Love Science

Thank you all. This post is about my dearest friend--everything in it happened. Over the years, questions from many people have encouraged me to finally write it down.

Monica, per your excellent question--when do we reveal such personal information--I don't know of a scientific answer. Will have to do a lit search to see if anything of that nature has been researched--perhaps with revealing HIV or sth of that nature. There will need to be a separate article devoted to the When of difficult information, because you're right--put forth too soon, it can scare people away, and left too late, it can feel as if a lie of omission has occurred. I know in my friend's case, it was something she brought up early, but in a casual way (that sounds impossible, yet is not).

My opinion is that the timing of hard personal revelations must be left to the discretion of the person who has the hard story to tell. It boils down to trust and one's own personal need to feel defended against heartache. On the trust side, some might want to wait until several dates have gone well before revealing anything; a lot of times, the relationship will fizzle before that, saving the ill person from becoming too deeply vulnerable to a person who wouldn't wind up mattering too much anyway. Of course, some information is time-sensitive, such as revealing an STI; in that case, waiting for a while to have sex, and making sure to have the Difficult Discussion before Going There, would be a reasonable compromise.

Yet on the personal defense side, I can readily understand anyone who wishes to state their issue up-front, so the other party can cut-and-run before a lot of emotion is at stake on either side. That was Laurel's strategy. There were certainly men who were not interested. The right one, however, never wavered. It has been my observation since that time that many people I've known who have chronic illnesses chose that strategy, and wound up very happily committed to an enthusiastic, unambivalent partner.

Bless you and your friends, Grace. I'm very sorry for your loss of your dear friend.

Thank you for the thoughtful responses. @Mannie, I appreciate your perspective; years ago, I interviewed a man who had lost his vision in his 40's. He revealed that it was very common for women to remain with husbands whose sight had been lost, but that the norm was for men to leave their now-blinded wives. Of course, that's based on just one interview, but it made me wonder what happens when calamity occurs after the commitment is made. I will have to look into that more.
I think a difference between the situation you poignantly describe, and the one in this article, is that the barrier in the article exists at the time the two people meet--it is just always part of them and their experience. When the barrier crops up later on, it could be seen by some as an "I didn't sign on for this" scenario. These may be the same couples who entered into marriage for convenience, and are no longer interested once it's no longer convenient. When the barrier exists from Day 1, those folks are eliminated from consideration. As my friend used to say, cancer could bring some strange gifts, even though of course nobody ever wants to have cancer.

@Virginia, thank you. Laurel was my best friend. I never thought I would cry while writing a science-based article, but went through several hankies on this one. I know she would want the hope she found to be broadcast far and wide to others who might be feeling as isolated and hopeless as she was upon her diagnosis.

@Jonathan, I'd just add that although I used to believe that happiness ought to be attainable without regard for whether or not people are in relationships, a mountain of science has firmly convinced me otherwise. It is our business--a profound business of the core of what it is to be human--to "Only Connect" as EM Forster wrote in "Howard's End". It is in relationship that we have the opportunity to heal our wounds and those of our beloved, although of course not everyone takes that opportunity. And without long-term ties of love--not only of friendship--adults and particularly adult men tend to have a 7X or higher risk of all forms of death, including by suicide, accident and disease. We are born for, made for, love. Learning how often takes a lifetime, though.

@George, I thought that was interesting, too, and you raise an important question re: out-of-sight-out-of-mind versus absence-makes-the-heart-grow-fonder. The difference between social science and folk wisdom is that the latter explains what happened but predicts very little. Only science sifts through all the adages and makes a valid prediction for most of the people most of the time. In general, science shows that absence makes the heart grow fonder from one Friday night to the next. But when couples separate for almost any reason that they've chosen, it's out-of-sight: The vast majority will make the split permanent if they do not intentionally reunite within a year or so. This appears true even if the couples are getting along and are living apart for pragmatic reasons, having had no intention of ending their relationship.

@Candi-- I admire your thoughts, and have been pondering them throughout the day. Regarding the overall question of whether it's possible to become more attached by behaving as if you are attached--to care more if you become the caregiver--, the answer is yes. Acting-as-if, or fake-it-til-you-make-it, is a pillar of therapy and, unlike some established therapeutic practices, it very often works. Dozens of experiments show that we often act ourselves into a way of feeling--with our attitudes following our behavior (culture tells us our behavior follows our attitudes; science finds that the reverse is also true). For instance, as laws allowing no-fault marriage emerged in all 50 states, people divorced more; only after that behavior became common did people come to see divorce as more acceptable and --surprisingly-- even those who were not contemplating a divorce came to feel less secure and less happy in their own marriages. And people who don't believe in adultery soften their views on it after they've engaged in cheating. The examples go on and on. Behaviors cause attitudes.

From that perspective, Candi, I think staying from guilt would result in true tender feelings rather than resentments. Again, this would be for most people most of the time--science can't ever say what will happen for all the people all of the time.

@Candi, as for the excellent question about Laurel's boyfriend who abandoned her at the hospital-- Laurel and I had a problem with the callous manner in which he behaved, but not with the fact that he ended the relationship. Nothing in science would counsel a brand-new boyfriend to stay with a woman for whom he does not feel genuine love and respect, no matter what the reason. Love and respect are absolutely core to marriages in chosen (as opposed to arranged) marriage societies--and entering into such a union without either is dangerous in many senses of the word.