I'm not talking about the thrill of a new relationship. I would define a feeling of old, secure warmth towards your partner of 50 years as romance, and your satisfaction in a 50-year-old relationship is primarily a function of whether you have that. That's the kind of thing that makes someone happy to take care of their wife for 5 or 10 years as she suffers through alzheimers.

But in any case, romance is absolutely the basis of a relationship, otherwise you could marry your best friend. If you don't have it, you're likely to be dissatisfied. Of course it can wane - but that's also why you work to get it back, because if it goes away for good, your relationship is going to suck.

Many do marry their best friends, or consider their spouse their best friend.

I knew someone would post this response. I mean if romance wasn't an issue, you could be a straight male and marry your male best friend.

I think if I’m interpreting your comment correctly you are correct. Physical attraction is what you mean instead of romance. Romance by itself is simply a series of steps you use to express your continuing interest in a partner or possible partner. Small gifts, kind words, charming activities. Those are romance, and I think are critical to Maintaining a solid relationship (all couples may find different things romantic—-some people may want sunset sails on the harbor, some people might want kebabs from round the corner).

Yeah, I also think GP is right, but used the wrong word. He probably means: infatuation, limerence, obsession, thrill, animal magnetism, etc.

Lots of people never who never really "knew" successful long-term relationships only associate love with those, and that's indeed somewhat immature.

    the absurd situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer in “love”.

Why is it absurd?

Probably because what most people call "love" is really just the first stage of it, and if it has not been replaced by something deeper (i.e. respect) by the time the initial love fades, then it wasn't love but infatuation - or, more precisely passion was not nurtured carefully enough to become respect, and so it was just an infatuation.

In short, it would be absurd to mix up infatuation with love.

If it was - as you say - just infatuation, then wouldn't it be better to seek a divorce? Why does that become absurd?

Sometimes. The entire problem is that the infatuation stage just doesn't last that long, which of course makes one ask...why did you get married too soon?

The bigger problem as I've seen over the years with people is that they confuse the two with -other- people. A person married for 5 years becomes infatuated with someone else, which of course means they love them and not their spouse anymore. In their eyes, at least. And the problem with that thinking should be immediately apparent.

It's a complicated subject and I'm not an expert by any means, just sharing my observations.

This:

> [a] situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer in “love”

is not:

[a] situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer infatuated

One might well call the second situation absurd too, as, if you knew it was absurd then you shouldn't have wed, but it's still a different absurdity.

Presumably this could be sussed out long before marriage. And if that deeper love and respect should disintegrate, there would be some sort of catalyst.

My expectation is that it's unlikely in the long-run to fall out of love if both parties still nurture the relationship and invest themselves. But maybe I'm wrong and it happens anyway.