Love

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 .

coffee_cake

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.

hopeful_girl

i cant seem to get over the fact that 70% of people in sweeden divorce.

my best mates half sweedish. he says their culture not to far different from ours like

Salome

hopeful_girl wrote: »

i cant seem to get over the fact that 70% of people in sweeden divorce.

my best mates half sweedish. he says their culture not to far different from ours like

Why are you so worried about statistics? Aren't you better off just enjoying your life and your relationships? Are you always going to assume that your relationship(s) will fail because you've seen other relationships break down? You're obviously not that hopeful.

CathyMoran

iseeyou wrote: »

I make sacrifices for my other half, but by no means does it diminish who I am, and if compromise means changing my morals or views on certain things then I wont do it, being part of a couple is great but you should never lose your own identity because of it. Yeah I agree that people in their late 30s and 40s find it harder to let someone new into their lives, but do you not think that maybe it is because thay have a far clearer view of who they really are, and they are not willing to give their time to someone who, say in their mid 20s will ,because they are far less insecure about themselves and dont need another person to validate who they are. Im under no illusion that some people do find a perfect match, and end up happily ever after with them, but come on, truthfully, how many people do you know that will tell you this and mean it. Yeah I agree that we are absolutely miles and miles apart on our views.

I do have a strong sense of self, but it is tempered by accomodating my husband - we have the same views and sense of morality, I imagine that it would be harder if we had different views. Being with someone in your 20's does not mean that you stayed with them to "settle", I stayed with them because my life is infinitly better with them in it. Oh, I am one of those people who found their perfect match.

I think that may be you have never found someone that you are totally in love with yet?

FruitLover

hopeful_girl wrote: »

i cant seem to get over the fact that 70% of people in sweeden divorce.

my best mates half sweedish. he says their culture not to far different from ours like

If the flame's out, then IMO it's better they have a clean-cut divorce than stay together just to save face or 'for the kids' (or just separate without an official divorce) like so many Irish couples.

hopeful_girl

Salome wrote: »

Why are you so worried about statistics? Aren't you better off just enjoying your life and your relationships? Are you always going to assume that your relationship(s) will fail because you've seen other relationships break down? You're obviously not that hopeful.

im in a very successful relationship.

i just question things and wonder how love is supposed to work with a hive of negativity in the world

Wibbs

hopeful_girl wrote: »

i cant seem to get over the fact that 70% of people in sweeden divorce.

my best mates half sweedish. he says their culture not to far different from ours like

So it still means 30% don't. Actually and ironically(slightly) one of those "best of" couples I know are Swedish so there ya go.

i just question things and wonder how love is supposed to work with a hive of negativity in the world

You know what and pardon my french? Fúck the rest of the world. Yes the rest of the world can impact you as a couple, but it's not you as a couple. I know every couple thinks they're different and the cynic in me sometimes throws my eyes up, but I'm wrong. Was only talking to a guy a week back who is in love and I could see that feeling in his eyes and you know what, he and his GF are different and individual and special and in love and love each other, no matter how long it lasts. More power to the bugger too.

The women I have loved I loved deeply and they loved me. They made my life so much the better for having them in it. I did the same for them(mostly:)) I don't look at the world in quite the same way because of them. I felt emotions I never would have imagined I would have felt. I couldn't explain it and don't feel the need to(big leap for me:D). They made me the man I am today, such as it is. They opened my eyes and opened my mind in ways that increased me more than words can convey. Yes I'm not with them now, but they're still with me every single day and a part of me is with them in their lives. If I never had that again I would be OK with that as I had it once. Hell I had it twice. I'm luckier than some.

So you don't be worrying about the negativity in the world or in you, just enjoy you and him. Let time and life sort out the details.

b3t4

hopeful_girl wrote: »

do you believe in it?

I didn't.

or do u just think u have settled with someone so not to be alone

Settled implies it's easy so nope I've definitely not settled. Oh and I don't mean that in a dramatic,we fight all the time, kind of way.

I'm me, truly me, with him which I've never been with anyone else in my life. Being so free to be me, in a relationship with another human being, is the most wonderful and truly beautiful things that I've experienced in my life.

If I was going to sum up love for me, I would say that "Love is not a full stop".

A

Wibbs

Well for a start you don't know the whole story(neither do I in fairness) so we can't make a call on another couple without it and unless you're part of that couple we can't really make the call.

Plus the course of true love never ran smooth and it's not or very rarely an unmessy fairytale. Among the best couples I know most have split up. Some for a long time(8 years in one case). Indeed if I was to judge my personal experiences and draw up a "strategy" for finding true consistent love I would actually include splitting up for at least 6 months and even going off with others as part of it. I'd also throw in some major life stress as a sweetener. In a few cases even a spot of cheating too. Not exactly cinderella is it? But that's what I have observed over the guts of 2 decades and the many many relationships I've seen.

If you believe the fairytale you will be disappointed. I guarantee it.

Love is a funny one. I do think there is somewhat of a gender diff in this too. I think women's love is more conditional and they're more open to the idea of splitting up after the 3-4 year buzz wears off. Most couples that split seem to split around that time and most splits(and divorces) are instigated by women. IMHO they're more prone to confuse sexual attraction with love. For cultural and maybe even brain diffs. More than men actually, which would be the traditional view. The "I'm deeply attracted to this guy which = I love him". I think this is partially why men are generally slower to say "I love you". They confuse the sex/love thing less. I think this is why women are more likely to fall out of love quickly. Sometimes overnight. The sexual buzz is gone. How many women have felt the idea of the guy they used to love even touching them as an "ugh" moment. Rarely get that with guys. Even in a breakup, look at the general diffs. If a guy is doing the split up and the woman said to him, "can we still have sex the odd time. no strings?" A lot of guys would be fine with that. When women split the most obvious result is the sex stops, but she's much more likely to want to be "friends", to keep the emotional thing going. Generalisations of course and I can think of enough exceptions, but I do think there is a pattern to some of it.

banshee_bones

I dont think I have ever been in Love.

Once or twice (at the time in the situation) i thought I was in love. But now i see that i wasnt. I dont know if that is hindsight looking back saying it now with the rose tinted glasses off or what but i can safely say iv never had that thunderbolt thing that everyone seems to be talking about it.
And jeez i have to say lads ye are scaring me!!!!

Iv had that butterflies in stomach, dreamy sighing thing but i call that a crush or lust or whatever!

Salome

I would define the thunderbolt as intense sexual attraction - it clouds the judgement from time to time !!!!