bluetuesday Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 my best friend is a boy. i'm a girl. and i suppose i've been thinking about the nature of love. i've always believed genuine love has very little to do with a random chemical or physical attraction to a person, although of course it would be hard to love a person to whom you felt no emotional attraction. but if you've got the intelligent, witty, kind, <insert whichever qualities you want> bases covered, and the person isn't an emotional retard or abusive, isn't one guy just as good as another when it comes to finding a partner? loving someone wholeheartedly is a decision. at least it has always been so for me. many, many humans are lovable. you just have to get to know them and appreciate them. and when i decide to love someone, i don't just 'go off them' when it gets difficult. i stick it out. maybe that makes me unusual. but if you share a sense of humour, a way of looking at the world, an appetite for the ridiculous, whatever it may be, if you can spend time in their company just enjoying life from the same vantage point and appreciating the similarities and differences in each other, isn't that enough? here's what i'm asking. isn't it enough just to pick someone and stick at it to make it work? isn't it enough to find someone you like and say 'that's the one i'm going to love for ever' and then just shut up and get on with making them happy? why do we expect that undying passion will just HAPPEN and when it does, we'll know? i'd be very happy in a relationship where i didn't want to strangle him in his sleep most days. i'd stay in a relationship like that. if two people are of the same mind, they like each other, find the other interesting and funny and are both prepared to commit to making it work, does anything else really matter? "oh she's fabulous but her ass is the size of wisconsin, i think i'll keep my options open." wtf? since when did true love have anything to do with aesthetics? shouldn't we be looking for our 'commitment equal' rather than trying to find someone who matches up to an arbitrary notion of what we think we should be feeling when love hits us? when did it get to be so hard? you meet someone you like, you get on, you're looking for the same things. that should be a recipe for lifelong happiness. that should be enough on which to make a decision and stick at it. yet we seem to forget that part of the joy in a relationship *is* sticking at it. good relationships don't just materialise out of thin air. we have to work at them. and if working at them and sticking at them are what ultimately brings us happiness, why don't other people seem to get this? i seem to have run out of ranting steam. so i'll leave it at that. although i'm still a little unsure what i'm getting at. it's just that my mum says if i want to be happy i should marry my best friend.
Marshbear Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 What your're asking is if chemistry has anything to do with love. I think you do need a sexual attraction to the person or you really don't want to have a physical relationship but you could be friends. Do we put to much emphasis on the sexual attraction? Yes. Is it important? Yes. When we look for a partner we are looking for someone who has the qualities we like plus we have an attraction to. In an ideal world the looks of a person should be secondary to their other qualities but we are taught to find someone who equals us and complements us. It is an ego thing. We want to impress others with our trophy and so we look for the best we think we can get. Beauty is a prize and we all want to win. As we get older the beauty is less important but in or teens through our 30's it is the deciding factor who we date and want to be with. I like your attitude and your thinking but you are a minority. It just isn't realistic. Peace...
moimeme Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Auuuuuuuuugggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I just wrote a long reply which got lost when LS did its 'I dunno what that is' trick. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Israfil Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Some thoughts in response: loving someone wholeheartedly is a decision. at least it has always been so for me. many, many humans are lovable. you just have to get to know them and appreciate them. and when i decide to love someone, i don't just 'go off them' when it gets difficult. i stick it out. maybe that makes me unusual. I don’t entirely agree. Loving someone, I don’t think, is necessarily a decision. I think often it happens when you least expect it. However, I think staying in a relationship is a decision. Love is wonderful, but the decision to stay with the person when your love wavers is most definitely a decision. And hopefully, if you are lucky, that love returns time and time again. I think this is the joy you are referring to later in your post. but if you share a sense of humour, a way of looking at the world, an appetite for the ridiculous, whatever it may be, if you can spend time in their company just enjoying life from the same vantage point and appreciating the similarities and differences in each other, isn't that enough? No. Chemistry is crucial. Now I’m not talking about the initial “fu(k me now” feelings – although those are good too. I’m speaking about that spark that comes from being emotionally, intellectually, spiritually – and yes – physically attracted to your partner. And this, I am afraid, is either something that is there or isn’t. It cannot be induced, or hoped for. For example, I share all of these things (my list) with one of my deepest, dearest, truest friends. Seemingly, we should be perfect for one another. But there is no chemistry; no spark. Without the chemistry, there is a critical missing ingredient for a relationship. isn't it enough just to pick someone and stick at it to make it work? isn't it enough to find someone you like and say 'that's the one i'm going to love for ever' and then just shut up and get on with making them happy? I don’t think so. Without the above-mentioned foundation, including chemistry as its primary constituent – the cement mortar that binds all the other ingredients – your structure will crumble. why do we expect that undying passion will just HAPPEN and when it does, we'll know? Undying passion doesn’t just happen (perhaps it is an illusion?) – that takes hard work, but passion certainly can “just happen”. i'd be very happy in a relationship where i didn't want to strangle him in his sleep most days. i'd stay in a relationship like that. I think you are selling yourself and your life short. In that case, almost any man or would do. Why settle for mediocrity? since when did true love have anything to do with aesthetics? It doesn’t have to do with aesthetics per se, but it certainly has to do with physical attraction. In this instance, I am relating aesthetics with the current standard for beauty as seen in Cosmo etc. This is very different from physical attraction, which I think is directly related to that spark and electricity you feel when you are near that person. On a side note, I believe Moi mentioned in another thread that physical attraction can grow. I agree with her on this point, but if it isn’t present initially or never develops over a period of time, the relationship is doomed. Physical attraction, as differentiated from aesthetic beauty, is a requirement for sustained love in a romantic relationship. shouldn't we be looking for our 'commitment equal' rather than trying to find someone who matches up to an arbitrary notion of what we think we should be feeling when love hits us? Why is this notion necessarily arbitrary? yet we seem to forget that part of the joy in a relationship *is* sticking at it. good relationships don't just materialise out of thin air. we have to work at them. and if working at them and sticking at them are what ultimately brings us happiness, why don't other people seem to get this? Yes, but this is only part of the joy. And that joy can turn into misery quite quickly. People can only fight so hard to save a crumbling building, especially if its foundations are built with missing ingredients. it's just that my mum says if i want to be happy i should marry my best friend. If there was / is something special (that electricity) between you and your best friend, my guess is that you would already be married. Maybe not unhappy, but definitely not happy.
Author bluetuesday Posted May 19, 2005 Author Posted May 19, 2005 thanks all. but i never said there was no chemistry between us. this isn't a 'should i settle?' thread. on the physical attraction issue, i have always believed there are three types of people. 1. those you're immediately attracted to. 2. those you're immediately repulsed by. 3. everyone else. the vast majority of people fall, for me, into category 3. those people i don't have a feeling one way or another about at the start but whom, if they were intelligent and kind and funny and 'got me', would become physically attractive. now that tells me that if someone had the right brain, i could be in love with them successfully. but it's having the right brain that's crucial. THAT'S the factor that makes everything else fall into place. and i disagree that love happens when you least expect it. what you're describing, israfil, isn't love to me. love doesn't surprise you. that's infatuation. love is a daily decision to put another's needs above your own, and have them cherish you in their turn. there is immense joy, fulfillment and longevity in that. it's not settling. it's discovering the very essence of love. and what i think i'm alluding to is how love is actually created. these boards are littered with souls who 'thought he/she was the one'. they thought they were in love. what i'm saying is there is no 'one'. there is only compatibility (or incompatibility) and commitment.
moimeme Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 My first version of this was better, but here's the gist: It is an ego thing. We want to impress others with our trophy and so we look for the best we think we can get. Beauty is a prize and we all want to win. As we get older the beauty is less important but in or teens through our 30's it is the deciding factor who we date and want to be with. Speak for yourself. I don't care a flying flip about having a pretty boy on my arm. Particularly not to impress others with. Looks will impress for the few seconds it takes to find out that a person is stupid/boring/selfish/whatever. I'll take the fellow who's a prize personality. My friends will appreciate such a man for the sort of fellow he is and the rest of the planet can go to hell. Frankly, I think being worried about 'impressing others with your trophy' is really pathetic. People with genuine nads don't need approval from the masses. but if you've got the intelligent, witty, kind, <insert whichever qualities you want> bases covered, and the person isn't an emotional retard or abusive, isn't one guy just as good as another when it comes to finding a partner? No. First of all, you have to manage to find that person which in and of itself isn't easy. Then you have to manage to live together which can be even harder. loving someone wholeheartedly is a decision. at least it has always been so for me.lovable. you just have to get to know them and appreciate them. and when i decide to love someone, i don't just 'go off them' when it gets difficult. i stick it out. maybe that makes me unusual. It's easy to love people if you don't have to live with them. Living together presents a whole other set of issues. but if you share a sense of humour, a way of looking at the world, an appetite for the ridiculous, whatever it may be, if you can spend time in their company just enjoying life from the same vantage point and appreciating the similarities and differences in each other, isn't that enough? No. It's great in theory but the reality is that the minutiae of daily life can ruin the best of friendships. He may be a delightful human being, but if he leaves all his clothes on the floor for you to pick up and if he spends his evenings in front of the Xbox and if he is rude to your friends and if he fights with you over every penny you spend, the shine wears off the friendship pretty quickly. You won't notice these things when you're not itogether 24/7 or don't spend months toghether but they become painfully apparent when you occupy the same residence. here's what i'm asking. isn't it enough just to pick someone and stick at it to make it work? isn't it enough to find someone you like and say 'that's the one i'm going to love for ever' and then just shut up and get on with making them happy? The secret to lasting marriages, according to Gottman (I think it was him) is that both people believe in the fundamental goodness of the other. Throughout the relationship. That belief can be shattered if the other treats one badly in one's day-to-day life. You don't just need to find someone who's acceptable; you need to find someone who's acceptable and who will treat you kindly (which sometimes takes effort and sacrifice from both sides). You may be the nicest, kindest, most loving human on the planet but if the person you've chosen isn't also nice, kind, and loving and isn't willing to work to be kind to you all your days, then the friendship will shatter as will your regard. wtf? since when did true love have anything to do with aesthetics? It doesn't. Or at least it oughn't. good relationships don't just materialise out of thin air. we have to work at them. and if working at them and sticking at them are what ultimately brings us happiness, why don't other people seem to get this? Because it's an 'instant gratification' society. i seem to have run out of ranting steam. so i'll leave it at that. although i'm still a little unsure what i'm getting at. it's just that my mum says if i want to be happy i should marry my best friend. I'd phrase it differently; whomever you marry should be your best friend, but being a best friend isn't good enough to make a good marriage. 1. those you're immediately attracted to. 2. those you're immediately repulsed by. 3. everyone else. the vast majority of people fall, for me, into category 3. those people i don't have a feeling one way or another about at the start but whom, if they were intelligent and kind and funny and 'got me', would become physically attractive. now that tells me that if someone had the right brain, i could be in love with them successfully. but it's having the right brain that's crucial. THAT'S the factor that makes everything else fall into place. Agree completely. and i disagree that love happens when you least expect it. what you're describing, israfil, isn't love to me. love doesn't surprise you Well it can. You can begin to develop regard for someone and know that you're fond of that person, but the realization that your feelings have grown into love can definitely surprise you.
Marshbear Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 quote:It is an ego thing. We want to impress others with our trophy and so we look for the best we think we can get. Beauty is a prize and we all want to win. As we get older the beauty is less important but in or teens through our 30's it is the deciding factor who we date and want to be with. Speak for yourself. I don't care a flying flip about having a pretty boy on my arm. Particularly not to impress others with. Looks will impress for the few seconds it takes to find out that a person is stupid/boring/selfish/whatever. I'll take the fellow who's a prize personality. My friends will appreciate such a man for the sort of fellow he is and the rest of the planet can go to hell. Frankly, I think being worried about 'impressing others with your trophy' is really pathetic. People with genuine nads don't need approval from the masses. I didn't say I am this way. I said this is what alot of people are taught to believe. Truly the beauty of a person is from the inside out and it is the most important characteristic to maintain a relationship. I was just speaking in general terms as to what the majority think.
Recommended Posts