Love

hopeful_girl

do you believe in it?
or do u just think u have settled with someone so not to be alone

tba

You need to define what you think love is, before you can decide if you believe in it.

Blowfish

If you are happy, does it really matter either way?

hopeful_girl

sorry i didnt explain that very well.

i mean, to be ''in love.''

i can see how you can love friends, family, a boyfriend, girlfriend.


but now i ive started to think the being in love thing is more of an infactuation process

RxQueen

it would be quite sad just to settle for someone ,just so you wouldnt be alone... also very unfair on the other person to who might have actual feelings for you.. why should he/she settle with someone who doesnt love them??


Hell I'm not afraid to be alone.. can always purchase some cats and live the dream! :P

hopeful_girl

emo!! wrote: »

it would be quite sad just to settle for someone ,just so you wouldnt be alone... also very unfair on the other person to who might have actual feelings for you.. why should he/she settle with someone who doesnt love them??


Hell I'm not afraid to be alone.. can always purchase some cats and live the dream! :P

but like what are your thoughts on love?
do u think people just stay together not to be alone?
or is there some love thing going onn?

SeekUp

hopeful_girl wrote: »

but like what are your thoughts on love?
do u think people just stay together not to be alone?
or is there some love thing going onn?

Of course people stay together not to be alone. I'd say it happens a fair bit.

I believe in love . . . as well as lust and infatuation, and I don't think they're always mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure how to define being in love, and even if I were to define it, I'd guess that my definition wouldn't work for everyone. But I feel it.

In fact, I don't think there are nearly enough love things goin' on . . .

Wibbs

Good question alright.

It really depends on the individuals and the couple involved IMHO. I would say speaking personally and from what I've seen, that long term deep love and affection, friendship and sexual attraction between couples is rarer than some may think. I think it's rarer than the movies etc make out too. Most movies like fairy tales stop at the bit where people walk off into the sunset to live happily ever after. That's when the real work starts. The mad rush of chemical, "in love" stuff is pretty easy to sustain TBH. High male/female compatibility is rarer.

I think a fair few do settle. Men and women, but more women in my experience. I've known women marry guys in their 30's that they wouldn't have looked at twice in their 20's and I don't just mean they mature either(though that can be the case). It's harder for women to be single as they age anyway so that can be a lot of it. Bachelor has a pretty cool ring to it, spinster defo doesn't.

If you look at divorce rates where divorce is "easy", then 50% is not that unusual(IIR sweden is up to 70%). OK that means the other 50% are staying together, but I know couples who are together and not healthy or content. So I would say even in that 50% there are a fair few if they had their time to live over would not be where they are today. I've had people, both men and women, tell me just that. Kinda sad to hear that one.

Now it does exist IMHO and I know couples like that who are amazingly good for each other, but I would say it's the minority, especially nowadays, especially in the very long term beyond 4/5 years. I think for previous generations it was easier in many ways. Less expectation, less temptation too and more social brakes on people wanting to trade in or up(bad thing too of course).

Of the really good couples I know I've noticed some broad similarities. Number 1 they're actually good friends. Best mate kinda thing. A biggy. That can even survive affairs. They give each other emotional space, but are rarely out of some form of daily contact when apart. They're not grass is greener types. They tend not to be emotionally impulsive. A helluva lot of them are first big loves(sometimes with a big gap where they split and then have a second run at it). I don't mean teenage type first loves. They're usually the first truly adult major loves in the mid 20's kinda thing. I can only think of one where they had a lot of partners before. Maybe the grass is greener syndrome is stronger in those? They're emotionally stable and are intellectually equal. There's usually one who is more of the driving seat though.

Now doubtless some will fire back with how they are a great and "perfect" couple(then again when you're in love you always think that:)), but if your relationship is under 3 odd years, I may respect your opinion and say fair play, but I personally would not use it as a yardstick. Get back to me after 10 years together and tell me then.

My 2 cents anyway. Again personally I would rather be single than settle for second best. I really would. I can think of nothing more soul destroying TBH.

RxQueen

hopeful_girl wrote: »

but like what are your thoughts on love?
do u think people just stay together not to be alone?
or is there some love thing going onn?

like i said i have no fears in being alone at all.. and certainly wouldnt go with someone from fear of being left on the shelf, so to speak.

Im with somebody.. if i didnt feel anything for him , id leave him go , cause it wouldnt be fair on him.. and yeah he is on boards to so dont want to embrass him :P , but i wouldnt be with him if i felt nothing for him , that would be unfair on both out us

Wibbs

There's also the kind of strong deep love that just happens to have a time limit. That can happen, where two people are really good together and for each other, just that it only lasts 2 years or 6. Then they grow apart, but it doesn't negate what they felt and how they affected each other lives in a healthy way while they were together. I would certainly say that of some of my exes anyway. I wouldn't want to be with them now, but I would not trade the time I was with them.

SeekUp

Settling because you're afraid to be alone is one thing -- but I think that realizing your ideal relationship may not materialize is something different entirely. Many people chase this idea of love and end up disappointed that it isn't how they imagined. In the meantime, they may have missed out on perfectly good, non-fairy-tale situations.

I mean, some relationships work even though the people aren't in love with each other. Maybe the other person they find themselves with isn't as attractive/successful/charming/whatever as they'd hoped - or seen in the movies - but at the end of the day, each person involved sees the other as a comfort, a friend, an equal. They may not be in love, but they do care for each other, and both parties can be content with that situation.

Certainly relationships cover the spectrum, and I'm not exactly an advocate for settling, but sometimes it wouldn't seem like the worst thing in the world . . .

minidazzler

I think people mistake lust for love for too long and then they feel they have put too much into the relationship to end it then.

My Parents I can be pretty sure, really Love eachother, but there are very few other couples I can say the same about.

I have friends who say they are in Love with their OH's, but as an outside observer I see it as more of a Lust mixed with want combination that has them stay together.

What I don't understand is how people can be so Naive to think
A) They have 1 true love.
They are going to find that 1 true love by living in the same place going to the same clubs and pubs for however long it takes.

Kya1976

Personally I think too many people do settle and stay with someone just because they are scared to be on their own or just scared to leave the relationship/ and all the commitments that comes with it.

But I do believe in love, I have been in love myself.
I'd be more than happy to live on my own for the rest of my life though, I like my own company and having a 'life partner' is not essential for me to be happy....
The older I get the pickier I get....

stovelid

I think there are some situations where people let relationships go by in their, say, twenties that they wouldn't let go by when they're older. You can meet somebody you do love, but you may want to travel, sexually experiment, or just simply want to see if something better might be coming.

I think at a certain age, you've experienced a lot more, or know better what you want and settle for it. I don't think that's a case of not loving, or settling for anybody, more a question of being better able to know what you want.

I also agree that the companionship and stability of later love is just as attractive as the passionate, overwhelming side.

hopeful_girl

people have really interesting opinions.

out of interest.

anyone who replied... are you in love?
you think?


to be a tad cliched, truelly, madly, deeply?

CathyMoran

I am truely, madly, deeply in love with my husband - I did not "settle" for him, we have been through horrible times together as well as great ones, have grown up together and are best friends as well as me fancying him to bits...we have been together for 11.5 years so far (though we first knowingly met two years before that), so it is not just a flash in the pan...he is my soulmate.

bronte

I definitely think that it exists.
I don't fall in love very often, but when I do it's incredible.
I have never 'settled' just because I felt safe.
I couldn't stay with someone if I wasn't head over heels about them.
I seem to just be lucky that it comes into my life whenever it's meant to

Dragan

hopeful_girl wrote: »

i mean, to be ''in love.''

Yeah, but different people have different idea's of being in love or even what love is.

If you think that love is a small thing, it will be a small thing. I know people who fall in and out of love as easily as the day begins and ends.

Personally love is a fire, something that warms you and inspires you from the center of your being, something that drives you to make a better life, to be a better person, to challenge yourself and your lover and to grow and experience things together.

And yes, i believe in it.:)

sam34

Wibbs wrote: »

There's also the kind of strong deep love that just happens to have a time limit. That can happen, where two people are really good together and for each other, just that it only lasts 2 years or 6. Then they grow apart, but it doesn't negate what they felt and how they affected each other lives in a healthy way while they were together. I would certainly say that of some of my exes anyway. I wouldn't want to be with them now, but I would not trade the time I was with them.

this is exactly how i feel about one of my ex's... we were together for 4 years and they were 4 wonderful years. i have no doubt whatsoever that we were both very much in love with each other.

it ended because, well, it just did, kinda fizzled out. no drama, no big fight, no heartache, just found ourselves in the friend zone rather than anything else.

thats not to say we both werent devastated when we formally called time on it, there was deffo a mourning period. (having said that, i think we're prob on record for having had teh most amicable break-up ever... after the hugging and crying bit in my house, we went for dinner, and the next day we met up and went for a spin to west cork )

he is now one of my closest friends, and it's been 5 yrs since we broke up. i have no interest in getting back with him, nor he with me, but we have a very happy friendship and a great deal of respect for the other.

Wibbs

Dragan wrote: »

Personally love is a fire, something that warms you and inspires you from the center of your being, something that drives you to make a better life, to be a better person, to challenge yourself and your lover and to grow and experience things together.

And yes, i believe in it.:)

Spoken like a man currently in it.

Wibbs

sam34 wrote: »

this is exactly how i feel about one of my ex's... we were together for 4 years and they were 4 wonderful years. i have no doubt whatsoever that we were both very much in love with each other.

it ended because, well, it just did, kinda fizzled out. no drama, no big fight, no heartache, just found ourselves in the friend zone rather than anything else.

There is one theory that humans have in general a 4 year reproductive cycle and beyond that something takes over in some. There seems to be a fair whack of brain chemistry evidence that supports that. The initial run of it looks like a "madness" or an addiction symptoms wise. There may even be in the distant future a "cure" for love heartache.

I would agree for the most part. Looking around I would say the love affair only lasts that long anyway. I would reckon a majority of relationships go bang or fizzle out at between the 2 and 4 year mark. Faster if they're living together and slower if they see each other less. Codependence, fear of being alone, even shared hardships and from that sometimes lasting love keeps the rest together. I would also have said that those couples that did get to the place I would want to be in had one major external and sometimes internal stress. Now whether that just means they were "meant to be" or it's a long term bonding thing or a little from column A and a little from column B.

So in the end yes I believe it exists. I don't think for the majority it's "forever" and most relationships of all sorts split up. Even good or great ones can. Depending on time of life and expectations others continue with varying degrees of success. I would say that I personally may have stayed with maybe three women pretty successfully if I or they had been at different stages in our own lives. Hard to say though. The rare few keep that bond very strong. Not as strong as at the start. Lets face it that would be wearing and you could put your back out Not as hyper but still strong in another way.

I think we know deep down it is quite rare. Our media and culture may represent that by holding up examples of "perfect lasting love/the one" as something to aim for, or take refuge in if one doesn't have it or hasn't found it yet. I reckon that's why those ideas that seem illogical have that hold on us.

hopeful_girl

CathyMoran wrote: »

I am truely, madly, deeply in love with my husband - I did not "settle" for him, we have been through horrible times together as well as great ones, have grown up together and are best friends as well as me fancying him to bits...we have been together for 11.5 years so far (though we first knowingly met two years before that), so it is not just a flash in the pan...he is my soulmate.

thats really sweet.

Wibbs

hopeful_girl wrote: »

people have really interesting opinions.

out of interest.

anyone who replied... are you in love?
you think?


to be a tad cliched, truelly, madly, deeply?

Yep I have been in the past. Twice. Truly loved them. Their happiness was added as an equal to mine. Indeed if my happiness stood in the way of theirs, I would have stepped back and let them go. I did exactly that in fact with the first one. Hurt like hell. Among the worst emotional pain I've felt. I don't regret it though.

hopeful_girl

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep I have been in the past. Twice. Truly loved them. Their happiness was added as an equal to mine. Indeed if my happiness stood in the way of theirs, I would have stepped back and let them go. I did exactly that in fact with the first one. Hurt like hell. Among the worst emotional pain I've felt. I don't regret it though.

whats your view on soul mates?

(if its not too bold to ask)

Wibbs

I would put that definition on anyone who has affected my life in a lasting positive way. That would include mates too. In the romantic sense, yes the women I loved were soulmates too.

Nevyn

More like Cruelly, Madly, Deeply.

CathyMoran

hopeful_girl wrote: »

whats your view on soul mates?

(if its not too bold to ask)

My view on being a soul mate is that you are the other "half" of the person, you are best friends and have a bond that goes beyond words...note, it can be platonic...it has happened to me twice, once with my husband and once is a close relative.

Salome

It's a very interesting thread - I read it earlier but wanted to consider my answer before I posted so here goes...

I think movies/music/media have always given the impression of "The One" who is your soulmate who you love unconditionally with a passion never felt before. Now that is total horse-manure in my experience. I have fallen for men, I was madly in love and was blinded by passion and mutual adoration. I felt the thunderbolt etc and thought this was my "One" on more than one occasion. The last thunderbolt I felt left me heartbroken, literally. I was totally devastated when I ended it but the relationship could never be what I needed it to be, for many reasons. I thought I'd never have that feeling again.

Then, 3 months later, I met my OH. There was no thunderbolt but I felt something else - someone strong, loving, someone real. I wondered was I settling at the time - the reality is that he was so different to anyone else I had been with, I didn't know a decent, loving, wonderful, adoring man when I saw it as I had been "programmed" by rom-coms to expect to be swept off my feet by someone totally unique. In real life, love, real warm love, feels so different.

We're together over two years now - we could be in the honeymoon period as Wibbs suggests but I don't think so - it's a real partnership and a meeting of minds. I couldn't be happier. I certainly never was as happy before - I just thought I was.

hopeful_girl

from what i see around me the love just fades.

with the except of one aunt and her husband.

its like a bussness deal of strange sorts.

spinandscribble

Dragan wrote: »

Yeah, but different people have different idea's of being in love or even what love is.

If you think that love is a small thing, it will be a small thing. I know people who fall in and out of love as easily as the day begins and ends.

Personally love is a fire, something that warms you and inspires you from the center of your being, something that drives you to make a better life, to be a better person, to challenge yourself and your lover and to grow and experience things together.

And yes, i believe in it.:)

+1 from me, i can never seem to sum up how i feel love is without sounding corny but you sir have managed it, kudos.

cee_jay

I Was at a friend's wedding this weekend though, and I thought what the bride's father said made a lot of sense - "Love is not a thunderbolt out of the sky, its realising you cannot spend the rest of your life without this person".
Personally, I don't know how that feels but it makes a lot of sense I suppose.

Wibbs

Salome wrote: »

Then, 3 months later, I met my OH. There was no thunderbolt but I felt something else - someone strong, loving, someone real. I wondered was I settling at the time - the reality is that he was so different to anyone else I had been with, I didn't know a decent, loving, wonderful, adoring man when I saw it as I had been "programmed" by rom-coms to expect to be swept off my feet by someone totally unique. In real life, love, real warm love, feels so different.

Fair play and that's a common enough one. I mean the rom com expectation, not what you appear to have. That's not common at all.

We're together over two years now - we could be in the honeymoon period as Wibbs suggests but I don't think so - it's a real partnership and a meeting of minds. I couldn't be happier. I certainly never was as happy before - I just thought I was.

Maybe you just think you are now, if you know what I mean? Now I am a bit of a cynic(no, really??:eek::D), so that's to be taken with a huuuuge pinch of salt. I have noted some can reset the mechanism easier than others. I don't mean you in particular BTW as it sounds like you have a very different guy to your previous. I mean in general.

I've seen it with mates, male and female. They'll be with one person and they're the world to them. The "one" as it were. That goes south and then a year later they're with someone else and they're so much better etc. Yet from the outside it's same script, just a different actor, but they are convinced it's different.

TBH I envy them that. Don't have that myself at all. Hell it took 13 years between my two, with some really cool women in the interim I must say though. I honestly can't see it happening again. Not to that degree anyway. I have really good mates and sex is hardly difficult to get, short affairs the same, though the latter holds no appeal anymore. I suppose I need the "wow" bit. A romantic cynic. Who would have thunk it. I'm defo boned!:)

iseeyou

CathyMoran wrote: »

My view on being a soul mate is that you are the other "half" of the person, you are best friends and have a bond that goes beyond words...note, it can be platonic...it has happened to me twice, once with my husband and once is a close relative.

This is an extremely disturbing view that you view being a soul mate as being "half" of the person or "half" of a couple. I absolutely hate when people say this, of course there is such thing as true love and having a deep connection with someone but this idea that you need someone to "complete you" is utter crap. You came into this earth as ONE WHOLE PERSON, and you go out that way. You may find the love of your life but they should COMPLIMENT who you are not COMPLETE you. If you feel like you are only half a person when your not with someone or you literally mean it when you say "my other half" then you have problems.

SeekUp

I think it was Plato who came up with the soulmate thing, no? That we were all one, and then a bolt of lighting stuck us down the middle . . . and we were then destined to wander the earth searching for our other halves.

*sigh*

I'm not jumping on that bandwagon though -- I mean, maybe there is only one true soulmate, who knows, but I think that there are many people (okay, at least a few!) with whom you can be completely blissfully happy. Out of the 6,914,643,915 people on the planet (and counting), isn't it a bit defeatist to say there is only one person meant for you? And what does "meant for you" mean, anyway? Aren't we constantly evolving? Does that mean that your soulmate isn't a constant, but instead ever-changing?

spinandscribble

SeekUp wrote: »

I think it was Plato who came up with the soulmate thing, no? That we were all one, and then a bolt of lighting stuck us down the middle . . . and we were then destined to wander the earth searching for our other halves.

yes but from my reading of the symposium he gave more weight to same sex soul mates, interestingly enough. so best mates could be soul mates heehee.

Wibbs

SeekUp wrote: »

And what does "meant for you" mean, anyway? Aren't we constantly evolving? Does that mean that your soulmate isn't a constant, but instead ever-changing?

That would be my take too. I would say I had soulmates as girlfriends before, but I doubt they would be soulmates for me now. Pretty sure of it actually.

hopeful_girl

Wibbs wrote: »

That would be my take too. I would say I had soulmates as girlfriends before, but I doubt they would be soulmates for me now. Pretty sure of it actually.

why would you consider someone your soulmate if you two didnt always stay together?






its back to this thing i dont understand. people just throw around the love and it doesn't last.

so its not actually love at all.

Wibbs

Because they were my soulmates at that time and we were both right for each other at that time and we both learned and grew from that experience. Lets say I stayed with the first woman. I may not have grown the way I did by her going and may have ended up on a different page and not a good one and/or I would have missed out on meeting and being with the second one. I certainly haven't thrown around the love. I've only been like that twice in my life with a decade gap in between. I think of them often and there's a place in my heart for both of them that no one else has touched on before or since. Someone may never do so. Hopefully they do, but if they don't, well I know what that level of feeling means.

Put it another way, I've known plenty of couples over the years, some are still together and not healthy for each other at all. I could count on the fingers of one hand relationships as good as I had with those two, regardless of length of time.

shellyboo

hopeful_girl wrote: »

its back to this thing i dont understand. people just throw around the love and it doesn't last.

so its not actually love at all.

I find that idea quite offensive actually - just because love fades doesn't mean it was never love. Love is not a constant, it changes and adapts as people change and adapt. Sometimes it gets stronger, sometimes it shakes, sometimes it flounders.

Love is not a magic spell that falls upon two people - love is an action, a verb, it's not something you HAVE, it's something you DO, it takes work.

the fall guy

hopeful_girl wrote: »

why would you consider someone your soulmate if you two didnt always stay together?






its back to this thing i dont understand. people just throw around the love and it doesn't last.

so its not actually love at all.

It's infatuation.

I've been infatuated many times but 'love' is a new thing for me.I actually hate it.It's ****ed up my whole routine and persona,I'm like a daft wee boy again because of 'love'.

If she's 5 min late home from work I panic,it's murder.I need to see her in the morning when I wake up.

Love sucks.

Piste

I think that love can be transient and impermanent as well as stable and lasting (or maybe that's just from studying so much Walcott for the LC..."even loves Lightning Flash has no thunderous end/It dies with the sound of flowers fading..."

Anyway, I had a longer version of this in another thread, I think love is just a shift in dynamic in a relationship, albeit a very significant shift which makes that person more meaningful to you and makes your relationship stronger. Love is different thingd to different people, for example some people believe in unrequited love whereas I don't, I don't believe you can love someone truly if they don't love you.

Love is also relative, for example person A might have feelings for Person B they never felt before, stronger than feelings they ever had for anyone else. The symptoms fulfill all the clichés (can't live without them/ tingles in stomach etc.) so they call this love. Is it? Absolutely, love is what you want it to be. Now maybe they stay with Person B for the rest of their lives, all the while mainaining they're "in love". In an alternate reality Person A splits from Person B and marries Person C. The feelings they have for Person C are much stronger and more intense than what they felt for person B. So they call what they have for Person C love, and maybe they call what they had for person B "infatuation" or just "like".

Sooo basically my point is love is relative, there's no absolute definition because nobody feels the same way. Our language has its limitations so it's hard to describe.

the fall guy

Piste wrote: »

I think that love can be transient and impermanent as well as stable and lasting (or maybe that's just from studying so much Walcott for the LC..."even loves Lightning Flash has no thunderous end/It dies with the sound of flowers fading..."

Anyway, I had a longer version of this in another thread, I think love is just a shift in dynamic in a relationship, albeit a very significant shift which makes that person more meaningful to you and makes your relationship stronger. Love is different thingd to different people, for example some people believe in unrequited love whereas I don't, I don't believe you can love someone truly if they don't love you.

Love is also relative, for example person A might have feelings for Person B they never felt before, stronger than feelings they ever had for anyone else. The symptoms fulfill all the clichés (can't live without them/ tingles in stomach etc.) so they call this love. Is it? Absolutely, love is what you want it to be. Now maybe they stay with Person B for the rest of their lives, all the while mainaining they're "in love". In an alternate reality Person A splits from Person B and marries Person C. The feelings they have for Person C are much stronger and more intense than what they felt for person B. So they call what they have for Person C love, and maybe they call what they had for person B "infatuation" or just "like".

Sooo basically my point is love is relative, there's no absolute definition because nobody feels the same way. Our language has its limitations so it's hard to describe.

you talk some amount of ****e pal.

hopeful_girl

Piste wrote: »

I think that love can be transient and impermanent as well as stable and lasting (or maybe that's just from studying so much Walcott for the LC..."even loves Lightning Flash has no thunderous end/It dies with the sound of flowers fading..."

Anyway, I had a longer version of this in another thread, I think love is just a shift in dynamic in a relationship, albeit a very significant shift which makes that person more meaningful to you and makes your relationship stronger. Love is different thingd to different people, for example some people believe in unrequited love whereas I don't, I don't believe you can love someone truly if they don't love you.

Love is also relative, for example person A might have feelings for Person B they never felt before, stronger than feelings they ever had for anyone else. The symptoms fulfill all the clichés (can't live without them/ tingles in stomach etc.) so they call this love. Is it? Absolutely, love is what you want it to be. Now maybe they stay with Person B for the rest of their lives, all the while mainaining they're "in love". In an alternate reality Person A splits from Person B and marries Person C. The feelings they have for Person C are much stronger and more intense than what they felt for person B. So they call what they have for Person C love, and maybe they call what they had for person B "infatuation" or just "like".

Sooo basically my point is love is relative, there's no absolute definition because nobody feels the same way. Our language has its limitations so it's hard to describe.

you're so right:D

Wibbs

the fall guy takes a week off for personal abuse.

CathyMoran

Just in terms of being half of someone when you are with a soulmate - I still defend that idea. I do know that when my husband and I are together we are greater than the sum of the parts, we complement one another and make a great team. Could I be without him? Of course, but having him in my life makes the world a brighter place for me. We have grown up and grown closer together - dont get me wrong, we both do things that drive one another batty but on the scale of things that can be solved when we talk things through. We have been through enough things together to know that we are well suited. Yes, it takes work, but we both get far more from our relationship than we put in. I think that we are unusual in that we spend very little time apart but we both genuinelly love being together.

I do think that the longer you spend single the harder it is to stay in a long term relationship as it does take compromise.

Salome

shellyboo wrote: »

I find that idea quite offensive actually - just because love fades doesn't mean it was never love. Love is not a constant, it changes and adapts as people change and adapt. Sometimes it gets stronger, sometimes it shakes, sometimes it flounders.

Love is not a magic spell that falls upon two people - love is an action, a verb, it's not something you HAVE, it's something you DO, it takes work.

Spot on shellyboo.

Wibbs, you could be right - I could be living in glorious naivety but I know I'm happy and he's happy - that's all I want and need. I might agree with you if I was in my early twenties but I'm older - I know what is right for me now and I am very content. I love my life now - I know this is what is right for me .

iseeyou

iseeyou wrote: »

This is an extremely disturbing view that you view being a soul mate as being "half" of the person or "half" of a couple. I absolutely hate when people say this, of course there is such thing as true love and having a deep connection with someone but this idea that you need someone to "complete you" is utter crap. You came into this earth as ONE WHOLE PERSON, and you go out that way. You may find the love of your life but they should COMPLIMENT who you are not COMPLETE you. If you feel like you are only half a person when your not with someone or you literally mean it when you say "my other half" then you have problems.

How about two seperate people being two halves of a greater complementary whole then?

Certainly feels that way with my OH and I've always been a skeptic on the romantic side til I became closer with him :mad:
Happily going along being a skeptic til before I know it my life is turned upside down (not just after meeting him, we were good friends for over a year first) and for far the better - I'm a happier, 'better' person than ever with more appetite for life, he's really lit it up. And I'm assured the reverse is true too. And where previously in a relationship I might have felt I was in love etc, this just seems more of a ... healthier kind. Like, where both of us are in a good place with our own heads and have a lot to give.
Plus he's such an amazing human being just to know him and have him in my life at all is wonderful.
<passes around vomit buckets>
aaaanyway, the point is, my answer would previously have been "yeah maybe it's settling or I'm just not built for romantic love", but now I'd definitely say it's not. But it's not something that you can just have and stay stagnant in... takes effort and doing and... yeah.

dreamlogic

Piste wrote:

So they call what they have for Person C love, and maybe they call what they had for person B "infatuation" or just "like".

Sometimes this is the memory playing tricks. If that relationship ended badly then it is less likely to be remembered as being true love, or simply less painful to store it under that category..
Which is not to say that earlier loves are less likely to be infatuation..
I know that my first serious relationship was great in many ways. But it was definitely more infatuation at first than love in the true sense of the word. Then we split for a while, got back and the relationship had then changed more into companionship/friendship. Looking back it reminds me a bit of the sort of relationship my parents had which is not the sort of relationship I would want for myself(even though it's worked fine for them).

What love is and the success or failure of a relationship has a lot to do with timing I think. As Wibbs pointed out, two people could meet again several years later(or earlier?) and not feel the same way as they did at that point in time when they did in fact meet. I also believe that two people can be very right for each other in so many important ways, effortless communication, best friends, chemistry etc. etc. But the timing is wrong and they have to split(for a while or forever...).
When I say timing, I suppose I mean in terms of where the person is at. Maybe they're just after a recent breakup(baggage), maybe they have some growing up to do, maybe they have different priorities at that point in time, there are so many things that can get in the way of what might have been.

Piste wrote:

I don't believe you can love someone truly if they don't love you.

I agree with this. The unrequited love thing does not make much sense really; it has to be infatuation...

CathyMoran wrote:

I do think that the longer you spend single the harder it is to stay in a long term relationship as it does take compromise.

That's a very interesting point. I don't know whether I agree or not, but it's certainly given me something to mull over.

Wibbs wrote:

Bachelor has a pretty cool ring to it, spinster defo doesn't.

Ugh! Do people still use that word in ordinary language in this day and age? (I hope not, it's a horrible word!) : /

Dragan

hopeful_girl wrote: »

why would you consider someone your soulmate if you two didnt always stay together?






its back to this thing i dont understand. people just throw around the love and it doesn't last.

so its not actually love at all.

Love is bound by the same laws that cover the conservation of energy. There is no such thing as a perpetual love engine, you need to feed it to continue it's life.

Looking back at past relationships, i can see with a degree of clear logic why they feel apart. Mostly it was because the two people involved both lacked the ability or the experience of the knowledge of life to actually make it work. This happens for pretty much everyone because we will start having relationships and experiencing degrees of love long before we are even close to being emotionally complete people.

As such, relationships will fail and if you are very lucky these will cause growth and change in you that will eventually lead you to a relationship that will not.

Part of being in that place is, i think, realising that love that is worth keeping is worth working for and fighting for. You need to put in the effort and after a point that is something that you either will or will not be able to do and your relations and love will grow or lessen depending.

It doesn't mean that old loves were not loves, it means they were the loves that you were capable of experiencing at the time, and the relationships that you were capable of having.

I would describe the times i have been in love as all being different, each one seeming stronger than the last with my current love being like something i have never experienced and felt i never wood.

With love, just like with everything else, the only sure thing is change.

iseeyou

I do think that the longer you spend single the harder it is to stay in a long term relationship as it does take compromise.[/quote]


Thats an extremely strange thing to say. Could it be that people float from relationship to relationship hoping that the next one will be "the one" who makes them a whole, and that sometimes people settle because they are at a certain age or whatever bizzare reason, the divorce rates would suggest that very few people actually meet a life long partner the one they can call a soulmate. And that some people choose to be single because they realise that there isnt actually anything inadequate about it. I dont actually see how your basing that people who are single will find it hard to be in a long term relationship, they are not all selfish!

CathyMoran

iseeyou wrote: »

Thats an extremely strange thing to say. Could it be that people float from relationship to relationship hoping that the next one will be "the one" who makes them a whole, and that sometimes people settle because they are at a certain age or whatever bizzare reason, the divorce rates would suggest that very few people actually meet a life long partner the one they can call a soulmate. And that some people choose to be single because they realise that there isnt actually anything inadequate about it. I dont actually see how your basing that people who are single will find it hard to be in a long term relationship, they are not all selfish!

When you are single you develop a very strong sense of self but when you are in a couple while you have a sense of self you also have a strong sense of being part of a couple - you make sacrifices for one another. I have seen it with friends who are still dating in their 30's and 40's - they have their own lives and it is very hard for someone to let someone else in. I started my relationship with my husband in my early 20's (we are together 11.5 years) and we grew up together. I certainly did not "settle" with my husband - we are a good team together and I adore him, no one else remotely compares to him.

I do think that you and I are miles apart in terms of what we feel about relationships and are at different stages in our lives.