Critique: Laura Kipnis' Book, Against Love

I should probably start this critique with the last paragraph in this polemic, Against Love. Since Laura Kipnis is arguing against love, it only makes since to begin where all relationships finish, the end. "Maybe no one can be against love, but it's still possible to flirt with the idea."

Imagine if love did not exist anymore ... There would be no need to write love songs or love poems, the Hallmark industry would file for bankruptcy, Valentine's day would virtually fall of the calendar, chocolate sales would plummet and the time spent "going out of your way" for your partner would be replaced by the time sneaking around with other partners.

Several emotions would fall off the map. You would only feel saddened at the loss of a close friend or family member. Would you really worry about that girl you picked up at the bar who was replaced by another one come tomorrow night? We would no longer need bridal shops, wedding cakes or expensive honeymoons. No first dates, no pick up lines (actually those might come in handy) and no fancy surprises. No late night conversations, walks in the park or goodbye kisses.

I do not find Kipnis' argument convincing. I feel as if it is flawed from the start. "Who would dream of being against love? No one" and the answer is precisely that (or at least for the majority of the people) Sure things might be simpler in ways if love, relationships and marriage did not exist, but would anyone really be against it? It seems as though she picks on the weak people who would easily turn their argument around and argue against love. Personally I would not enjoy spending day after day, week after week sneaking around or being with a different person. At some point wouldn't people want stability? If love did not exist it would remain a superficial thing, put on a pedestal, that after a while people would finally desire. If her argument was convincing for the general population, it would probably last for a good while and then fade out, as more and more people latched onto the concept. It is common nature for people to love one another. "We moderns are constituted as beings yearning to be filled, craving connection, needing to adore and be adored, because love is vital plasma." This is perhaps why it does not work out with affairs, you end up falling in love with the one person you did not want to fall in love with.

Laura Kipnis' "can't list" would turn over anyone's decisions on relationships and love. "You can't leave the bathroom door open, it's offensive. You can't leave the bathroom door closed, they need to get in...You have to load the toilet paper 'over' instead of 'under'." Alright these things are a bit demanding, but would they definitely make anyone an adulterer? As she states, "adultery is one way of protesting the confines of coupled life." However, maybe it is the way we look at these things. Maybe it's also the way Laura Kipnis looks only at how relationships end, as if the rest of the years do not count. Her arguments give off the effect of laziness, if I can be straightforward. To all of those adulterers out there....stick it out. She encourages the adulterers to give up when the going gets tough, as if the Hollywood movies did not live up to your expectations. If she is going to encourage something, at least let it be "adultery" younger in life, until one can actually come to terms with knowing that one needs to find someone who they can have a stable relationship with. And yes, even if it means dealing with all of these irritating things. I find she looks at the wrong side of things. "Anxiety avoidance is so deeply structured into the fabric of domestic routine." Kipnis then uses this to put forward the point that we should give up and avoid all the anxiety. Instead of focusing on little annoying things, what about looking at the big picture? She wrongfully encourages the switch of mates or perhaps the extinction of the term "partner" altogether since this status is too much to handle. Only looking at the negatives, would for sure win over a majority of the population, if the positive side was nonexistent. If In Favour of Love was published at the same time, it might as well include more evidence and stronger arguments, definitely winning over the population. Perhaps Against Love would even sell the same number of copies (if In Favour of Love did actually exist), as people are more prone to see what it is all about, just like the curious adulterers. Perhaps in our present "simultaneously hypersexualized" culture there is no hope. Yet, "Maybe no one can be against love, but it's still possible to flirt with the idea."