Real love vs Pragmatic love

[A O]

Well the Greeks had separate words for it, "eros" (idealized, divine,passionate, sexual), and "agape" (duty, loyalty, steadfastness).

My take on this is that the two are not separate and that the former drives the latter.

 

The reason I harp on this so much is that in reading many posts here, it seems a huge problem in modern relationships is in the unreasonable expectation that the fleeting, chemical part of relationships is the "real" part, and that one has little control over its coming and going, like a boat without a rudder tossed on the waves of life. IMO, if more people emphasized the willful aspects of what we call love, the "for better or worse" part of the equation, the -choice- and discipline and accountability choices require, many of the problems of modern romance as expressed here would evaporate.

Again, what do you believe sparks these stages (infatuation/love/sacrifice) - what sparks them, what drives them? Especially given that you don't believe that love is neither a feeling or an emotion.

 

 

.

[djhall]

Not to trivialize your experience, but (in addition to experiences with women over the years) I had a similar euphoric experience the first time I dropped ecstasy, it was chemical based, and could be easily repeated now whenever (but it hasn't and it's been 30ish years ago, feeling that good has to be bad for you physically somehow ). The point is that the chemicals that create a sexual response towards pair bonding in our brains are very powerful stuff, and differentiating that process from the choice one makes to love another is not trivializing the power of the infatuation experience that leads to pair bonding in the least.

 

If one wants to call the infatuation/limerence process "love" they have a right to do so, but love makes the most rational sense as an ongoing, active choice, as there are better more precise words to describe states of connection or emotions shared with another human being.

I agree. I think the point some, including myself, are trying to make is that these chemical pair bonding experiences exist and they can be more permanent than just a passing "infatuation". Indeed, I would venture to say that most parents' love for their children is chemical based, and we know how powerful and lasting that bond is as a result.

 

Could you choose to "love" someone you didn't have that chemical bond with? Sure. But I don't think it would have the same power and richness as the same experience with someone with whom you also had that innate, biological, visceral bond as well.

[Eternal Sunshine]

I think some people have been brainwashed by too many fairy tales and romance novels. Real life doesn't work that way. The butterflies people speak of with unavailable people is really just a deep need for validation that makes a person desperate when it is denied. If anybody of these people actually got what they thought they wanted those butterflies would magically go away.

 

Yep woogle - I agree with this.

[djhall]

The reason I harp on this so much is that in reading many posts here, it seems a huge problem in modern relationships is in the unreasonable expectation that the fleeting, chemical part of relationships is the "real" part, and that one has little control over its coming and going, like a boat without a rudder tossed on the waves of life. IMO, if more people emphasized the willful aspects of what we call love, the "for better or worse" part of the equation, the -choice- and discipline and accountability choices require, many of the problems of modern romance as expressed here would evaporate.

 

Why do you seem to take for granted that the chemical part is fleeting and comes and goes? If anything, I would think the chemical part is what would keep people going and fighting and sacrificing long after any rational person would have given up on the relationship or the other person.

 

I know parents that have willingly spent years of their life in emotional agony, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, thrown away any possibiliy of ever retiring, sold their homes, and more to try to save a troubled child from the consequences of their own choices, even after the child repeatedly turns their back on them and continues to make more bad choices. Do you really think that bond would be stronger, more "real", more "for better or worse" if it was based only on a "conscious choice" rather than an innate chemical bond to that person?

[threebyfate]

To define butterflies, it's that deep instinctual draw to a person, that strong longing. It's more than lust and sexual attraction. The absolute and total devastation you feel if that person leaves. The scars that they leave that almost never completely heal. Basically how spookie defined it. I have only felt in twice too and both times to very unsuitable people. I have no idea if that longing got deeper because those people were unavailable to me.

This isn't close to my definition of the butterfly feeling but there's an element of this after finding out about the ex-husband cheating. It's tied into pride and ego, tied into a destroyed future together, tied into the angst of "did you ever really love me or was it all a sham?". It didn't matter that he wanted back, that he was sorry, all those things.

 

And yes, it's not even close to healthy love or love at all.

[zengirl]

I think some people have been brainwashed by too many fairy tales and romance novels. Real life doesn't work that way. The butterflies people speak of with unavailable people is really just a deep need for validation that makes a person desperate when it is denied. If anybody of these people actually got what they thought they wanted those butterflies would magically go away.

 

Ooh. . . excellent point!

[sanskrit]

Why do you seem to take for granted that the chemical part is fleeting and comes and goes?

 

Because that's what the research says, and my own experience and that of my friends bears it out.

 

As far as parents and children, can't remember if that was a separate type for the Greeks or not, but am not sure the parent/child love falls into the same discussion boat as the butterflies/falling in love topic.

[eerie_reverie]

Personally, I don't think it's just a need for validation, some ego thing, or a fairy tale. I think it's genetic/ phermonal.

 

I have been with one guy with whom I had the connection - and it never went away. It was there when I had him completely, it was there when we broke up, it was there 7 years later when I finally accepted we'd never be together, connection or not.

 

I have also been with tons of guys with whom I was more compatible, who just didn't do it for me in that way. My rule of thumb is evaluating how badly I want someone's baby. I've broken up with every boyfriend after realizing I would be devasted if I got pregnant with his kid - not cause he'd be a bad dad, but cause I could not image loving his flesh and blood, the way I'd have loved my ex's - because I loved him so instinctually, unconditionally - did and still do and don't imagine that will ever change.

 

But in my opinion you can have a meaningful, productive relationship without this connection- this investment in someone based just on who they are - underneath all the layers of social construct that have shaped their values, interests, etc.

 

But it's impossible to have any kind of relationship without the right social constructs - the shared values, the compatibility.

[djhall]

Because that's what the research says, and my own experience and that of my friends bears it out.

 

As far as parents and children, can't remember if that was a separate type for the Greeks or not, but am not sure the parent/child love falls into the same discussion boat as the butterflies/falling in love topic.

Well, it seems to me that you are attempting to blanket characterize chemically based bonds as transitory and fickle and logical decision based bonds as more permanent and stable.

 

If that is the case, I doubt the validity of the basic assumption. The parent/child bond serves as an easy example of a bond that certainly appears to be chemically rather than logicaly based, is extremely stable, and is widely recognized to be more powerful than any logical choice. If that is the case, I don't see why you would automatically reject the notion that any chemically based bond between two people could ever be anything other than transitory and fickle. Accepting the possibility doesn't automatically mean that every chemical attraction is equivalent... I've been chemically attracted sexually to many women. I've been chemically attracted in the manner I earlier described to only one and that chemical bond survived two decades of no contact. I don't exactly equate the two simply because they are both a chemical reaction rather than a logical choice.

[iris219]

Love is chosen despite that someone's face or other physical appeal is mangled in an accident or ravaged by age, for example.

 

I still disagree. If you genuinely love someone, none of the above would matter. You wouldn’t have to choose to love them; you just would. Love isn’t a duty. You feel a duty to those you love, but it is not my duty to love anyone. Love isn’t something you feel in order to be considerate to another person. It just happens.

 

The whole problem I have with the "love is a choice" belief is that if this is the case, then anybody could theoretically match up with anyone (within reason). Why be so picky? Why spend years dating online? Simply find the first decent person, non-insane person who is at least average in looks and "choose" to love them. But we know that's not the case, it doesn't work that way.

 

I agree with the above. I’d be married right now if you could choose to love someone. I lived with a fantastic man for 4 years. The problem? I wasn’t in love with him. I had love for him (because he’s a good person), I cared about him and his well-being, we had great compatibility, and I found him attractive, but in love with him I was not. My life would be much easier and more satisfying if I could just choose to love someone.

 

 

I think that's how life ends up being for most people... and I'm ok with that. There is joy and satisfaction to be found outside an other-worldly connection. I personally would choose that over a lifetime alone.

I think you need to figure out what you want out of life. Do you want kids? If so, I think you need to figure out the timeline right for you, at which point you are willing to settle for that practical happiness that people choose every day.And then, stick to that decision.

 

This is one of the most depressing things I’ve heard in a long time.

 

I would choose alone over settling for someone I don’t love (because I can’t just decide to love them). Settling for someone you don’t love sucks up all your energy and destroys a part of your soul (sound cliche, but it's true). I know. I tried it with an awesome guy for 4 years. Attempting to settle was the unhappiest I’ve ever been in my life, even though we had some great times together--and it wasn’t fair to him. I’m much happier single.

 

Maybe for some people being in love is a spectrum. You could be a little bit in love or madly in love. I can only be madly in love or not in love.

[zengirl]

Maybe for some people being in love is a spectrum. You could be a little bit in love or madly in love. I can only be madly in love or not in love.

 

An interesting idea, I guess. I cannot imagine sitting around waiting for love to "happen" to me. Even before I was as empowered as I am now, I still think I sort of decided to love the people I loved. I knew why I loved them; it wasn't like someone hit me with an arrow. And yet I would say my love for them was at that "madly" level in cases --- it was certainly extreme. It didn't feel lessened. In fact, because I was participating in it, it felt stronger.

 

I would say it's more about self-styles. Some people have this idea that they are who they are, and it just "happened" --- which I get with things that are proven to have strong biological components, but so much of our psychology (including a lot of attraction, per a lot of studies---though not ALL certainly) is created by US --- by what we experience, how we interpret that, what we choose to value, etc.

 

So, I think it comes down to a "fate" vs. "free will" spectrum (and I do think it is a spectrum, rather than an either/or choice). Not a degree of feeling.

[Woggle]

Personally, I don't think it's just a need for validation, some ego thing, or a fairy tale. I think it's genetic/ phermonal.

 

I have been with one guy with whom I had the connection - and it never went away. It was there when I had him completely, it was there when we broke up, it was there 7 years later when I finally accepted we'd never be together, connection or not.

 

I have also been with tons of guys with whom I was more compatible, who just didn't do it for me in that way. My rule of thumb is evaluating how badly I want someone's baby. I've broken up with every boyfriend after realizing I would be devasted if I got pregnant with his kid - not cause he'd be a bad dad, but cause I could not image loving his flesh and blood, the way I'd have loved my ex's - because I loved him so instinctually, unconditionally - did and still do and don't imagine that will ever change.

 

But in my opinion you can have a meaningful, productive relationship without this connection- this investment in someone based just on who they are - underneath all the layers of social construct that have shaped their values, interests, etc.

 

But it's impossible to have any kind of relationship without the right social constructs - the shared values, the compatibility.

 

But the fact that for whatever reason you two could not be together probably had a huge hand in creating those butterflies. He was a challenge which kicks in the need for validation. Do you think it is just a coincidence that people who buy into the butterflies stuff only seem to feel them with people who are in someway unavailable and never seem to feel them with people that are? The butterflies only seem to exist with emotional distance.

[eerie_reverie]

But the fact that for whatever reason you two could not be together probably had a huge hand in creating those butterflies. He was a challenge which kicks in the need for validation. Do you think it is just a coincidence that people who buy into the butterflies stuff only seem to feel them with people who are in someway unavailable and never seem to feel them with people that are? The butterflies only seem to exist with emotional distance.

 

He was very available for the first 3 years we were together.

 

But we met when we were very young. Eventually, we grew apart.

 

The butterflies were there the whole time.

[J200]

I am a hopeless romantic too but spending your life alone is not fun either...

 

Why not? I am your age, and I don't ever want to get married and am fine being alone forever (I'm female). I don't understand why people think it's so bad to be alone... Personally I love ; I can do whatever I want whenever I want and I don't need to answer to anyone. I honestly do not see a need for a male companionship when I feel great doing everything alone.

 

I seriously do not get why people think it's not "fun" to be alone. I think most people are so needy that they can't even be alone.. Even if it is forever; I don't think you NEED to be with someone to be happy.

[EasyHeart]

I don't think love is a choice, but I think we can definitely choose whom NOT to love. To use ES's earlier example, if I find myself becoming infatuated with a stripper with a coke addiction and 5 children, I can consciously think "She is not a suitable partner" and remove myself from having any connection with her.

 

I think Woggle's point about some people having "princess" attitude is very true. Infatuation always wears off, and I think many people believe that they have fallen out of love at that point. But IME, that's when the good stuff starts. At this point in my life, I've realized that the first few months after I meet a new woman are just something we have to get past before we can start thinking about a real relationship. The end of infatuation is when the possibility of love begins, not ends.

 

It's sad, but I think a lot of this confusion is because people don't stick around long enough to ever get to the point of starting to develop real love. These are the same people who claim to be "in a relationship" with someone they've know for a few weeks.

 

I'll add, too, that love has to be reciprocal. Unrequited "love" is the essence of being a teenager, not an adult. I have memories from high school and college of moments I shared with women I knew briefly, but I don't mistake those experiences for "love". In retrospect I realize that I barely knew those women and the happiness I feel from those memories is because of the fantasy I created about them. So I enjoy the memory, but I don't confuse it with love.

[Eternal Sunshine]

I don't think love is a choice, but I think we can definitely choose whom NOT to love. To use ES's earlier example, if I find myself becoming infatuated with a stripper with a coke addiction and 5 children, I can consciously think "She is not a suitable partner" and remove myself from having any connection with her.

 

I think Woggle's point about some people having "princess" attitude is very true. Infatuation always wears off, and I think many people believe that they have fallen out of love at that point. But IME, that's when the good stuff starts. At this point in my life, I've realized that the first few months after I meet a new woman are just something we have to get past before we can start thinking about a real relationship. The end of infatuation is when the possibility of love begins, not ends.

 

It's sad, but I think a lot of this confusion is because people don't stick around long enough to ever get to the point of starting to develop real love. These are the same people who claim to be "in a relationship" with someone they've know for a few weeks.

 

I'll add, too, that love has to be reciprocal. Unrequited "love" is the essence of being a teenager, not an adult. I have memories from high school and college of moments I shared with women I knew briefly, but I don't mistake those experiences for "love". In retrospect I realize that I barely knew those women and the happiness I feel from those memories is because of the fantasy I created about them. So I enjoy the memory, but I don't confuse it with love.

 

An excellent post EH