aerogurl87 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Ok after reading someone else's thread, I started wondering is love overrated? I mean do you have to feel those feelings of butterflies in your tummy and hear angels sing when your SO walks in the room, to have a successful relationship? Or can you just be with someone whom you feel both comfortable and secure with, but not head over heels in love with, and have the same result? Your thoughts please.
EricaH329 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Personally, i'm more addicted to the intense feeling. I wasn't when I never experienced it, but now that I have... i'm craving that same exact feeling again. It's bittersweet because it's really hard to find that sort of connection with someone (which leads me to believe I might never fully be happy with another), but once I do find it... it's the most amazing thing in the world. But it's all about personal opinions.
BookerT Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 In just about all developing countries a high percentage of people marry to have kids, or to survive. They are often not in love, hence why arranged marriages are still so common. Love is a luxury afforded by people that have many of their needs already met.
Johnny M Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Ok after reading someone else's thread, I started wondering is love overrated? I mean do you have to feel those feelings of butterflies in your tummy and hear angels sing when your SO walks in the room, to have a successful relationship? Or can you just be with someone whom you feel both comfortable and secure with, but not head over heels in love with, and have the same result? Your thoughts please. It seems that the latter scenario actually leads to longer-lasting relationships. Butterflies and singling angels are great...while they last. But with the passage of time, the butterflies will inevitably stop fluttering and the angles will stop singing, and then what? The answer is usually divorce, as you realize that you're not really all that compatible with the person you fell head over heels for.
TheLoneSock Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 "The girl you marry is the girl you can stand to be in the same room with for an hour." Read that somewhere. Thought it was funny.
Author aerogurl87 Posted October 13, 2009 Author Posted October 13, 2009 In just about all developing countries a high percentage of people marry to have kids, or to survive. They are often not in love, hence why arranged marriages are still so common. Love is a luxury afforded by people that have many of their needs already met. Yeah but don't those who marry for reasons other than love usually have marriages that last longer than those that marry for love? I mean at least they have one common concrete goal to work towards and/or one or more reasons to stick together. Whilst the couple who marries for love usually has that little tricky thing known as love, binding them together, and nobody knows how long the butterflies will last. Not that I'm saying either is better than the other, just an observation.
TheLoneSock Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Romantic love is better than sex. Would there ever be a situation where you had to choose only one? They pretty much go hand in hand. Ofcourse there are long distance situations, paralysis, things you could think up that would hinder it. But normally, no.
Jilly Bean Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 I am very much in love, but it is not that all-consuming, butterflies in the tummy, can't sleep, kind of love. I have a lot of passion for him, don't get me wrong. Hell, getting a text saying he's on his way over will get me wet - lol, but mostly it's about feeling really at ease with him in person, and feeling total comfort having him in my life. So no, I don't hear angels sing when he walks in the room, nor do I get butterflies, but when he walks in the room, I feel like everything is going to be OK because I'm not alone, and he's got my back, and he loves me. I've had that other kind of love you're talking about, and those have been the most toxic and damaging relationships of my life. I'd trade that hot drama for security and tranquility any day. And I suppose I have.
BookerT Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Yeah but don't those who marry for reasons other than love usually have marriages that last longer than those that marry for love? I mean at least they have one common concrete goal to work towards and/or one or more reasons to stick together. Whilst the couple who marries for love usually has that little tricky thing known as love, binding them together, and nobody knows how long the butterflies will last. Not that I'm saying either is better than the other, just an observation. Yes, hence why the divorce rate is so much higher in developed nations. The feeling of love naturally gets less after a few years, and if the relationship is based on that then the marriage falls apart. However if a couple is together for survival, that's a much stronger bond.
Author aerogurl87 Posted October 13, 2009 Author Posted October 13, 2009 I am very much in love, but it is not that all-consuming, butterflies in the tummy, can't sleep, kind of love. I have a lot of passion for him, don't get me wrong. Hell, getting a text saying he's on his way over will get me wet - lol, but mostly it's about feeling really at ease with him in person, and feeling total comfort having him in my life. So no, I don't hear angels sing when he walks in the room, nor do I get butterflies, but when he walks in the room, I feel like everything is going to be OK because I'm not alone, and he's got my back, and he loves me. I've had that other kind of love you're talking about, and those have been the most toxic and damaging relationships of my life. I'd trade that hot drama for security and tranquility any day. And I suppose I have. That's the type of love I was trying to describe. The kind where you feel secure and comfortable and know that things won't have those crazy highs and lows that are usually associated with people who say they are "head over heels" in love. You explained it perfectly, and I would have to agree.
EricaH329 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Yes, hence why the divorce rate is so much higher in developed nations. The feeling of love naturally gets less after a few years, and if the relationship is based on that then the marriage falls apart. However if a couple is together for survival, that's a much stronger bond. But with love comes comfort and security, right? So once the love begins to wear off, the comfort and security seem to strengthen. Maybe that's just me?
Jilly Bean Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 That's the type of love I was trying to describe. The kind where you feel secure and comfortable and know that things won't have those crazy highs and lows that are usually associated with people who say they are "head over heels" in love. You explained it perfectly, and I would have to agree. Exactly - no crazy highs and lows that come with the "other" kind of love. It's a love that doesn't have anxiety or stress or games attached to it, so you miss all of the drama that comes with the "other" kind of love. It's funny. Until him, I never thought real love could exist WITHOUT all the drama and craziness. I thought in order to have real passion, this was required, and without it, you were settling in some way. But, there's something about being with someone who doesn't jerk you around and play games that somehow increases passion, because it occurs at a much deeper level.
Knittress Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 I need butterflies, but I've never been a fan of the sugarcrash that follows a bout hormones without depth. A mix of my own experience and countless hours of conversations with older folks: I think the ability to be "in love" could be described as a talent some folks possess in varying degrees, or in the very least a skill that can be worked on. Butterflies may fade, but they can be drummed up if the person/couple makes it a priority and there is a solid foundation of genuine appreciation, and compatible values/emotional needs.
TheLoneSock Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Butterflies must be a girl thing. I can't say I've ever felt them, so I don't really know what girls are talking about when they say, oh you give me the butterflies or, that just sent butterflies through me. Is it similar to adrenaline? I feel that all the time lol.
splintered thing Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Ok after reading someone else's thread, I started wondering is love overrated? I mean do you have to feel those feelings of butterflies in your tummy and hear angels sing when your SO walks in the room, to have a successful relationship? You can certainly have all those feelings and still not have a successful relationship, but they're enjoyable to have all the same. At least for me, though, I haven't found that those kinds of feelings fade--if anything the longer I'm with someone, the more attractive and appealing that person becomes and the more things I discover that give me warm fuzzies, tingles, smiles, and "wow!" moments. Would I be satisfied in a relationship that didn't have that? I don't think so, especially not knowing just how compelling and delightful that aspect of a relationship can be. But I'm also pretty good at flying solo, so I don't need to be in a relationship just for the sake of being in one...a relationship has to be pretty special to be better than staying single.
Author aerogurl87 Posted October 13, 2009 Author Posted October 13, 2009 Butterflies must be a girl thing. I can't say I've ever felt them, so I don't really know what girls are talking about when they say, oh you give me the butterflies or, that just sent butterflies through me. Is it similar to adrenaline? I feel that all the time lol. Yeah I guess you could say it's similar to adrenaline. It's like a wave that comes over you and leaves you helpless and at the other person's mercy emotionally. Anyway, after feeling that type of love to the extent I felt it with my ex I don't want to have it ever again. Yes it was nice and it didn't fade initially, but it also involved me crashing hard and suddenly, something I never want to feel again. I'd rather just know what I have in front of me without the haziness of "romantic love" surrounding that person and all their traits. I think that's why I like my boyfriend now, because I don't feel that intense butterflies feeling with him, but when I'm with him I still feel at ease and just peaceful. Like all is right in the world. :bunny:
BookerT Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 But with love comes comfort and security, right? So once the love begins to wear off, the comfort and security seem to strengthen. Maybe that's just me? No, in the western model generally when the love wears off, the sex stops and the resentment starts. It's repeated over and over again. After all why do so many people get divorced? In the developing country model or pre 1950's model, people just stuck it out.
EricaH329 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 No, in the western model generally when the love wears off, the sex stops and the resentment starts. It's repeated over and over again. After all why do so many people get divorced? In the developing country model or pre 1950's model, people just stuck it out. That brings me to my next question. If the love wears off to the point of resentment, then was it really love to begin with? Or a really strong lust, that was confused with love? A few of my friends parents are still together (shocking, I know) and they are still in love with eachother. It's not the head-over-heals type of love anymore, but the comfortable love.
BookerT Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 That brings me to my next question. If the love wears off to the point of resentment, then was it really love to begin with? Or a really strong lust, that was confused with love? A few of my friends parents are still together (shocking, I know) and they are still in love with eachother. It's not the head-over-heals type of love anymore, but the comfortable love. I think some people are not built for "comfortable love". I was reading a piece of research where they found about 10% of people are capable of feeling lifelong love. For the other 90% of people the feeling naturally disappears after a few years. So yes I think it was love to begin with, but a lot of people are not able to maintain that love. Love after all is a very powerful feeling generated by chemicals. Its' not a random thing, hence why you don't fall in love or feel chemistry with everyone. But with the chemicals gone, then well, that's when two people no longer in love can learn to still work together in a relationship, especially when there are kids, or divorce.
EricaH329 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 I think some people are not built for "comfortable love". I was reading a piece of research where they found about 10% of people are capable of feeling lifelong love. For the other 90% of people the feeling naturally disappears after a few years. So yes I think it was love to begin with, but a lot of people are not able to maintain that love. Love after all is a very powerful feeling generated by chemicals. Its' not a random thing, hence why you don't fall in love or feel chemistry with everyone. But with the chemicals gone, then well, that's when two people no longer in love can learn to still work together in a relationship, especially when there are kids, or divorce. That's a little depressing. I've noticed, though, that when two people are in love, and they have to break up for whatever reason (whether it's one of them falling out of love, or just bad timing), that the love stays with one of them (or both) for much longer than a few years. Sort of like, a love that was never able to fully run it's course. I think i'm beginning to thread-jack with my rambling. I apologize if that's the case, this thread is raising a lot of interesting points.
BookerT Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 That's a little depressing. I've noticed, though, that when two people are in love, and they have to break up for whatever reason (whether it's one of them falling out of love, or just bad timing), that the love stays with one of them (or both) for much longer than a few years. Sort of like, a love that was never able to fully run it's course. I think i'm beginning to thread-jack with my rambling. I apologize if that's the case, this thread is raising a lot of interesting points. I don't think it's depressing. I think it's realistic. Most of us have relationships that last around 6 months to 3-4 years, no? The one that stays in love whilst the other person isn't in love is in a crap position. That just hurts. But anyway, the people that do find true love are in the minority, clearly. No many people are happily married, most will divorce or stay married but unhappy. Oh well, starving to death or dying from AIDS in Africa is more depressing. At the very leasy if people want the sort of love that lasts, at the very minimum both people need to consciously work at it, and BOTH need to be not selfish, which is rare.
Sam Spade Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Yes, love is totally overrated ! It is the illusion that people are fundamentally different from one another - so much, that one of them is gona rock your world. When you think of it, it is a really passive attitude, and can be borderline psychotic if obsessed over. I am of the school of thought that people are fundamentally the same, and as long as you find a decent one with whom you can have friendship with regular orgasms you're good to go for the long haul . In an ironic way, the endless pursuit of Titanic style love in the west is a lot more limiting and reducing people's freedom than the afore mentioned people in the thirs world who marry for practical reasons. There are many people who **** on perfectly good relationships in the name of the 'butterflies' and make themselves and people around them miserable for no reason other than the ultimately oppressive idea that there *has* to be something more to relationships . There may or may not be, the point is that either way it isn't such a big deal .
gypsy_nicky Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Personally, i'm more addicted to the intense feeling. I wasn't when I never experienced it, but now that I have... i'm craving that same exact feeling again. It's bittersweet because it's really hard to find that sort of connection with someone (which leads me to believe I might never fully be happy with another), but once I do find it... it's the most amazing thing in the world. But it's all about personal opinions. while I tend to also think the same as what you said, love can also be very painful if the love is unrequited or has ended for one but not the other. So no, love is not overrated.
gypsy_nicky Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Spade your conception of love is also limiting because true love can develop from several circumstances not just one. What your saying is if a friend is good enough to love and be with, then go with it even if there's no chemistry, sexual tension, passion etc. Also, how come most people would not choose to go down this path from the get go? Booker t's statement on how love is a powerful feeling nails it down. Our sameness is what makes us different from each other at the same time.
Recommended Posts