There are some challenging points in Kris’ article. Primarily, the conflation of discourses of love with discourses of ‘romantic love’ ossify into an economy of consumption and commodification: love is vapid and superficial, reflecting second-hand desires illustrated and promoted in cinema and television, while beauty is reduced to conventions about physical attributes and specific aesthetics.
The reality of ‘love’ (a word that has too many associations and is characterised, for the most part, by what it isn’t) experienced by most individuals is brief and tenuous and moves along a narrative: it might be romantic, or sexual, or deep friendship (or all of these at once), but if it is worth having it moves and shifts adding colour and delight to life.
I would suggest that this is as it should be. Passionate feelings of ‘love’ (hyper-stimulation) cannot be lived with continuously. There are other feelings that we call love: the contentment of being together (mundane love? domestic bliss?), but also the experiences of discontent (anger, frustration, annoyance) that ends in mutual affection. Love, at least in my view, is hard work and brings a raw sense of exposure, if an authentic joy in being, sharing and home-making are to be experienced.