I just got done reading an article about the nonexistence of everlasting love. The only part of the article that I agree with is when the author wrote, “Fredrickson likes to call love a nutrient.” I do agree that love leads people to happier and healthier lives. All the love in my life has certainly kept me healthy.
I am a FIRM believer that love, as it is portrayed in Hollywood, is real and that everyone has a soul mate. That isn’t to say that I believe Rom-Com’s are true to life in the way of the miraculous things that happen in movies. I simply believe that we will all eventually find someone that makes us overcome with happiness at all times whether together or apart.
Fredrickson, however, believes that you can only love someone when you are in their presence. This hardly seems right seeing as how I love my family more than anything in the world no matter if we are together or apart. She makes a sound argument, but I won’t budge on my love beliefs.
Call me a hopeless romantic. (: