Links
Archives
Love, sex, and other bodily functions
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Here's some things I posted on Tribe:
Ok, I would like to point out a coupla things.
First of all, in this thread we have already confused "in love" and "love" which in my mind are entirely different things. The way I see it, you can be not "in love" with someone, but still love them very much.
Second, I think way, way, way, way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much emphasis is put on "in love." The way I see it, "in love" is really part delusion, part drug, and at any rate evanescent; it's not something you can hold on too. Even in the most ideal LTR, it will fade after the first couple of years or so. That's just a part of life; that's just something you have to deal with. "In love" isn't something you can take to the bank, and it's not something I would recommend as a decision making tool.
reply to this post
Arse
1
January 07, 2004 - 09:33 PM
Re: This is the end... or is it?
More of my thoughts on "in love":
I think we each carry with us an "image" of the ideal mate; someone who will love us unconditionally, be perfectly compatible, make us whole, and understand us without our having to communicate. This person does not exist (and there is no tooth fairy either, sorry kids). When we meet someone we're attracted to in some way (not necessarily physical), we project this "image" onto that person; sure, the new person is great and has many things perhaps in common with the Ideal Mate, but the new person *cannot be* the Ideal Mate(IM) because the latter simply does not--and cannot--exist. The IM may be the mirage many people are chasing in their quests for "the one." The IM is what you are "in love" with, and when the new person looks like the IM, you feel like you're in love with him/her.
After you get to know the new person for a while, you realize they're not the IM, and eventually the feelings fade. This can take a long time, and many people may not really see thier partner well enough to realize that he/she isn't the IM; they continue to believe the illusion.
The way I see it, other people cannot be the solution. The things you're looking for from an IM (love us unconditionally, be perfectly compatible, make us whole, and understand us without our having to communicate) are impossible in any human being. Plus, if you're counting on another person to make you whole, you're setting yourself up for co-dependence. The person who makes you whole and loves you unconditionally has to be either YOU YOURSELF or whatever deity/spiritual entity you believe in. This goes back to my answer to Spidra's question about loving oneself. I know it's hard, and I haven't completely managed to do it myself yet, but what we all need to do (IMHO) is see that we are already whole and complete, and to love ourselves. Then we won't have to chase after rainbows and always be disappointed; we'll be free to have emotionally honest relationships with real love (not "in love") and to see and value our partners for who they really are, not who we wish they were.
reply to this post
Rick
5
January 08, 2004 - 04:18 PM
Re: This is the end... or is it?
I agree Arse. There is a lot of confusion between love and 'in love' and what these things mean. I think that real love is not person or situation specific, and has no end. No parent ever suspects they have the wrong child. Doesn't mean you necessarily want to be with just anybody - there needs to be some basic compatibility in an adult relationship. The 'in love' phase is a really nice way of starting things, but I don't think it's the goal. Nobody can keep you high indefinitely, or liberate you from inner pain you have not allowed yourself to experience (which is part of the unconscious fantasy, that the person will be what your parents couldn't be in some way). They can keep you company. Real happiness comes from what we give, not what we take. Better to resolve your issues with your parents on the inside if possible. These are more than opinions, they're life conditions, and have to be reached on ones own.
But we really tell a lot about ourselves when we tell our opinions on this topic
-----------
Yeah, that last part is by some guy named Rick, but I agree with what he said.
Ok, I would like to point out a coupla things.
First of all, in this thread we have already confused "in love" and "love" which in my mind are entirely different things. The way I see it, you can be not "in love" with someone, but still love them very much.
Second, I think way, way, way, way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much emphasis is put on "in love." The way I see it, "in love" is really part delusion, part drug, and at any rate evanescent; it's not something you can hold on too. Even in the most ideal LTR, it will fade after the first couple of years or so. That's just a part of life; that's just something you have to deal with. "In love" isn't something you can take to the bank, and it's not something I would recommend as a decision making tool.
reply to this post
Arse
1
January 07, 2004 - 09:33 PM
Re: This is the end... or is it?
More of my thoughts on "in love":
I think we each carry with us an "image" of the ideal mate; someone who will love us unconditionally, be perfectly compatible, make us whole, and understand us without our having to communicate. This person does not exist (and there is no tooth fairy either, sorry kids). When we meet someone we're attracted to in some way (not necessarily physical), we project this "image" onto that person; sure, the new person is great and has many things perhaps in common with the Ideal Mate, but the new person *cannot be* the Ideal Mate(IM) because the latter simply does not--and cannot--exist. The IM may be the mirage many people are chasing in their quests for "the one." The IM is what you are "in love" with, and when the new person looks like the IM, you feel like you're in love with him/her.
After you get to know the new person for a while, you realize they're not the IM, and eventually the feelings fade. This can take a long time, and many people may not really see thier partner well enough to realize that he/she isn't the IM; they continue to believe the illusion.
The way I see it, other people cannot be the solution. The things you're looking for from an IM (love us unconditionally, be perfectly compatible, make us whole, and understand us without our having to communicate) are impossible in any human being. Plus, if you're counting on another person to make you whole, you're setting yourself up for co-dependence. The person who makes you whole and loves you unconditionally has to be either YOU YOURSELF or whatever deity/spiritual entity you believe in. This goes back to my answer to Spidra's question about loving oneself. I know it's hard, and I haven't completely managed to do it myself yet, but what we all need to do (IMHO) is see that we are already whole and complete, and to love ourselves. Then we won't have to chase after rainbows and always be disappointed; we'll be free to have emotionally honest relationships with real love (not "in love") and to see and value our partners for who they really are, not who we wish they were.
reply to this post
Rick
5
January 08, 2004 - 04:18 PM
Re: This is the end... or is it?
I agree Arse. There is a lot of confusion between love and 'in love' and what these things mean. I think that real love is not person or situation specific, and has no end. No parent ever suspects they have the wrong child. Doesn't mean you necessarily want to be with just anybody - there needs to be some basic compatibility in an adult relationship. The 'in love' phase is a really nice way of starting things, but I don't think it's the goal. Nobody can keep you high indefinitely, or liberate you from inner pain you have not allowed yourself to experience (which is part of the unconscious fantasy, that the person will be what your parents couldn't be in some way). They can keep you company. Real happiness comes from what we give, not what we take. Better to resolve your issues with your parents on the inside if possible. These are more than opinions, they're life conditions, and have to be reached on ones own.
But we really tell a lot about ourselves when we tell our opinions on this topic
-----------
Yeah, that last part is by some guy named Rick, but I agree with what he said.
I should add (e) to that list.
e. We didn't "click"/have common interests or shared values or she wasn't geeky.
I don't know if that's the same as (b). We did have some shared values. But I guess there's (f):
f. We didn't have enough common values to raise kids together, even though we both wanted kids.
e. We didn't "click"/have common interests or shared values or she wasn't geeky.
I don't know if that's the same as (b). We did have some shared values. But I guess there's (f):
f. We didn't have enough common values to raise kids together, even though we both wanted kids.
If I could just cry and get it over with, would i be able to get out of bed and clean my room and get on with my life? My life....is in pieces all around me and I'm just sitting here playing solitaire on my laptop. Something is wrong with this picture.
It's so weird. I thought I would keep loving her, but I've lost that loving feeling, ha ha. Or something. I'm so confused. What's going on? Where are my feelings? What am I supposed to be feeling? What am I feeling instead? What does that mean?
Are (c) and (d) different? What about (a), (c), and (d)? Am I just a wanker?
No, it was mutual. She brought it up while I was looking for the right words. Right?
No, it was mutual. She brought it up while I was looking for the right words. Right?
Why did I break up with my girlfriend?
Was it because
a. I felt my boundaries weren't being adequately respected and that the situation was borderline manipulative/abusive?
b. Because I wasn't in love with her?
c. I couldn't open up enough?
d. I needed space/autonomy?
Which of those, if any, are good reasons?
Was it because
a. I felt my boundaries weren't being adequately respected and that the situation was borderline manipulative/abusive?
b. Because I wasn't in love with her?
c. I couldn't open up enough?
d. I needed space/autonomy?
Which of those, if any, are good reasons?
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
woo-hoo!
