Love is a wondrous concept. Not easily defined, there are as many ways to describe the word as there are books, music, paintings and other art forms that propound its virtues or pitfalls. Some say Love is a basic biological need. Others say biology has little to do with it, that it boils down to a strong mental connection. Romantic Love is perhaps the hardest and most controversial of these concepts to attempt to determine and may very well encompass facets from both biological and mental tenets.

Is Romantic Love such a clinical formation that it needs to be explained in such a way? No, of course not, but it’s one of life’s few great equalizers and certainly worthy of at least a little analysis beyond "you’ll know it when you experience it." Otherwise, it would seem perfectly logical for every teen romance or "first Loves" to almost always end up with each other or most marriages to last "‘til death do us part." Obviously, this is not the case.

I was out on a date once with a very interesting woman who commented that she would never marry for Love, that there had to be other, additional reasons. She didn’t mean money either. What she meant was spiritual and some type of mental connection. She really believed the people that you're attached to in this life have been with you in previous lives. This may be deeper and a little stranger than I would like to get into here, but she touched upon something that is often missed when it comes to serious relationships. There can be Love, yes, even deep Love, but without certain complementary feelings and associations, the end of the relationship may very well be inevitable. How do you identify these associations? It's difficult because the emotion of Love is a strong one and can cloud other necessary judgments.

Love and relationships should not be about being tolerant of the other's faults and idiosyncrasies, nor should it be about acceptance. Rather, you should find no fault with the other. Let me clarify; certainly no one is perfect and there are minor things that always need tweaking or in fact some type of change, but you can't effectively modify a person's essence. If you have to change a basic part of someone, then that someone is not meant for you. Let them go, if only for Love. A good (if silly) example of this is if the other eats soup with the wrong spoon (the horror!), that's something that you can either live with or change if you're so inclined. If, for instance, the other carries on too loudly when talking in public, however, that's part of that person's essence and personality and shouldn't be changed. If it really bothers you, then you have to let them go, rather than stifle what the person is.

I've read several treatments on relationships of late in magazines and most take a decidedly negative view of Love. Quite frankly it depresses me a bit. I do find flaws in their logic, however. Consider this statement from an article in the May 1998 edition of Men's Health: "The terms soulmate and spiritual partner are effective in infomercials thumping psychic hotlines, but they are an illusion in all other respects. Remind yourself: Your soulmate found guys to sleep with before she met you; she'll find guys to sleep with after you're gone." What's wrong with that statement? Well, the biggest is that yes, most people have had past sexual partners, but this is part of the process of trudging through the masses to find the one. If someone will have partners after you, then by definition you would have broken up (or been cheated on), thus dispelling any possibility that you had a spiritual partner in the first place. A soulmate is your best friend, Lover and the one person you want to be with more than any other. Don't get me wrong, a family member has their own special place in your heart and life, but they weren't discovered by you, rather handed to you. Your partner is the one that you had to make the effort to find, stick with and the one you want to start a family of your own with (with or without children).