Governor, tell me, "what does it mean?"

What if "love" as it is considered by many people does not exist? I tend to think that it does not. 

When I was in high school I embraced the idea that love equals firey passion and persistent happiness. He would a-d-o-r-e me, faults included. We would be hot for each other all the time. We would not be able to keep our hands off of each other. Most of all, I would feel the love at all times-- even during arguments. 

I studied Chaucer a few years ago while on a romantic and utterly perfect study abroad quarter. Love was the first subject which our group tread upon. We were reading "Troilus and Creseyde." The group discussed the fact that marriage used to follow convenience, typically financial. Though I had known that people married for different reasons in the past, what a shock it was when I internalized that fact that "love" has drastically transformed throughout history. Curious how a single word can acquire different definitions throughout its existence.

In marriages of convenience it is important to know that the two strangers could fall in love after marrying one another. It really is not all that inconceivable. Two people who fall in love before getting married are not guaranteed that they will love each other forever after pronouncing their vows. These are simply two different ways of going about the whole thing. Sure, mistresses were had, affairs were abundant, but I hesitate to call such sexual excursions advances towards "true love." They were cultural and until quite recently they still were, even if they were hush-hush. This isn't to say that all people had partners outside of marriage. However, monogamy as an ethical trend is rather recent.

Now that I am in love, my idea of what it is has changed and is in fact less certain that it was when I was single. The more you know, the less you know. Love has less to do with feelings than I had thought. Feelings are simply unreliable, especially if one does not know him or herself well (count me in). We are all, regardless of age, in a constant state of self-discovery and therefore our feelings constantly fluctuate. Love is outside of that. It also has little to do with happiness. There have been times in my relationship when I have felt happy with the "us," but not with life in general. The point is love does not make me happy, but I am happy with it. It is not something we ought to look for in order to make us happy. It can certainly be a factor, but it is not the only source. Nonsense to the song "Love (Can Make You Happy)." If I still bought into that I would never be happy in my life. My boyfriend brings me happiness, but I do not require that he make a happy person-- there is not a person on the world who could do that.

Though I am not certain about what love is-- if it is any single thing-- ,but I have a few ideas. It is an acceptance of a person whom you choose to endure with. It dismisses fleeting feelings-- though it still feels-- and the impossible expectation that it is the eternal source of happiness. 

The only thing that I am sure of is that whatever love is, it endures. This leads me back to the text I absorbed myself in in high-school. "Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance," (1 Corinthians 13.7).

I choose to love.