are angry or resistant to the idea. Knowing that love is a chemical reaction cheapens love for them, there are entire songs about this. Indeed, when I first listened to Fisher’s TED Talk, the knowledge I gathered, for a while, cheapened love for me. I felt that love was not as good if it could be written off as simply chemicals. I felt that in order for love to be “real” it had to be some mystical experience that could not be explained by science. I felt that love must not be as good because it could be explained scientifically. According to Fisher, this is not an uncommon reaction. Fisher says in her TED Talk, “People often ask me about whether what I know about love has spoiled it for me. And I just simply say, “hardly.” You can know every single ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake and then when you sit down and eat that cake, you can still feel that joy.” (4:39). I could not agree with Fisher more. This information should not spoil love for us by any means. Personally, knowing that the love I bear my partner is due to a series of chemicals being released in my brain does not stop that love being beautiful, wholesome, or mysterious to me. I argue a similar principle for “Body”. It does not matter that sex is just two body parts rubbing together, what matters is the love/emotions that we bear the person we are rubbing body parts with. Now, I feel I must clarify, I have no issue with those who have sex with people they do not love or have affection/emotions for, I simply bring up sex with someone a person loves because it is relevant to this post.
I recognize that I may have done little to reassure individuals who are still questioning and uncomfortable with this knowledge. To give hope to those out there who still find this knowledge to be a sad trip down reality lane, Fisher leaves the listener with a beautiful piece of knowledge. The same area of the brain that is active when a person is first in love can remain active throughout the years. 25 years down the line there are people just as in love with each other as those who are newly in love and Fisher’s studies reveal this. So does it really matter that it’s “all chemical” if it still affecting individuals 25 years later?
It is somewhat common knowledge that when humans are attracted to a potential mate we release certain chemicals, that when one sees their newborn child for the first time, they release chemicals that help them bond with the child. Should this cheapen the experience of romance, sexual attraction, or the love individuals feel for each other? I think not. All this information does is give us, as humans, a greater understanding of our animal selves. We are no more than animals, people, nothing more, nothing less. We should embrace our animal selves. We as humans should embrace our chemicals and use the knowledge of these chemicals to deepen our relationships with one another. This information gives us power, it gives us the ability to understand one another better and thus grow as a species. Do not let knowledge cloud beauty, rather, try to allow knowledge to deepen the beautiful things in life. Knowledge is power, do not begrudge it, embrace it as the valuable tool it is.
Everett, Percival. re:f (gesture). Los Angeles, 2006.