Do people STILL believe in love?

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 10:19 am

Sorry to hear things didnt work out, HLD.

I, on the other hand, do NOT believe in soul mates. I dont think there is a guaranteed person out there that will be meant for marriage. I believe if you search hard, you could find someone who you could love but I dont think the marriage would be perfect. The fact that the 2 love eachother will keep the marriage alive and I dont think love dies, if one loves another and the feeling is mutual, the love will never go away. When people "claim" that love did die, I dont think they were ever in love.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 10:41 am

Originally posted by Tybaltus
Sorry to hear things didnt work out, HLD.

I stopped feeling sorry for myself over her about eight years ago. While I believe that if we had tried harder to maintain that relationship, we would be married to each other today, it would also mean that I never would have met the woman I married, whom I love very much.

Like you, I don't believe in soulmates; Richard Bach does, and while I like his books (The Bridge Across Forever and One), I think that any two people can fall in love under the right circumstances. Love is a matter of timing.

I've posted this analogy here on GameBanshee before, but I liken love to walking through a rose garden or park. As you walk, you will meet lots of people. Some are jogging, some are playing in the fountain, some are sitting on a bench. Maybe you're walking along a path going from one end of the park to another. With every person you meet, you have the choice to meet them or ignore them. Some people you will see again and again, others you may only catch a glimpse of.

Sometimes, you might meet someone and decide to spend some time with them. Maybe the two of you walk down to the lake and feed the ducks or take a break on a bench somewhere. After a while, you may tire of that person's company or you may find that they want to go one way while you want to go another or the two of you are going in the same direction, but one of you wants to run and the other wants to walk, so you split up. On some rare occasions, you may find someone who is going in the same direction that you are at the same pace.

So you stick together for a while and maybe you realise that you had originally wanted to go play tennis, but they want to try out the paddle boats. If you're lucky enough, they may say that they like your company so much that they are willing to skip boating to play tennis with you. That's what love is: a willingness to give up something you want for someone else and a willingness on their part to do the same for you.

I think that many people are focused on what their individual wants and needs are that they are unprepared to consider someone else's. In this way, our friend The Z is absolutely correct; if you're not willing to put forth energy for the sake of love, you'll never get anything back. However, I also do not believe that people who get divorced never loved each other; it may just be that they are no longer willing to make an investment in their relationship.

I also think that we must understand that marriage and love are two completely different things, just as sex and love are. Marriage is a contract, love is a feeling, an emotion and a personal investment. People get married all the time who do not love each other. Similarly, people who love each other very much sometimes get divorced. It is my experience that many people get married for the wrong reasons (ie-it's "expected" of them, there is a "surprise" pregnancy, there is a lot of money involved, etc.) and their unions are very prone to failure.

thantor3 · Post by **thantor3** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 10:48 am

Originally posted by Tybaltus

The fact that the 2 love eachother will keep the marriage alive and I dont think love dies, if one loves another and the feeling is mutual, the love will never go away. When people "claim" that love did die, I dont think they were ever in love.

I believe I understand what you are trying to say here, Tybaltus, but I would have to respectfully disagree. What has been perhaps the most challenging thing for me in sustaining a loving relationship is the reality that love and fear arise together. As Joseph Campbell says, you cannot have one without the other. And this actually makes perfect sense... the more you love someone, the more afraid you are of losing them, of them leaving you, that they are being dishonest with you and so on. I believe that two people can be very much in love but are ill-equipped to deal with the slashing, ripping, devasting impact of whip-sawing back and forth between love and fear. In fact, I believe that after the initial infatuation stage, all couples go through what I call the "power struggle" phase, which seems to center around needing to control the person you love... due to fear, of course. Many couples cannot navigate this stage of their relationship, not because they do not love each other, but because there is very little in the way of eduational instruction around dealing with such issues. We aren't even given the tools to naviagate the deep psychological impact (and often, wounding) of our family of origin, ego dynamics, and developmental milestones never mind interpersonal relationships. I do not think it is fair to say that a failure in a relationship was due to lack of love when people are so poorly equipped to understand themselves and the complexity of psychoemotional issues.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 10:57 am

@HLD I really like the symbolism of your post. I think it matches very well with the situation.

I feel the only way a marriage can work is if the two love eachother. People say that they married people for money and they say that the marriage is fine. But by fine, they mean still in tact, not functional. If you marry some one for something besides love, you are not married. Your just tied together via association. So I think marriage is related to love, like you said, HLD, they are not the same, but I do believe they have a strong relation to one another.

As far as sex and love not being the same,youre absolutely correct. People go to hookers and pay them to make love, and obviously this is not love. I think having sex like this is for the poeple who are addicted and impatient, and this is increadibly lowsome, I cant even put it into words. But, again, thats a whole different topic to talk about.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:01 am

I believe I understand what you are trying to say here, Tybaltus, but I would have to respectfully disagree. What has been perhaps the most challenging thing for me in sustaining a loving relationship is the reality that love and fear arise together.

I understand, completely. I have never been in love, these are just the feelings I get. I mean one who has been in love, surely would understand more than I. At my experience at love, there are many bends and turns I have no comrehention of, yet, I am sure. This doesnt mean I dont have an opinion, though.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:12 am

Heya, Than! Long time no see. How’s tricks? ;-)

Originally posted by thantor3
<snip> We aren't even given the tools to navigate the deep psychological impact (and often, wounding) of our family of origin, ego dynamics, and developmental milestones never mind interpersonal relationships. I do not think it is fair to say that a failure in a relationship was due to lack of love when people are so poorly equipped to understand themselves and the complexity of psycho-emotional issues.

This is exactly the problem, isn’t it? We are pushed in to the world with no training, and only one word to describe a whole host of feelings and situations. “Love” needs to be defined, scientifically studied and examined! We need to develop an understanding of the concept(s) and this understanding needs to be insinuated into human society from the get-go! We need myriad names to call the phenomenon, and not be locked into the one word. Yes, as Aegis says, Fairy Tale Love is dead, but that’s because it never existed! All the other great aspects of love need to be emphasized. There’s just too much pressure if we are forced to continually make it up as we go. Sex Ed is great, but what about Love Ed?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:17 am

Originally posted by Tybaltus
If you marry some one for something besides love, you are not married. Your just tied together via association. So I think marriage is related to love, like you said, HLD, they are not the same, but I do believe they have a strong relation to one another.

Not necessarily. Marriage is two very different things and our society often confuses the two. On a spiritual level, marriage is a commitment that two people make to remain faithful, through thick and thin, in sickness and in health, etc. This is the aspect which we associate mostly with the institution and the one which is the most idealised.

On another level, marriage is a legal contract. It carries with it certain priviledges and liabilities. That's why a legal marriage is conducted by a civil authority, either a justice of the peace or a notary. That's why polygamous marriages and homosexual marriages are not recognised; there's no legal basis for their institution, even though people who love each other very much may enter into those kinds of unions that are bereft of a legal status.

People marry for all sorts of reasons. Often it's for love, or what people think is love. Other people marry for money or because they're expected to or so someone can get a green card or to cover up the fact that they're homosexual and don't want anyone to find out. I think people need to be more honest when they think about getting married because it's so easy to get into a marriage, but awfully expensive to get out of.

thantor3 · Post by **thantor3** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 9:14 pm

Re: Heya, Than! Long time no see. How’s tricks? ;-)

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
This is exactly the problem, isn’t it? We are pushed in to the world with no training, and only one word to describe a whole host of feelings and situations. “Love” needs to be defined, scientifically studied and examined! We need to develop an understanding of the concept(s) and this understanding needs to be insinuated into human society from the get-go! We need myriad names to call the phenomenon, and not be locked into the one word. Yes, as Aegis says, Fairy Tale Love is dead, but that’s because it never existed! All the other great aspects of love need to be emphasized. There’s just too much pressure if we are forced to continually make it up as we go. Sex Ed is great, but what about Love Ed?

You go boy!

Seriously, I think you have eloquently stated a critical aspect of addressing this problem.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 10:12 pm

Gwal put his finger on something important. There are so many types of love. Love between friends, siblings, the other sex etc. I would argue you love each person in a different way.

The theory about the one, I disagree with. If you think about it, in almost every case, there are lots of ppl you are attracted to in your area, and probably one you might "love" in a romantic way. And if you look at it, there are 6 billion people on the planet, and you know only a fraction of them. If in the (just say) one million people of the female gender that you know personnaly, and you find 1 person attractive, thats what, 3 million people you are likely to be attracted to? (excuse my poor math skills, I've been out of it for a while)

The you get what you put in statement, I think, is false. Whatever BOTH people put in is what you get out. It takes 2 to tango or so to speak. A girl I thought (and maybe did in a youthful way) I loved, we had a brief relationship in which I poured out energy. Took her dancing, organized all the dates, I always called her and walked her home, but we wanted different things. She wanted to try her body out so to speak, and I wanted someone I could wake up next to in the morning.

Somewhere further back, I think HLD said men want a more casual relationship. Most men. I've been through casual relationships, and though I'm young, (17) I would like something more serious, something better. Flings and experimentation only go so far.
My 2 cents

@ Aegis Chin up big guy, thousands of fish in the sea.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 12:17 am

Originally posted by Obsidian
@ Aegis Chin up big guy, thousands of fish in the sea.

Hmm, was expecting that from Georgi

Let me rephrase my statement. Romantic Love is impossible for my generation. You look at the emphasis on sex, material possesion, and social status, and relaize true love can never really exist. The minds of my generation have been poisoned, per say. I have had many relationships, but of them, only one was serious, and another was one I wanted to be serious. (The first one, I was together with this Japenese girl for a year. We had to end it when she went back to Japan though

I miss her deeply, the other was Cait.) Now, the first one I doubt was truly love, as we were both younger at the time, but there was some serious emotional attachment. The second one, the one I'm trying to get over now, is somewhat different, and is the cause of my sour disposition. I can say, without a doubt, that I love(d) her. Since I met her three years ago, I had always done whateever I could to help her (within reason of course), and always tried to be with her, even when we both weren't ready for a relationship. when I moved away from her (last summer), I lost contact with her for a year almost, but never once stopped thinking about her. On top of that, She has been the only girl who has been able to reduce me to tears when I thought about not being with her. The only reason, though, that I can say I have felt love, is because of how I was brought up in my generation, which was contrary to the most of my generation was brought up. She was brought up the more modern way, and in response, she didn't not have the same concept of love (For exact details, I'm more than willing to explain). that is why, IMO, she turned me down, instead of giving it a chance, and seeing if maybe she felt the same way as me.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 6:11 am

Originally posted by Dottie
I have never belived in love, if someone could explaine to me what it is I would be most grateful.

Trust me love exists.

Now you ask "what is it?".
A fair question. But it cant be answered.
Is that a sceptical ‘Hmmm’ I hear?

Consider this - could you explain the colour blue to a color blind? I'm afraid love is the same. You wont know what it is until you have it.

So how do I know I have it when I don't know what it is?

Oh dear uhh good question.

I'm afraid I just have to say that you recognise the signs in others when you tried it your self.
And it really is like nothing else - when you have it you can rule out all other conditions and you are left with only one thing it can be…

So if you haven’t tried it yet I hope for you it happens. For what they sing is true - Its better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

Good luck

Tom

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 7:17 am

Originally posted by Aegis
Let me rephrase my statement. Romantic Love is impossible for my generation.

Then let me rephrase my criticism - you're generalising about your entire generation just from your personal experience. Although you are apparently exempt from this incapacity for love. Let me suggest this... maybe you and Cait have different views on love. That doesn't mean the rest of your generation is like her. There's a great deal of variation between the people of any generation. I really don't think you should condemn them all because of one girl.

It's interesting that kids of 12 jumping into bed is taken as a sign of moral decay or something, since it's only a fairly recent development in human history that people would wait until so much later. It's not that many centuries ago that girls that age being married off was perfectly acceptable - as soon as they could bear children, that's what they were supposed to be doing. I'm not saying that means they were in love, probably far from it, but the idea that it's wrong is a modern concept.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 7:32 am

Trust me love exists.

Now you ask "what is it?".
A fair question. But it cant be answered.

I have no real problems with this pov, like you said I would have difficult to explaine friendship or whatever, if someone cant relate. Its perhaps not a safe standpoint to claim something I've never seen to be neccessarily untrue either. Lets say I just remain sceptical about it until further notice.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 11:47 am

Originally posted by Dottie

I have no real problems with this pov, like you said I would have difficult to explaine friendship or whatever, if someone cant relate. Its perhaps not a safe standpoint to claim something I've never seen to be neccessarily untrue either. Lets say I just remain sceptical about it until further notice.

fair enough.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 12:39 pm

Re: Heya, Than! Long time no see. How’s tricks? ;-)

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
This is exactly the problem, isn’t it? We are pushed in to the world with no training, and only one word to describe a whole host of feelings and situations. “Love” needs to be defined, scientifically studied and examined! We need to develop an understanding of the concept(s) and this understanding needs to be insinuated into human society from the get-go! We need myriad names to call the phenomenon, and not be locked into the one word. Yes, as Aegis says, Fairy Tale Love is dead, but that’s because it never existed! All the other great aspects of love need to be emphasized. There’s just too much pressure if we are forced to continually make it up as we go. Sex Ed is great, but what about Love Ed?

I agree very much with Gwally! What we call love in our society, is so vague and such a mix of many different concepts and mechanims. There has actually been quite a bit of scientific studies of love in both psychology and neuroscience, I can refer some of it here if anyone is interested.

Personally, I view love as a bond, an attachment between people, necessary for our survival since we are a species that need to stick together for reproduction, raising of offspring and general survival - with the possible exception of Dottie

, we are a group living species. The attachment to keep the group functioning together demands both non-sexual love like friendship that allows for "altruistic behaviour" like working towards long-term goals and sharing, or child-parent love that makes us care about our offspring. Our sexual drive motivates us to reproduce, but the weak and dependant human child needs attandace of more than one adult if they are both to survive. Thus, there is also pair bonding between the genders, that allows for interest in sticking together and taking care of the children. I don't think this bond can be expected to last a lifetime, but sometimes it does.

"Romantic" love as portraited in media, seems mostly to illustrate only falling in love, the initial part of the process. Falling is love is usually connected to a lot of very intense emotions exaggregated by novelty, sexual force and excitement. This state is not supposed to last over long time - happily, since it is quite exhausting and it's very difficult to get anything else done. It is a great experience, but there are also aspect of long-term attachement that are great, although not often shown in Hollywood movies.

thantor3 · Post by **thantor3** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 4:49 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans

Personally, I view love as a bond, an attachment between people, necessary for our survival since we are a species that need to stick together for reproduction, raising of offspring and general survival - with the possible exception of Dottie

I find it interesting that CE mentions "bond" and "Dottie" in the same sentence. Does the lady protest too much? One wonders what is brewing right here in the love thread....

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 5:25 pm

I have been discussing this subject with a good friend. Essentially I agree with HLD, Thantor, Gwally and CE. There is more to love than feeling 'weak at the knees'

I believe love to be a many faceted thing. I think that equating it to explaining blue to a colour blind person, is not near (no disrespect). I think it is more like explaining colour to a fully blind person. It is something intangible. Love has many levels, many depths, many hues. It *is* a sensation - you can have a blind person touch the bark of a tree and describe it, but it is also an appreciation of subtleties. You cannot describe the colour, the height, as you cannot describe to a deaf person the beauty of music. A deaf person can put their hand on a speaker and feel the beat, but this is only appreciating the obvious. To appreciate the depth is to experience it all, in context and over a period of time...well IMO anyway

As Thantor said, this comes with maturity - and IMO this maturity does not necessarily intend age, only a growing together over a period of time

I can understand the attitude of some who have posted here. We are predisposed to believe that love is a magical, physical thing by the media, by our peers. It is easy to become cynical when our early appreciations are not realised. I guess it is that we are programmed to look for the 'weak at the knees' type of love, and if it happens, this is transient anyway, an introduction IMO as you come to appreciate the depths. To me, love is not only about being struck dumb in somebody's presence, it evolves to become an appreciation of all things, an acceptance of this person as part of your life not just part of your emotion, a feeling of being part of some larger picture, something mutual. Of growing together and becoming a part of each other. Just my opinion

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 5:44 pm

I was surprised to find that 56% of couples say that they fell in love at first sight. I dont understand how that is possible that such a high percentage would say that. Do they mean they were attracted to eachother at first sight? Because there is no such thing as "love at first sight". I would expect less than 56% of couples would be in denial-I was expecting about 1% as the percentage.

Virgil57 · Post by **Virgil57** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 7:02 pm

It might be a bit late, but I'll add my 2 cents. I beleive that love is a real thing, and can be experienced by individuals of Aegis' generation (I am 20 and I believe I have found/experienced love, close enough in age). Okay that sounds corny but I am too tired to think of a better way to put it.

It is very true that the image of "love" that society shows us is one that is centered around sex, most of the time lustfull casual sex at that. I do not support this image that love must be tied to sex, I doubt it will ever go away due to the fact that sex sells.

Really loving someone is actually hard to put into words, it is more than infatuation, lust, and sexual desire. Love is more of an emotional committment from two individuals who are truly the best of friends. I have plenty of other friends whom I do consider good friends, but the person I have the best relationship with is my girlfriend. It creates a type of bond where both people involved are willing to make sacrifices and communicate to strengthen and continue the relationship.

Maybe people have such a bad view of love because we are a society of instant gratification, if something doesn't please us NOW we don't want it. Thus, having sex with someone must cause/create love? Love is not what binds to people together forever, it is what gives to people the strenght to work together as a couple in order to maintain their lives happines together.

Well I don't know how well that came out

I have always had trouble trying to explain love to my friends who believe it is pure fiction

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Jul 26, 2002 12:04 pm

Originally posted by thantor3
I find it interesting that CE mentions "bond" and "Dottie" in the same sentence. Does the lady protest too much? One wonders what is brewing right here in the love thread....

You are correct, I have a special bond to Dottie - he is my pet peeve

And know he is tyring to infilitrate my house with manga by convincing my husband it is good