Contents:
Who are we to downplay their significance, to rewrite their memories, to alter the ways in which they changed us for the better, simply because our paths diverged? Who are we to decide that we desperately need to replace them — to find a bigger, better, stronger, more passionate love that we can hold onto for a lifetime?
That we got to love them. That we got to learn from them. That we got to have our lives expand and flourish as a result of having known them. Discover the best quotes on the web. News Politics Entertainment Communities. Opinion HuffPost Personal Videos. Sometimes the biggest, most loving move you can possibly make is to let each other go. Some people can love you more in a year than others could love you in fifty.
Some people can teach you more within a single day than others could teach you over the entire course of a lifetime. And who are we to call those people anything but the loves of our lives? Maybe we just ought to be grateful that we got to meet these people at all. Oh, and if you're a shmuck who has the audacity to own an older model? Then you're an entire 56 percent less likely to catch a smooch buddy. And gods forbid you're a dude with a cracked screen, because freaking 86 percent of women will judge you more harshly for it.
You complete wreck of a human being, you. Like we said, this is ridiculous. We'd like to believe the human race isn't so incredibly petty, but those are the raw numbers. Let's go back to judging people for the important stuff, like whether they load their toilet paper front-facing or not. One of the fairy tales repeatedly shoved down our throats since birth is that pretty people get all the happy endings. The beautiful princess gets the handsome prince, and while some shenanigans might happen, they eventually go off into the sunset all happily ever after like.
Meanwhile, somewhere in the background, all the plain or just plain ugly folks are shackled and shoved off into jail or something. But not so fast, beautiful ones. In reality, your roguish good looks have doomed you to a life of singleness, or so claim some people from Harvard. In a study titled Attractiveness and relationship longevity: Beauty is not what it is cracked up to be , researchers asked women to rate the attractiveness of celebrities and regular schmucks.
In both cases, it turned out that the subjects deemed most desirable were "more likely to divorce" and also "married for shorter durations. The Independent "This couple didn't even stay together past this photo shoot. But why would being good-looking make you bad at relationships?
Well, previous studies had found that when we're committed to a partner, we see other people as less attractive. This is your brain's way of making sure you stick to your relationships. But the Harvard researchers believe that attractive people don't have this "protective bias.
And what do you know, the prettier raters were more likely to have the hots for the people they were rating, but "only if they themselves were in a relationship. Of course, none of this information is as surprising as the fact that Harvard apparently has a whole wing devoted to Tinder Studies.
Love sprouts anywhere there are at least two warm bodies of the same species, right? From the frigid Antarctic to the harsh daily sauna that is the Sahara Desert, people will always find ways to make whoopee. After all, it all comes down to a bunch of long-named chemicals.
You'd think it wouldn't matter where you were; you're bound to find a willing participant in the dance of love. Well, you'd be wrong , at least partially. It turns out that, at least in the United States, it actually does matter where you live.
In a nationwide study conducted by Michigan State University, it was found that if you live in the frontier region, the Mid-Atlantic, or the Northeast, you are more likely to have attachment avoidance or attachment anxiety. Basically, this means that if you live in more mountainous regions, you're more likely to be of the loner variety, while living in or near cities makes you a bit clingier and probably paranoid that your bae will leave you for one of the many other possible baes in your area.
So if you want to have a healthy relationship that's generally free of standoffish or clingy behavior, science says you're gonna fare best in Mississippi, Utah, or Wisconsin. In the study, those states were tied up for first place in a pleasant threesome of romantic satisfaction and health. But don't worry, the authors of the study encourage readers not to move out of wherever they are. In the conclusion, they state: After all, home is where the heart is. But seriously, get the hell out of North Dakota, especially if you're planning to get old.
It seems like no matter how many we sign up for, no matter how many people we're matched with, we can't seem to muster up the courage to send a message. But what a bunch of good-looking candidates, right?
We may be all alone now , but at any time, when we're ready to get within touching distance of another human specimen, we could snag a date with a suave stranger and hitch a ride to romance town. It's that very same perception that there are entire schools of fish in the sea that might be holding you back in the real world.
It makes it look like the world is full of more single, eager people than it probably is. It's what psychologists call the paradox of choice. In one famous experiment , only 3 percent of shoppers bought jam from a table offering 24 samples, while 30 percent bought jam from another table with just six samples.
Online dating is kind of like that, only with far less jam. Oh, and it turns out our preoccupation with quickly judging a person based on their sexiness quotient isn't exactly healthy either. A study by the University of Kansas suggests that constant swiping is messing up our ability to make real connections with other human beings.
After splitting people into three separate groups, they found that, essentially, after having an actual conversation with a person, our perception of physical attractiveness goes up. Why do all these studies pick people? Has 69 been dethroned as "the sex number"?