LovieDove24 Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 I was recently reading an article online about Jenny Sanford who's husband is South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. For those of you who don't know, he cheated on her with an Argentinian woman and called his mistress his "soul mate." Anyways, in this article, Jenny admitted that she and her husband were never really "madly in love" just great friends and very compatible. This got me thinking about something I've been pondering for awhile. We all know that this "madly in love" phase does not last, but what if its never really there at all? What if you are in a relationship with someone where you are both compatible, great friends and attracted to one another but there's never been those "take me now" or "I'd die without you" type feelings? Which type of relationship is better? The kind that starts out madly and fervently and over time develops the friendship part? Or the kind that was compatible and great all along...it just never felt like "falling" or "soul-matey" ???
Author LovieDove24 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Posted August 19, 2009 Maybe you didn't understand the question...
Island Girl Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 The risk of the developing relationship - that which is not "madly in love" - is exactly what happened to the Sanfords. There is no guarantee of ever meeting that person that you are head over heels for (and even more rare that it is reciprocal to that extent) but if a person does I have been told it is almost impossible to ignore. That because that feeling has been absent from their lives and the second they realize it everything else feels empty without it. As for myself I had the head over heels from the very beginning with my husband and still do. That is what is best for me.
Author LovieDove24 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Posted August 19, 2009 Right. I am beginning to think that this "Madly in Love" phase--however shortlived--is completely essential as the foundation to a lasting relationship.
Trialbyfire Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 LovieDove, the example of Sanford kind of bothers me, in that an affair situation can emulate something more real, due to the risk/return/thrill element to it. Also, the word "soulmate" gives me the heebie-jeebies. Okay, sorry, vent over. As for being madly in love, I can't get seriously involved with anyone without all cylinders firing, which includes intellectual, emotional and physical. I'm not sure you can tie this into the word "forever" anymore but that's okay. Life's full of risk and without the healthy risk of giving your all within a serious relationship and/or marriage, you're not going to get the healthy return. I use the word healthy to differentiate against an affair fog, one entrenched in deception and deceit.
Author LovieDove24 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Posted August 19, 2009 LovieDove, the example of Sanford kind of bothers me, in that an affair situation can emulate something more real, due to the risk/return/thrill element to it. Also, the word "soulmate" gives me the heebie-jeebies. Okay, sorry, vent over. As for being madly in love, I can't get seriously involved with anyone without all cylinders firing, which includes intellectual, emotional and physical. I'm not sure you can tie this into the word "forever" anymore but that's okay. Life's full of risk and without the healthy risk of giving your all within a serious relationship and/or marriage, you're not going to get the healthy return. I use the word healthy to differentiate against an affair fog, one entrenched in deception and deceit. I hear ya, TBF about the soul mate heebie jeebie factor . Lol, I only mentioned the Sanford case because it was in reading that article that my brain was "re-sparked" on a question that I had already been pondering. "We were never madly in love" is what got me, not all the other affair fog crap. Perhaps my posts could benefit from some good editing .
Recommended Posts