Jump to content
Aveyond Studios Community
Sign in to follow this  
Kleptin

Love, Marriage, Comittment

Recommended Posts

@D_A: I, personally, think it's pretty hard to describe what 'love' 'feels' like. You could be in love with two different people, but get a very different feeling from/with both of them. Also, the feelings you have for someone now could change over time, but it could still be love.

 

My parents are very much in love, after 30 plus years of marriage and being together, but they definitely don't feel the same feelings they did when they were first going out- they almost can't, because so many things have changed them and their relationship since then. They're still the same basic person at their core, but their circumstances have changed, thus changing their relationship. Dating, marriage/comittment, kids, illness and death of a mother/father (not to mention other stuff like finances and the like)- these things changed my parents and helped their love evolve. Everything that happens to you changes how you view things or how you feel things, including love.

 

So I think, in the end, no one person can tell you what love feels like, or how you 'know' you're in love, you'll just have to figure it out for yourself. :P

 

Also, and this might get me vilified, and I'd like to state first that I get it, everyone needs to have a contingency plan in case things fall apart, but... I hate pre-nups. It just seems like saying 'well, I want to marry you, and I hope we'll stay together forever, but....'

 

...adding again, boy this is getting insanely long:

I was watching tv the other day, and this woman mentioned that she hates weddings, and won't get married (apparently her friend is getting married) because and I quote "50% of marriages are doomed to fail anyway." If you go into a marriage or any kind of committed relationship with the attitude that you're 50% likely to fail in said relationship, then, in my not-so-humble opinion, you're going to do exactly that: fail. Whether you break up, or you stay, but are miserable, you (again, in my opinion,) failed. Not just the relationship, but you failed your partner, and, ultimately, you failed yourself.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, AND that this post is so very long, but I guess I'm just very protective of love, since it is, in my opinion, something that is so very precious, powerful and awe-inspiring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@copper_blue: so are you saying you should be blindly optimistic about relationships and particularly your own?

 

cuz that seems incredibly difficult and a bit naive given the statistics about divorce rates and fickle nature of humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think love is overrated. Period.

This :D I'd tone it down a little and say ROMANTIC love is overrated, though, not love in general. Familial love CAN be very strong.

--------------------------------------

I reiterate my previous question: I want to know if there's a way to differentiate infatuation, crush, lust, and love. They ARE similar feelings, and many media confuse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KTC: Optimistic, yes. Blind, NO. I would never enter into any relationship without first figuring out how it will affect me and my life, both positively and negatively. But a lot of people seem to forget to do that before they enter into a relationship, and by the time they figure out that their partner isn't the person they thought they were, everyone's miserable.

 

Every successful relationship that I've ever encountered has been the result of hard work and dedication, and it seems like most of the relationships that didn't work didn't because at least one of those involved just gave up.

 

If someone wants to put stock in the 50% divorce rate, they should put stock in the 50% success rate instead of the failure rate. It doesn't help to focus on negativity.

 

In the end, I think it comes down to how marriage is thought of by people: If you have it in your head that marriage/committment isn't something worth fighting for, then it won't be.

 

Hopefully that makes sense! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah makes more sense.

 

I disagree since I don't see any reason for getting your hopes up in a relationship when there's such a high failure rate. If it goes somewhere, it goes somewhere. If it failed, it failed and the cycle continues.

 

Of course, I speak as someone who's never actually been in a romantic relationship but whose been a shoulder to cry on strangely enough (why? I have no idea. I'm somehow the person people spill their woes to). And the broken pieces after relationship failures is not a pretty sight *shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KTC: Ah, yeah, constantly being the proverbial shoulder to cry on would definitely paint a pretty grim picture of relationships, I imagine. I've had to listen to some of my friends cry over break-ups too, and yeah, it sucks a lot. Especially if something really bad happened, like abuse and/or cheating.

Sidenote: oddly enough, I've also never been in an actual romantic relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@d_a: Huh. Doesn't it depends on the situation. Relating to the previous posts about parents who aborts their children and, in several other cases, abandonds them shows that filial love might not be so strong either. I think I read somewhere that the love what defines 'true love' is actually Agape/Agapic love. But then again, the definition of love differs for everyone.

 

Regarding your question, I think it would summarize like this:

 

Infatuation- A strong feeling of affection to someone, usually from admiration

Crush- A temporary romantic interest

Lust- A strong sexual desire for someone

Love- Depends on what type of love, but overall is a permanent feeling of affection for someone

 

But as I said earlier, the description of feelings and emotions may be quite vague, so others might have different opinions. I'm not a love expert anyway (knowing that I have practically 0 experience in that field, and is not interested to have any).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@adept rogue: I think familial love can be strong under the right circumstances.

 

Under abuse/abandoned conditions, love generally will not thrive. However in a loving and well provided environment, strong familial love + loyalty can occur.

 

I always thought infatuation = crush, and lust is a requirement to crush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D_A wrote:

I said "mothers who don't love the babies want them aborted".

 

I'm sorry, what? Let me tell you a story of my acquaintance.

 

 

So I knew this woman

 

She 's a Muslim middle class housewife with four young daughters, all of whom were under the age of 11, and a husband who worked hard to provide for his family. She found out she was pregnant and was absolutely ecstatic about it, especially when she found out she was having twin boys (she loved her daughters, but she really wanted a boy after having so many girls). She bought the twins new identical crib sets, remodeled the guest room for the incoming infants, and even named them--Abd Elrahman and Abd Elraheem, much to the horror of her daughters, who thought the names were lame.

 

Then she gets a call from her doctor.

 

Who tells her--after analyzing her ultrasound results--that her precious twin boys were conjoined at the heart. Because they shared one heart, if she were going to go through with the birth, she would have to immediately choose which one would live and which one would die after they were born, because the heart wasn't strong enough to support two living people.

 

In addition, the child who lived would have to spend much of his life in the hospital until he can get a heart transplant, because the heart was too large to support one person indefinitely. Further, they would have to find a heart before the kid turned 3, because he won't last longer than that with his original heart.

 

Now, if they decided to go through with that plan, there arises a host of problems. One, the family was solidly middle-class, but they'd have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on constant health care for this child, which would bankrupt them. Further this child--in all likelihood--would die anyway because the chances for a child to get a heart that matches his blood type is miniscule.

 

Secondly, the mother herself had suffered from some recent health problems, and if this had been a normal birth, she'd have absolutely no problem whatsoever. But due to the nature of her pregnancy, and the difficulty of going through labor and needing a caesection, there was a probability she may die in the delivery room, leaving behind a husband and five children.

 

Her doctor recommends an abortion.

 

So she and her husband get 2nd and 3rd opinions from other doctors, who confirmed the prognosis of her original doctor.

 

She calls her local Imam for advice, asking what to do. She tells him the entire story, and asked him if getting the abortion would be a mortal sin. The Imam tells her that modern Islamic scholars have recently ruled that abortions were ok, ONLY IF the mother's life was endangered and/or there was no hope for the child to survive due to a fatal medical condition.

 

So she cries, devastated at the horrific decision before her and after much hand-wrangling she goes through with the abortion.

 

She has two mini-coffins made for her children and has them buried in a Muslim graveyard. And every year for the past 15 years, she goes to visit her sons on the anniversary of their potential birthdates (because when a woman gets pregnant, a doctor estimates which day he/she will most likely be born), and she leaves flowers for them and offers a prayer to God to care for her babies in heaven.

 

 

I'm sorry, this is a close acquaintance. Do you think that she didn't love her kids, that is why she aborted them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@theone: You, my friend, are misunderstanding my words. I said mothers who DO NOT love the babies would definitely want the babies to be aborted. Original poster brought up mothers instantly loving their unborn babies, so I replied that mother-child love is different than romantic love. I made an aside about how some mothers do not want the unborn baby and decides to go abort it because it's a fact that not all mothers instantly love their unborn baby, but that's just an aside. Nothing at all to do with anything.

 

Do you think I'm THAT dense to not know that unavoidable abortions happen? That story is sad alright, and I'm aware that many a time that kind of things happen. I'm sorry about your friend, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Argoyle

"I don't know if there is a set minimum amount of time that needs to pass before it can be love, but I do agree that it is not instant nor immediate."

 

Don't know about the minimum amount of time either but the feeling of falling in love lasts about 2 - 3 years and after that there is either loving or nothing. And by nothing I mean "because we're so used to being together, it feels kind of nice and I don't want to seek for another partner" kind of thing. I had that with my ex boyfriend and didn't realize it before he wanter to break up. When we moved in together I was like planning how the future should be together (like marriage and kids etc.) but LUCKILY he had different thoughts and got another girlfriend before we even broke up. We wre together for five years.

 

Luckily? I'd never had a chance to meet a person who left me after a very short while. What makes that lucky? I had never had the chance to really get things going in last December with the guy I'm with now. We first met almost 7 years ago and never told each other we had a crush but were thinking of the possibility for years. He lives 5000 miles away so.. I'm not thinking anything like "this is meant to be" or such crap but with him it was always different than with other people.

 

And because we live so far away from each other we are already planning the future as in marriage in 2013 and stuff. It's really difficult to get to America not to mention how difficult it is to be there more than 90 days at a time and the long-term visas are veeery difficult to get. But no, we're not too stupid young people and getting married right away just to be together, I'm spending three months with him this spring and I'm sure that will give a little hint of what it would be like.

 

There was some nice conversation here about being lesbian or asexual or just not being interested in relationships before the love found you etc. I've always been such a girl who just freaks out and panics when guys show they're interested. It's weird even when I'd want it myself I have felt like I should run away so I could think clrearly. I think my problem always was that I was afraid getting hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in love.

I think being happy and in love is just one tactic from many tactics nature and evolution hold for us.

There are all sort of "tactics" for nature to make us live and make children, not all of them are happy ending.

So if love is true for you, it doesn't mean it's true for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sargon wrote:

I don't believe in love.

I think being happy and in love is just one tactic from many tactics nature and evolution hold for us.

There are all sort of "tactics" for nature to make us live and make children, not all of them are happy ending.

So if love is true for you, it doesn't mean it's true for others.

Exactly, most of what we think is love is nothing more than someone playing with your feelings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sargon: The problem I have with that explanation is that it doesn't explain homosexuality and/or sterile couples feelings.

 

Going from that definition, sterile people's feelings should fade away completely every time since there's no way for them to have kids naturally.

 

Even more so with homosexuals as childbearing is impossible naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTC: could be that just because one instinct (reproduction-ish) is missing the others aren't.

 

Then again, it's been fairly well established that it's impossible to change a decision if you've based your identity around it... And since any homosexual progress organization encourages that (It was so officially a couple decades ago, nowadays it's become cultural) there may be no explanation of homosexuality or the nonexistence thereof since all attempts at that ignore one of the most important logical/scientific principles, Occam's razor.

 

tl;dr: All theories on the subject are wrong, no matter what they say, because their methodology/reasoning is flawed. People are just too heated on the subject.

 

 

 

 

Sargon wrote:

I don't believe in love.

I think being happy and in love is just one tactic from many tactics nature and evolution hold for us.

There are all sort of "tactics" for nature to make us live and make children, not all of them are happy ending.

So if love is true for you, it doesn't mean it's true for others.

 

Agreed

All love is is people playing with each others feelings... at least initially, until the game went horribly out of control so now neither person has a choice but to keep making the other person want him/her / happy. Unless one/both choose(s) to destroy each other and him/her self/selves by destroying the feeling/quitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Err, I tried to qoute KTC...

 

 

That's not true.

For instance, the greeks were homosexual, but they still had children.

And there are gay couples today who have children with a surrgate mother.

Regarding sterile couples, I think evolution tactics are not always straight forward or plain to see.

For instance, you do you care for your brother's children? They are not your own? So here is an example of someone who can care of someone else's children even if he don't have a children of his own.

Part of the evolutional tactics are... negative... for instance... murder and genocide come to mind...

 

I think one of the main reasons I don't believe in love is that there are very realistic, very unromantic reasons why we love each other. Although our brains deceive us to think there is something beyond than just mutual selfishness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you did not just compare ancient greek 'homosexuality' to today's concept of homosexuality. They are nothing alike. I've explained the differences between them about three times on the forum and do not feel like doing it again. Research it. They are not comparable.

 

Evolution: you said that love and related feelings are to "live and make children...". That is quite different from caring for another's child. (And is an argument for homosexuals are defective but that's a different issue).

 

Sterile individuals and gays cannot have kids naturally. This argument doesn't make sense for fertile couples who choose not to have kids for whatever reasons. Again, the love component should fade away because they cannot/will not have kids if we follow this reasoning.

 

Perhaps its my inner unrealistic romantic side talking, but I am very hesitant to simplify love (oversimplify it imo) it as merely a way to facilitate baby-making since it does not explain the large amounts of exceptions in homo sapiens and other species.

 

Lust? Perhaps. There must be a physical attractions somewhere. But Love? Hmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sargon wrote:

 

For instance, the greeks were homosexual, but they still had children.

Pederasty was different than homosexuality. See, one partner was an adult, the other was NOT. Plus, it wasn't based on love!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh right,

Well, anyway, I ment evolutional tactics are not obvious.

For instance, a person who may not want to have children simpley removes himself from the gene pool. Evolution can be achieved in negative ways as well.

Bottom line there are children, however they were created (and survived) does not matter.

If someone kills himself, that's part of evolution, he just removed himself from the gene pool.

If someone kills someone's else child, that's part of evolution. Animals in nature kill offsprings of other males of the same species. Why do animals kill other males' offspring? Have you thought of that?

 

What I mean is, having a relationship with love and loving your children and give them a good home, is just one tactic out of many evolutional tactics.

Other tactics can be a lot more violent and negative.

That is why not everyone seek love, and why not everyone want love. Because from an evolutional stand of point, having a good loving relationship is not the only right way to live our life and "Serving evolution" by making children. Removing ourselves and others from the gene pool is also part of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sargon:

First off: Suicide isn't evolution. What an individual's genes are is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is dependent on a population change in the gene pool, if we follow the Natural selection model. It's fine and dandy if you have a good mutation but that doesn't change the population as a whole and will not affect the species development. As a whole, I'm hesitant to even apply natural selection to humans since many of the advancements of humans are against it. More people now than ever before are no longer dying of life threatening diseases, injuries, or other mishaps that would have otherwise gotten rid of 'defective' people. Because of medicine and what not, I'd be more incline to think humans are becoming stagnant rather than evolving. I do not see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand which is love.

 

Second: Several species of animals will kill their own cubs for any variety of reasons. See male lions and dolphins for more examples. Also, I can name a lot of animals who do not care about the male's offspring or not. From the top of my head: insects. Again I do not see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

3rd: I feel like I'm repeating this about 3 different times. I'm still not getting where love = baby making machines as I've already named fertile couples who for whatever reason refuse to have kids. There are plenty of people who hook up but will not have kids. Furthermore, it doesn't explain why sterile/gay couples stay together despite the lack of children. These are all rather big exceptions.

 

So again, I think your explanation is far to simple to explain love. Love, if it was only to facilitate babies, will mean that any couple without kids should break up fast since the kids part of the equation isn't fulfilled. Does that happen? Yes, but the opposite happens a lot too ie they stay together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTC, think of love in a broader way.

Love is not to make you have babies, it's a tactic to make you... help certain people survive. Whether those are your own children, someone else's children, or other people anywhere at any age.

Hate, is the other side of the coin, it's a tactic trying to hold down people.

My claim is that both those emotions are related to the "tactics of evolution" to make certain people survive and other become extinct.

So it's not directly related to making kids, it's about loving those "you want" to survive, and hating those "you want" to be extinct(in a subconciouss manner).

 

 

(I have seen the nations rise and fall, I have heard their stories I heard them all, but love is the only engine of survival)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sargon you're completely contradicting yourself. In part of your post you say that you don't believe in love. and then you say it's just one of nature's many tactics for reproduction. It's either real or it isn't, there's no halfway. People die for love, people do crazy, crazy stupid things for love.

 

Dying for something is the complete opposite of evolution, you're evolutionarily hardwired to protect your life and limbs before ALL else.

 

Also, You're posting a lot without making clear points. I find your last post lacking a rebuttal or an opinion. In order to stay on track without wandering, changing the topic or blindsiding people with "other stuff" you should post clear opinions or rebuttals while backing them up and providing evidence or sources.

 

I think if I post the six classical forms of love it might help out a little:

 

Eros is physical attraction, love at first sight.

Storge is love that developes over time, based on similar likes and proximity.

Ludus is a collector of loves, a player, a contest.

Pragma is based entirely on rational and reasoning, while lacking heart.

Mania is obsaessive, controlling and jealous love.

Agape is classified as selfless and spiritual love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My stating of "I don't believe in love" is kind of an anti romantic - fatalist statement.

I didn't say "Love doesn't exist", I said I don't believe in it.

And I have a point in my previous post, you probably just missed.

The point was love is one of many evolutional tactics, so is hate.

It relates to the discussion in the sense that not all individuals use the same tactics, and thus not everyone will really pursue loving someone.

And if love was such a wonderful and mystical thing, then why not everyone want it\need it?

I can't see any other explaination for love except for an evolotional mechanism.

Do you have any other explaination?

That is the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×