woinlove Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Love is very much a conscious choice. We can't always control who we're attracted to. But we ALWAYS have the choice as to whether or not we FEED that attraction by increasing our interaction with that person and letting it grow to the point where we LOVE them. I've been attracted to many women in my life. But...because I'm married, and I understand how attraction blossoms into love, I deliberately and intentionally PREVENT further interaction with those women in order to PREVENT the possibility for us to "fall in love". It's a choice, a process. We don't "fall in love" in some uncontrollable fashion. We start out attracted to them. Then we increase our interaction with them over time...both how much we interact, and the emotional depth of that interaction, until it reaches a point where we feel that we "love" them. I agree. Even if single, many people consider the partners of their good friends or siblings to be unavailable, or, for some, people in their close work environment. Doesn't mean they don't feel some initial attraction that they purposely let go. On the other hand, giving in and actually fanning the initial attraction, can be a really wonderful feeling and I can understand why some might interpret it as non-cerebral, because you can let yourself go and actually live somewhere between reality and fantasy for a while and incredibly strong emotions and feelings can result, if you allow yourself. However, people with self-awareness also know they can purposely chose not to go in that direction at all -- stopping it before it goes anywhere, if they choose.
Summer Breeze Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Love is very much a conscious choice. We can't always control who we're attracted to. But we ALWAYS have the choice as to whether or not we FEED that attraction by increasing our interaction with that person and letting it grow to the point where we LOVE them. I've been attracted to many women in my life. But...because I'm married, and I understand how attraction blossoms into love, I deliberately and intentionally PREVENT further interaction with those women in order to PREVENT the possibility for us to "fall in love". It's a choice, a process. We don't "fall in love" in some uncontrollable fashion. We start out attracted to them. Then we increase our interaction with them over time...both how much we interact, and the emotional depth of that interaction, until it reaches a point where we feel that we "love" them. I disagree. I am attracted to loads of people as well and it would never turn into love. Attraction to me, is just a step up from pure lust. In my experience love is unique and stronger and basically not able to be controlled. It can have natural growth and natural death but you can't control it. Attraction you can walk away from and not give a second thought to. When I've been in love I've seen it to whatever end I gave it. Everyone has different experiences so I'm not saying your thoughts have to be mine but in my experience it's not a choice to fall truly in love.
HappyAtLast Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Maybe it just depends upon how an individual is able to fall in love? Throughout my first marriage, I was occasionally attracted to another woman. Because I cannot fall in love with someone until I truly know them, I simply did not allow myself to become close to any of these women, hence avoiding what could have become a problem. When I fell in love with my now wife, it was because I was attracted to her, and allowed myself to become close to her. Had I not, I believe my life path would have turned out very differently.
Steen719 Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Love is very much a conscious choice. We can't always control who we're attracted to. But we ALWAYS have the choice as to whether or not we FEED that attraction by increasing our interaction with that person and letting it grow to the point where we LOVE them. I've been attracted to many women in my life. But...because I'm married, and I understand how attraction blossoms into love, I deliberately and intentionally PREVENT further interaction with those women in order to PREVENT the possibility for us to "fall in love". It's a choice, a process. We don't "fall in love" in some uncontrollable fashion. We start out attracted to them. Then we increase our interaction with them over time...both how much we interact, and the emotional depth of that interaction, until it reaches a point where we feel that we "love" them. You wise OWL, you. (platonically, of course)
woinlove Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I disagree. I am attracted to loads of people as well and it would never turn into love. Attraction to me, is just a step up from pure lust. In my experience love is unique and stronger and basically not able to be controlled. It can have natural growth and natural death but you can't control it. Attraction you can walk away from and not give a second thought to. When I've been in love I've seen it to whatever end I gave it. Everyone has different experiences so I'm not saying your thoughts have to be mine but in my experience it's not a choice to fall truly in love. Are you implying you fall in love with people you are not attracted to? Or that you fall in love so quickly that you may not realize you are attracted to them before you are in love with them? I don't understand your point. Owl and Happyatlast are talking about being about to choose not to pursue anything with people they feel attracted to so that they don't have the opportunity to fall in love. I operate that way too. In this way, we do have control over being able not to fall in love. I think essentially everyone uses this in some circumstances, whether it is with a sibling's bf/gf that they don't want to interfere with, or some other case they would find completely inappropriate even though there is attraction and the potential that it could turn into love if one was so inclined.
wheelwright Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 A simple definition for soulmate which people who do not experience the soul connection as palpable, might be - Someone who touches your life in an important way - and often vice versa. This could be someone at the bus stop who dropped a profundity (rather than the icky stuff mentioned above), and which suddenly gives you a piece of the puzzle which is your life. Or a life-long friend or companion. Or a red hot lover who seems to get you on more ways than you thought possible. People might experience all three in one soulmate R. If an encounter with another person touches your soul - rejoice. You have a soul. Personally, I am wondering whether this thread is a (veiled) attempt to rejuvinate the argument between BSs and OW about whether one R means more than the other. Shouldn't think we'd be able to resolve that one in any generic sense.
2long Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Owl: You said that far better than I did. I've had crushes like Owl describes, as well. Some of them when I was probably most vulnerable - after discovering my wife's affair but before she wanted our marriage, I was ready 2 quit - and could have given in2 temptation if I weren't averse 2 doing un2 others what I discovered was done 2 me. That's love as a choice. Summer: I'm not saying that falling *in love* isn't very powerful and can't lead 2 "love as a choice". There are elderly couples all over the planet who are evidence that real love can grow between them and sustain them when the romance fades. -ol' 2long
bentnotbroken Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 A simple definition for soulmate which people who do not experience the soul connection as palpable, might be - Someone who touches your life in an important way - and often vice versa. This could be someone at the bus stop who dropped a profundity (rather than the icky stuff mentioned above), and which suddenly gives you a piece of the puzzle which is your life. Or a life-long friend or companion. Or a red hot lover who seems to get you on more ways than you thought possible. People might experience all three in one soulmate R. If an encounter with another person touches your soul - rejoice. You have a soul. Personally, I am wondering whether this thread is a (veiled) attempt to rejuvinate the argument between BSs and OW about whether one R means more than the other. Shouldn't think we'd be able to resolve that one in any generic sense. People tend to read into things they want to read. Including hidden attempts to incite a group of strangers on an internet forum.
wheelwright Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 People tend to read into things they want to read. Including hidden attempts to incite a group of strangers on an internet forum. Equally, people are free to infer what they think others wish to read. But this might be a silly way to proceed.
bentnotbroken Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Equally, people are free to infer what they think others wish to read. But this might be a silly way to proceed. True. Face value maybe the thought for the day.
seren Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I am going to disagree and say that for me, my H is my soulmate and has been for 27 years. I was married twice before H, each time I thought I had found love, but obviouisly hadn't or else I wouldn't have left. I grew up with parents who didn't show love, not to me or each other and knew that when I married I wanted the fireworks to last. H's one and two were mistakes and we parted amicably. I can remember seeing my H for the first time and felt a connection, more a Oh there you are! and H felt it too, it was the strangest thing and I am not given to flights of la la land thinking, couldn't be further from the truth. H was engaged to someone so for me, there was no going there and I told him so. I left to move to another country, wishing him well for his future. 5 months later he tracks me down having ended his engagement and asking if we could begin seeing each other, and so it began. I am not all rainbows and unicorns by nature, but I believe that if we ended there would be no other relationship for me, simply put he has my heart. Yes, H had an A and I truly would have walked away for him to be happy if that was what he wanted. Those who know my backstory, know the circumstances around the A, so wont bore everyone with that again. But, my first thought on D Day was for him and his pain. Soulmates, for me at least, don't get to explore their potential if their relationship is based on lies nor if the relationship is being shared with another - when H had his A he had left the building that is himself. Any other man, any other circumstances and I would have walked, no question. But I knew that without him I would always be searching for him. So, what is this soulmate phenomena? For me, it is the whole kit and caboodle, it is the contentment of being with him, of living in such isolation we have to really get along and we do, he makes me smile when I think of him, his being with me completes my happiness and I his, we have blazing rows, but we can because we know they are transient, I would fight each and every one of his dragons and he mine, we have moments of such beautiful deep emotion it makes me cry and has done for all this time. We aren't sloppy or schmaltzy and I am certainly my own woman, but he completes me and I he. He is my calm and peaceful place and I am a buzzy sort of woman IRL so need that. I call that my soulmate, someone else might have another word for it, but soulmate is mine.
Seraph1 Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Uh not necessarily. A LOT of people get married KNOWING they are not getting married to their soulmate. They get married knowing they love each other "enough" (although not as soulmates), it's a good choice, a decent life partner, it's the next step, they got pregnant, everyone else is getting married, fill-in-the-blank at that point in their lives. If people waited until they actually found their soulmates in order to get married and procreate, the human population would drop swiftly. I was one of those people. I married my exH knowing that he wasn't my 'soulmate' but hoping that everything else we had would be enough. It was sort of like a trade-off... and it didn't work out in the long-run. I dislike people telling me that there is only ONE person out there for me. That one day I will find my soulmate. I had some good and fulfilling relationships in my life and I refuse to believe that I may not find someone else to share my life with. I thought I may have found 'the one' or 'my soulmate' at some point but turns out that whatever it felt like to me... the reality was quite different. I think that such romantic terms are useful to sway hearts and lovely to coo into your lover's ear...but the reality of relationships has been quite different IMHO.
Author michelangelo Posted August 31, 2011 Author Posted August 31, 2011 Since I started the thread I feel free to clarify the intent of it. No hidden agenda. I'm just tired of the term being used as a justification for the destruction brought on by those who cheat and think finding a supposed "soulmate" makes it all worth it. As an aside, my iPhone tried to replace "soulmate" with "soilmate!" Too funny. People tend to read into things they want to read. Including hidden attempts to incite a group of strangers on an internet forum.
sadcalifornian Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Certainly there are people out there that seems more compatible with me. Sometimes, within five minutes of interaction, I learn I can communicate better with someone of opposite sex. There are always prettier women than my W. One has to accept this. Your spouse is not the best in everything, and you should not expect him/her so. People often think he/she is their "soulmate" based on perception of things. That perception is most of times very misleading. Especially, if you have know that person in short amount of time or in a limited environment such as affair, for instance. People are like water. They change constantly. What you see now is not what you will see years later, especially if you decide to live together to share life in real sense. Also, you may see the water and you may like it, but you have no idea what lurks below the water as it is murky to see inside. With the snapshot of what you perceive, calling the other your "soulmate" is just unrealistic and naive. Marraige is all about commitment and promise to love and dedicate your entire life to someone. If love and compatibility is constantly weighed and judged, there really is no reason for marraige. Just living together without the hassle of marraige would suffice. When one falls out of love or find someone better, then just split to dive into another relationship? This is not what marriage is about. The true marriage is not there to prison us but to give us and our children stable environment to maximize our happinesss in long term. Many people nowadays just do not understand what marriage is all about anymore, it seems. It is just sad.
nyrias2 Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Marraige is all about commitment and promise to love and dedicate your entire life to someone. If love and compatibility is constantly weighed and judged, there really is no reason for marraige. Just living together without the hassle of marraige would suffice. When one falls out of love or find someone better, then just split to dive into another relationship? This is not what marriage is about. The true marriage is not there to prison us but to give us and our children stable environment to maximize our happinesss in long term. Many people nowadays just do not understand what marriage is all about anymore, it seems. It is just sad. The real question is whether marriage is needed when "love and compatibility is constantly weighed and judged". The economic reason to get married is no longer as valid today as in the 50s. Marriage is also no longer a requirement to have kids. Marriage is more about personal relationship fulfillment. Then what is the role of marriage when in the modern society, one knows that it is quite possible for a new person, who is more compatible, and more loving/loved come along in another 5 years, 10 years, or whatever. The lower marriage rate, and the high divorce rate is a reflection of that new social reality. If so, i don't think it is sad. I think it is just inevitable social change.
Owl Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I don't believe in "the new social reality". Society's constantly change...but that doesn't truly mean that the changes are for good, or not back to something that existed before. There's nothing "new" about our society, the morphing social views/values, or really much of anything about people. We've been doing this for thousands of years...none of this is "new"...just "new to us". And while many feel that "new is better"...given that I don't believe it's "new"...I certainly don't feel it's "better" either. As you said...it's just change.
Recommended Posts