Your Ex-Boyfriend Will Hate This (2015)

Chapter Two

Fighting the Fairy Tale

The idea of “love at first sight” is so endemic to our culture that there may never be a generation of women who don’t grow up being told at a young age that it’s the way romantic love is supposed to occur. Women are encouraged to believe that lasting love is the product of pure romantic happenstance—seeing a handsome stranger across a room, sharing his glance, and in that moment, feeling with every fiber of her being that “he’s the one.” Fairy tales are rife with heroines falling at a glance for some prince or duke or other beautiful rich boy. In contrast, the story of Sleeping Beauty stands out by switching genders and having the hero prince be the one to fall in love at first sight.

Fairy tales aren’t the only fictional stories to promote this idea. The structure of nearly every romantic comedy is based on a similar principle. Poor, lonely career gal discovers that despite all her success, there is a man-shaped hole at the center of her life. Then, by some silly contrivance, she runs into the “man of her dreams.” This scenario is such an essential staple of the romantic comedy that there is a name for it in film critic circles: the “meet cute.”[ii] The term was created by famed film critic Gene Siskel to describe the way that “girl meets boy” in this type of movie.

It’s never enough for two people to meet at a party or a bar or through a mutual friend in the “meet cute,” like it happens in the real world. No, usually the girl quite literally runs into the boy. The most common method of conveyance in the “meet cute” is the pet who breaks the leash and, by fate, ends up knocking down Mr. Dream Man, who doesn’t even live in the neighborhood but stepped out of a cab moments before in search of blah blah blah…

It’s essential that Mr. Dream Man almost never appears because of any effort by the heroine. Girl doesn’t choose boy; boy is willed to her by cosmic mandate. This central theme is repeated in most fairy tales and rom-coms: no matter what her station in life, once “love” is introduced, the girl is essentially powerless. She’s powerless to choose, powerless to resist, powerless even to guide the direction her life will take from that point forward.

Broken down to its elements, “love at first sight” is no more rational than betting horses as your primary financial investment strategy. You would be giving an essential part of your future happiness over to pure, blind chance. The fact that it occasionally may lead to lasting relationships isn’t proof of logical behavior. It’s merely proof that some people hit the “soul-mate lottery,” while many others don’t.

Here is what “love at first sight” actually means for those who experience it:

“Wow, that guy/girl is really cute! I really would like to see him/her naked, and preferably in close proximity to my own nakedness!”

This antiquated idea occurs most often among the very young. I’ve encountered many married couples who were “high school sweethearts,” and they often describe their first encounter with the passionate excitement of a unicorn sighting. Their first meeting place is raised to almost mythological status, even if that place is a Taco Bell.

Take a look at the plot of the most prominent tale of “love at first sight,” Romeo and Juliet. Romeo first meets Juliet at a ball—a ball where, by the way, he has come because of his mad, unrequited passion for another girl. Yet as soon as he overhears Juliet vowing her “star-crossed” love for him (Translation: “I really would like to see you naked, but it would seriously piss off my folks.”), Romeo passions take a U-turn toward the new girl, and he proposes marriage to Juliet. They’re given a quickie secret marriage by Friar Laurence so as to enjoy a guilt-free consummation. (Translation: “I need to see you naked immediately, but I’d prefer to avoid the wrath of God.”) Because of their “love,” Romeo and Juliet become accomplices in the deaths of three relatives before they both die in a grotesque double suicide.

By the end of the play, “love at first sight” has led, either directly or indirectly, to the deaths of five people. If it were a person, the “love at first sight” theme (as presented in the play) wouldn’t be glorified as a “romantic.” It would be condemned as a serial killer and put to death for its crimes. From this point of view, it seems entirely possible that Shakespeare never intended this play to be a celebration of perfect, timeless love. Maybe Shakespeare meant the whole lurid affair to be a warning, one that goes something like this:

“Hey, young lovers. Take a deep breath before you run headlong down a blind path. You’re just as likely to end up dead upon an altar as in love for all eternity.”

Had Romeo and Juliet been transplanted to the modern age, their chances of staying together would’ve been lousy. Assuming they had survived the whirlwind of death and tragedy that surrounded their relationship, their marriage would’ve been unlikely to last. A study conducted by the CDC, entitled the “National Survey for Family Growth,”[iii] found that women who marry before the age of eighteen are literally twice as likely to be divorced within ten years as women who marry at the age of twenty-five or later.

According to the stage directions within the play, Juliet is thirteen years old when Romeo marries her. Although his age is never specified, it’s assumed that Romeo is just a little bit older, maybe sixteen. Not only would their marriage be unlikely to survive today, it probably wouldn’t outlive Juliet’s crush on Justin Timberlake.

Here’s another reason to mistrust the wild initial passion that often masquerades as “love” in new relationships:

Your body may be lying to you.

One of the most influential factors in determining romantic compatibility between two people is something you might not even be aware of. It’s called MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex), and it is a portion of your DNA that helps control your immune system. MHC is found in your saliva and your pheromones and is detected by both taste and smell. When you kiss someone, your body secretly tests the compatibility of your MHC with the other person. If it complementary, you’ve probably got a love connection. According to a report in Psychology Today[iv], the smell of MHC may be the second-most powerful factor in determining whether you find a particular man attractive. So a match should be a reason to celebrate, right? I mean, who can argue with DNA?

Your method of birth control can.

It turns out that birth control pills basically short circuit this biologically-imperative exchange of interaction completely. Suddenly, you’re attracted not to men with complimentary MHC, but to those with MHC exactly the same as your own. Why is this a problem, you ask? We’re conditioned to choose a mate whose immune system provides something ours does not, in order to create a stronger immune system in our future children. Marry a person with the same MHC as yours, and you might face a rude awakening when you go off the pill. Your husband might no longer pass the kiss test. It’s such a significant factor in compatibility that some psychologists believe it a primary reason for the rise in divorce rates since the advent of the pill.

This doesn’t mean you should never marry a man whom you dated while on the pill. It just demonstrates a similar lesson to Romeo and Juliet: those untamed, passionate urges you initially feel for someone new aren’t a terribly good predictor of your future happiness together.

They may even be exactly the thing that’s leading you astray.