Somebody to Love or Somebody You Love?

[Lotsgoingon]

5 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

... when people declare a grand love (intense butterflies and the whole nine yards, whether in marriage or outside of it), the public is much more likely to roll eyes, express skepticism, sometimes even resentment or masked jealousy, apparently activated by FOMO.

And lots of the people rolling their eyes are people who 20 years earlier thought they had discovered a a grand love. They are no longer attached to that concept and look back on it as wildly naive. 

[mark clemson]

I noticed some moving goalposts earlier in this thread.

First we had the feelings of love (which to be fair are a little complicated, because there's more than one kind). Then there's feeling AND acting lovingly. Sure. Then we were left with "maybe the feelings aren't real, but it's wanting what's best for your partner and not what's best for them in relation to how it affects you".

I think this last view is a bridge too far, at least in terms of a definition of romantic love.

Certainly, yes, any relationship that could be reasonably defined as healthy is going to have compromises and loving sacrifices, both small and cute (go to his ball game on Friday, watch her romcom on Saturday) AND often some major ones (one wage earner while the partner goes to night school, working overseas for 3 months, nights away to care for an aging parent, etc, etc).

BUT this is mutual give-and-take. A relationship that takes this too far, where one partner is genuinely left unhappy and/or not having their needs met becomes one-sided and one that I think most people would reasonably characterize as unhealthy. Ultimately it IS in relation to how it affects you. There's nothing wrong, or indeed particularly selfish about that - it's technically selfish, but it's within reason.

A good example is the sexless LTRs we hear about here. The low-libido partner isn't TRYING to cause harm, but the high-libido one simply isn't going to be happy. Trying to be selfless and suck it up on behalf of the low-libido partner generally leads to resentment and unhappiness, and eventually action of one sort or another to satisfy their needs. The actions can be positive or potentially destructive, secret or open, but not eventually standing up and asking that your needs be (reasonably) met in a relationship is a fool's game LT.

I think some folks have emotional "needs" akin to sexual ones, or feel they do. Everyone's a bit different. At any rate, IF the partner really can't meet a person's needs, and they have kids for whom they are trying to keep the family together, or other "glue," it leaves the person in a difficult situation for which there are no easy answers.

Edited March 10, 2021 by mark clemson

[Soul-shards]

9 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

I think some folks have emotional "needs" akin to sexual ones, or feel they do. Everyone's a bit different. At any rate, IF the partner really can't meet a person's needs, and they have kids for whom they are trying to keep the family together, or other "glue," it leaves the person in a difficult situation for which there are no easy answers.

This is excellent. Sexual incompatibility often comes up but there are other kinds. Some marriages may have a partner with a high intellectual and spiritual 'libido' - needs prolonged conversation  with breadth, depth and complexity, while the other can only say a few superficial lines after which he/she runs out of things to say. This leaves the other partner giving lectures. Very frustrating - and no, the answer is not to go 'take university courses' or talk to other people about those things. This would be like telling them to go supplement the sex with someone else, since their partner can't keep up. Just because society expects sex to be reserved exclusively for the spouse, whereas intellectual matters can be theoretically discussed with anyone, doesn't mean a lack of intellectual connection with a spouse cannot be very frustrating and unfulfilling.  

 Some people need that kind of connection with the spouse, not just with friends. Modern society is not conducive to living in a community, on a day to day basis, so most of the times any deeper thoughts need to be shared with the spouse. 

I fully agree on the target being constantly moved. People seem to have a hard time accepting that duty and long-term functionality are not the same ting as love itself, which DOES involve a feeling difficult to define,and which feeling DOES have an enormous impact on a couple's long term quality of life.  

[Soul-shards]

33 minutes ago, Lotsgoingon said:

And lots of the people rolling their eyes are people who 20 years earlier thought they had discovered a a grand love. They are no longer attached to that concept and look back on it as wildly naive. 

I can see how some may do that if that 'grand love' didn't work out and they later decided to settle for something more achievable and practical. People need to convince themselves that what they presently have is the best.

Yet others will cherish the memories regardless, with no need to be dismissive about the 'grand love' notion just because it didn't work out for them in the long term.  

Edited March 10, 2021 by Soul-shards

[MihiranCG]

On 3/2/2021 at 11:45 PM, Soul-shards said:

I'd like to open a discussion about Sense and Sensibility. If you had to take a guess, what percentage of modern, western couples marry somebody they LOVE as opposed to somebody TO LOVE? Should people err on the side of #1 or #2?

Let me clarify.

1) When I say "Somebody You Love," I mean just that: undeniable LOVE all around, and a sense of absolute certainty.

You are deeply IN LOVE, and not just objectively appreciating that person. There is passion but also reason and awareness that he/she is the right person for you, without the shadow of a doubt. You could call yourselves soulmates without hesitation. Your match is like Heaven, you can't stay away from each other. You don't need to rationalize, you don't look for Psych Today columns that assure you the "soulmate" theory is just for the "immature" and that "there are many soulmates out there for people anyway, and that it's all about "good choices and commitment." Regardless, you know you have yours. You are mesmerized with their qualities but you're also aware of their defects which you love too, even knowing those are no great traits when taken separately, out of the context of your beloved. You can't imagine spending your life without this person. You would not want to change a single hair on their head (and if they have none, you couldn't care less about their lack of hair.)  Yes, you have butterflies - and everything in between. It feels real and IMPERATIVE. 

2) When I say "Somebody To Love," I mean something very much positive but much fuzzier.

Your mind and your heart send out certain vibes but for the most part, the mind takes over and guides the heart. You DO love the person but you are not in an euphoric "in love" state, despite being physically attracted to them. You tell yourself "that thing" is just infatuation for the drama-seekers who are driven by lust, hormones, superficiality, what not. You know he/she is an excellent human being you'd be proud to share your life with. Not only would you look good together in the world and your family would SO approve, but you know you could do great things together. You very much like each other and get along well. You feel safe and comfortable around this person, you can be yourself. You know this person's character is wonderful - a model citizen. Reliable, honest, faithful hard-working - the kind of partner who makes great, long-term marriages happen. Who doesn't want that? Somewhere, deep down, you have an inkling that something vague is missing that is preventing you from being head-over-heels with this person as in case #1 (butterflies). Despite that, you know this is somebody  great! Somebody TO LOVE. So you love them, you really do, and commit to doing so forever, despite not being "in love." Those who try to convince themselves they are / were 'in love' ...well , you know who you are.

Based on my observations, most western marriages depart from #2, despite freedom to pick #1. 

Modern western societies confuse the living lights out of the young as to how they should select their marriage partner.

In traditional societies they make it simple: marriages are mostly transactional, communal, and more or less arranged (no, it doesn't apply just to India). You have a family and a set of parents who want to see you settled, there is a general impetus to be married, and a not-so-generous deadline after which you are considered officially expired (cue shame, fear, guilt, self-loathing - no way are you going to risk that). You simply look around and pick the best you can find and go ahead and marry. "Settling" is a western word.

By contrast, in western societies people are told they are free to pursue happiness and pick the love of their life (not parents' love of your life, or society's). Yet when it comes down to the nuts and bolts, it turns out it's not that simple. Westerners find themselves on the dating market acting like shoppers in an enormous and terribly disorganized department store. They have to go through thousands of mixed up apparel, of all size, shapes and styles ... in the hope of coming across one cut just for them. Good luck with that! By the time a really good option shows up, store is closing. Many lose patience long before that point, so they pick something OK or walk out of the store and decide to return later, etc. Any vadavoom outfit is bespoke. 

In other words: not that simple to just go pick the 'love of your life.' Just because parents won't interfere and just because society doesn't threaten you with expiration dates, doesn't mean you'll do a whole lot better than fellow traditional marriage-seekers. 

So westerners face options #1 and #2.

The young are given mixed messages about these two options: which one is preferable? which one should they hold out for? Under which conditions it is right to proceed with marriage and when is it not, despite risk of ending up alone/no children?. The west fights with a mixture of leftover traditional wisdom and risky, "I-did-it-my-way" individualism.

People will say ideally you have both #1 and #2, but this is unrealistic. How many are so lucky to meet their excellent match from the start? 

So which one did you do? Which one would you advise? What would you do if you could go back and do over?

Add whatever you think is useful to this discussion.

Thanks!

 

   

Somebody, That i loved!!

[bananatree]

I'm really enjoying the philosophical discussion on this thread.  

I haven't read all the posts, but there does seem to be a recurring theme and agreement that "Love" is a word that is difficult to define, and in fact encapsulates many different varieties, feelings and behaviors. 

For those that have experienced #1, love can best be described as a "force" or an "energy" that often defies all reason.  Someone mentioned that it's unreasonable.  It's a magnetic and cosmic attraction that pulls two people together despite social conventions, life goals or any other worldly conditions. People completely self-immolate in this kind of love.  It can be destructive.  But for a few lucky ones, it can be generative. 

Marriage, on the other hand, is of The World.  It's about raising children, paying the mortgage, creating memories and traditions, supporting each other through ups and downs -- all of which are acts of love. To accomplish marriage success, the love force is really not enough.  There need to also be shared goals, values, a socially accepted relationship within your community, earning potential, mental stability, work ethic, and all the other things to keep the business running.  It makes sense to choose someone who makes sense.

I've experienced sweetheart love, which makes for a great marriage I assume.  And I've also experienced white-light, pharmaceutical grade love, the pure Colombian s*** that's honestly too atomic to become the kind of situation where you end up spending Sundays shopping for shelves and IKEA, you know? At the end of the day, marriage is about the mundane moments and finding joy and happiness in them if you can.

 

 

[Soul-shards]

4 minutes ago, bananatree said:

I'm really enjoying the philosophical discussion on this thread.  

I haven't read all the posts, but there does seem to be a recurring theme and agreement that "Love" is a word that is difficult to define, and in fact encapsulates many different varieties, feelings and behaviors. 

For those that have experienced #1, love can best be described as a "force" or an "energy" that often defies all reason.  Someone mentioned that it's unreasonable.  It's a magnetic and cosmic attraction that pulls two people together despite social conventions, life goals or any other worldly conditions. People completely self-immolate in this kind of love.  It can be destructive.  But for a few lucky ones, it can be generative. 

Marriage, on the other hand, is of The World.  It's about raising children, paying the mortgage, creating memories and traditions, supporting each other through ups and downs -- all of which are acts of love. To accomplish marriage success, the love force is really not enough.  There need to also be shared goals, values, a socially accepted relationship within your community, earning potential, mental stability, work ethic, and all the other things to keep the business running.  It makes sense to choose someone who makes sense.

I've experienced sweetheart love, which makes for a great marriage I assume.  And I've also experienced white-light, pharmaceutical grade love, the pure Colombian s*** that's honestly too atomic to become the kind of situation where you end up spending Sundays shopping for shelves and IKEA, you know? At the end of the day, marriage is about the mundane moments and finding joy and happiness in them if you can.

 

 

Such great points, bananatree!

Another theme that I see emerging here is that for whatever reason, people cannot fathom integrating the two. They almost compulsively make it 'either / or.'

In fact, what I meant by #1 was not the "white-light, pharmaceutical grade love, the pure Colombian s*** that's honestly too atomic to become the kind of situation where you end up spending Sundays shopping for shelves and IKEA."

What a great metaphor btw! It was fun reading it. But really, what I meant by #1 is more like some of that atomic feeling due to great compatibility + ability to settle into the functionality of life once married. Do you really believe it is not possible for these two aspects to merge? Why does everyone make it sound like we need to be married to bores, more or less, so we can make life function in those moments where we are not being 'atomic?' Is it maybe because bores make for functional marriages whereas those with atomic personality cause marriage to explode?  Too binary to be believable. Human personality is not that simple. Os it it too difficult to find a Goldilocks partner?

I just wonder about this split. In all honesty, the only marriages I have seen that looked truly happy and successful over the long term, not just functional like most - are those where both atomics and functionality were present, and it all certainly started with strong romantic feelings. Again - rare.

Those without the atomics often go from sensible, to dull, to devitalized, and finally perfectly indifferent - over time. When one spouse passes way, it's a bit of a relief. I can't imagine anything sadder. All the functionality in the world is not worth that moment when you realize the widow/widower did not even shed a tear and is hardly affected. In fact, relived.

I have seen such marriages and they are absolutely revolting, despite a perfect run. They functioned perfectly for decades with both acting like the epitome of duty, functionality and stability - not a voice raised, not a task neglected, ever. (Never mind separate bedrooms for decades and nothing left to share, mentally). When one was gone, the other one was "oops." Just part of life.  

I cannot put it in words how revolting I find this 'sensible approach' to marriage. If this is what it means that "marriage is of the world" perhaps our marriage design should change.

Some may be OK with an evolution towards sheer routine, some will not (see not just divorce rates but the rates of marital dissatisfaction even when marriage stays intact). 

In retrospect, it becomes clear there must be a magnetic draw somewhere in there, especially in the beginning. If it's not, I'd say 'stay away,' no matter how wonderfully functional and well-adjusted for day-to-day life the couple looks.

Otherwise, we become puppets in the hands of society and slaves to material existence. Which is fine by many, but for some - this will feel like a life wasted.

I wish the young, and even not-so-young, later on - could be warned about the puppet show (the Truman show?), so they could make better informed and more honest-to-themselves choices, even if some of these choices would involve risk and upsetting the social order. 

[Weezy1973]

2 hours ago, bananatree said:

For those that have experienced #1, love can best be described as a "force" or an "energy" that often defies all reason.  Someone mentioned that it's unreasonable. 

Marriage, on the other hand, is of The World.  It's about raising children, paying the mortgage, creating memories and traditions, supporting each other through ups and downs -- all of which are acts of love. To accomplish marriage success, the love force is really not enough.  There need to also be shared goals, values, a socially accepted relationship within your community, earning potential, mental stability, work ethic, and all the other things to keep the business running.  It makes sense to choose someone who makes sense.

This is such a great distinction. When I say butterflies are meaningless, I mean that it’s just not indicative of that person leading to be a good marriage partner. It’s just a feeling, and as I think I’ve explained using metaphors, feelings can be helpful or unhelpful. Just because you feel intense butterflies doesn’t mean anything more than you’re experience intense butterflies. 
 

It can become a problem when people think because they’re experiencing intense butterflies it must therefore mean this person is something amazing and meant to be and a soul mate etc. I’m sure there is a trail of broken toxic relationships that stemmed from people wrongly thinking intense butterflies should be taken seriously. 
 

But it also should be pointed out that it’s not a black and white distinction. You can have butterflies at a 10, but you can also experience butterflies at a 7 or a more muted 5. It would be wrong to say one should pursue a relationship purely for practical reasons, but it would also be wrong to say one should pursue a relationship solely based on the intensity of the butterflies. 

[DKT3]

I think we have a combination of teenagers idealized images of love that TV, Movies and Books sell. This grand love that comes along and makes everything better.....yet we have a 50%+ divorce rate. 

This "IN LOVE" foolishness is fleeting and unsustainable.  The real love is about commitment.  I've been with my wife since I'm 17 years old, in those nearly 30 years there has been times when I fully subscribe to in love, I can't get enough of her, want to be around her 24 hours a day, hooky from work the whole nine...six months later I can hardly stand to look at her, then six months later back to in love.  

You see this in love feeling is simply how that person makes you feel now. Real love is much deeper than that. 

Example,  humans are committed to lineage,  no matter how poorly parents treat children or visa versa there is still an almost unbreakable bond and commitment.  Romantic relationships simply don't have that. 

Time to transcend past Romantic imagery thats is fleeting and unsustainable as a basis for relationships,  

[pepperbird2]

I know this sounds snarky, but please believe me that i don't intend for it to be.

The ones that are placing much importance on the "butterflies" and what they feel is a spiritual sort of connection that they simply can not resist are the people who have been unfaithful to their spouse- not necessarily physically, but emotionally and mentally. I'm not sure if any meaning can be derived from that, but it is interesting. I don't subscribe tot he theory that "the heart wants what it wants and we have to act on that", and I really don't see that as function of duty.

I can just speak for myself, but the way I love someone isn't the "thunderbolt" style, it's the type that's often quiet and not filled with drama ( I don't mean that in a bad way). Drama annoys me- I don't like it.  I would argue that it's every bit as deep as the "spritual" love some others feel makes a good marriage. In fact, in its own way, it every bit a spiritual.

In other words, it works for me- and in the end, maybe that's what matters.

[mark clemson]

Everyone's of course entitled to their opinion. However to me it seems some folks are trying to more or less just redefine "love" as commitment.

love  noun 1. an intense feeling of deep affection.

commitment  noun 1. the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.

It feels a little odd to resort to googling when we all agree the definition is tricky, but I think the reason is that trying to take the emotional component out of "love" really doesn't make sense. I think the vast majority of people in the world would say that the emotional component is part and parcel of "love" and that without it you're talking about something else.

You can have commitment without love (e.g. a "loveless marriage") and you can have love without commitment (e.g. "loving from afar" and these high intensity relationships that many certainly experience as love, but that don't necessarily last).

Certainly love and commitment can co-exist, but it seems if we go with something even close to what appears to be the common understanding of the terms, one isn't actually necessary for the other (unless one deliberately tries to re-define it that way).

Seems more straightforward to me to just say "commitment" if what you're actually talking about is commitment. I guess we can all have opinions about what the definition "should" be, but a definition that attempts to take emotion out of the equation seems to me to be very much a niche view.

Edited March 10, 2021 by mark clemson

[bananatree]

19 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

I know this sounds snarky, but please believe me that i don't intend for it to be.

The ones that are placing much importance on the "butterflies" and what they feel is a spiritual sort of connection that they simply can not resist are the people who have been unfaithful to their spouse- not necessarily physically, but emotionally and mentally. I'm not sure if any meaning can be derived from that, but it is interesting. I don't subscribe tot he theory that "the heart wants what it wants and we have to act on that", and I really don't see that as function of duty.

I can just speak for myself, but the way I love someone isn't the "thunderbolt" style, it's the type that's often quiet and not filled with drama ( I don't mean that in a bad way). Drama annoys me- I don't like it.  I would argue that it's every bit as deep as the "spiritual" love some others feel makes a good marriage. In fact, in its own way, it every bit a spiritual.

In other words, it works for me- and in the end, maybe that's what matters.

Oh, I've had the thunderbolt style.  And believe me that it was devastating and ended badly.  Really badly.  It wasn't a matter of choice, honestly.

But, for those who subscribe:  Love exists on multiple levels and in multiple dimensions.  Spiritual Love, for those who have experienced it, transcends reality.  Material Love, like marriage and partnerships, doesn't reach to the highest heights, but creates bonds between individuals who have work to do together on the earth plane.

The problem with marriage, as has been defined by so many analysists, is that we expect our spouse to fulfil all roles at all times.  Spiritual Cosmic Lover, but also, dependable marriage partner.  Stabilizing but also spontaneous.  Providing security but also novelty. Familiarity but also mystery. How can this be possible?  It can't.

 

 

[bananatree]

17 minutes ago, mark clemson said:

Seems more straightforward to me to just say "commitment" if what you're actually talking about is commitment. I guess we can all have opinions about what the definition "should" be, but a definition that attempts to take emotion out of the equation seems to me to be very much a niche view.

Love being the feeling that makes you commit.  The bonds that tie us to each other.  

Love is decidedly different from obligation, which also begets commitment. 

[Soul-shards]

1 hour ago, DKT3 said:

This "IN LOVE" foolishness is fleeting and unsustainable. 

Actually, it isn't. You just confirmed below that it's not and that you DID benefit from the reality of romantic love / 'in love' feelings. Right here:

 

Quote

I've been with my wife since I'm 17 years old, in those nearly 30 years there has been times when I fully subscribe to in love, I can't get enough of her, want to be around her 24 hours a day, hooky from work the whole nine...

Have you ever considered that some people never get that in their marriage? Nobody argued that #1 (being in love) means being in an atomic state 24/7. This is a caricature of a rational argument.  It means benefiting from a full package from the start - romantic feelings, high compatibility, functionality, everything.

I am not sure why it is so difficult to comprehend.

Quote

...six months later I can hardly stand to look at her, then six months later back to in love.  

 So see, you're back in love. Some marriages are luke-warm, low key all the time and have been so from the start, often because the partners paid heed to views that prevail here, namely that strong romantic feelings don't ultimately matter. Just like people do it here.  

 

Quote

You see this in love feeling is simply how that person makes you feel now.

In fact, I don't see that. What I see is that the feelings are there and they are only activated at certain times, but they sure do exist in latent form all the time. Some marriages don't have them at all.

Quote

Real love is much deeper than that. 

 

Real love is THAT and a lot more (commitment, functionality, the works). Real love is everything in one package - but an absence of strong romantic feelings from that package disqualifies it from real love status, in my view.

 

Quote

Time to transcend past Romantic imagery that is is fleeting and unsustainable as a basis for relationships,  

I'd say it's finally time to stop lying to the young that 'sensible' marriages with a focus on 'commitment' and good intentions will ever do anything significant for their quality of life if the magic magnet is missing from the start. Time to teach the young how to be honest with themselves and effectively selective when they pick a marriage partner.

 

[Soul-shards]

1 hour ago, pepperbird2 said:

I know this sounds snarky, but please believe me that i don't intend for it to be.

The ones that are placing much importance on the "butterflies" and what they feel is a spiritual sort of connection that they simply can not resist are the people who have been unfaithful to their spouse- not necessarily physically, but emotionally and mentally. I'm not sure if any meaning can be derived from that, but it is interesting. I don't subscribe tot he theory that "the heart wants what it wants and we have to act on that", and I really don't see that as function of duty.

I can just speak for myself, but the way I love someone isn't the "thunderbolt" style, it's the type that's often quiet and not filled with drama ( I don't mean that in a bad way). Drama annoys me- I don't like it.  I would argue that it's every bit as deep as the "spritual" love some others feel makes a good marriage. In fact, in its own way, it every bit a spiritual.

In other words, it works for me- and in the end, maybe that's what matters.

Given the above, which I think is entirely legitimate, society should be strongly committed to teaching the young self-awareness so they can avoid marrying based on someone else's definition of love.

If you are a #1 type and you marry based on pepperbird's definition because hers is more popular, more convenient, easier to secure, has better optics, or is more in line with social order - then you're in trouble.

[Soul-shards]

1 hour ago, mark clemson said:

Everyone's of course entitled to their opinion. However to me it seems some folks are trying to more or less just redefine "love" as commitment.

love  noun 1. an intense feeling of deep affection.

commitment  noun 1. the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.

It feels a little odd to resort to googling when we all agree the definition is tricky, but I think the reason is that trying to take the emotional component out of "love" really doesn't make sense. I think the vast majority of people in the world would say that the emotional component is part and parcel of "love" and that without it you're talking about something else.

You can have commitment without love (e.g. a "loveless marriage") and you can have love without commitment (e.g. "loving from afar" and these high intensity relationships that many certainly experience as love, but that don't necessarily last).

Certainly love and commitment can co-exist, but it seems if we go with something even close to what appears to be the common understanding of the terms, one isn't actually necessary for the other (unless one deliberately tries to re-define it that way).

Seems more straightforward to me to just say "commitment" if what you're actually talking about is commitment. I guess we can all have opinions about what the definition "should" be, but a definition that attempts to take emotion out of the equation seems to me to be very much a niche view.

This sums it up.

[lana-banana]

50 minutes ago, Soul-shards said:

I'd say it's finally time to stop lying to the young that 'sensible' marriages with a focus on 'commitment' and good intentions will ever do anything significant for their quality of life if the magic magnet is missing from the start. Time to teach the young how to be honest with themselves and effectively selective when they pick a marriage partner.

Who exactly is telling this to the young? I feel like almost every piece of media I've ever seen has been about how it's more important to be alone and be confident in oneself than settle for a nice, boring guy. My generation is marrying later in part because of that reason: we know what we want, we know what we value, and we're not going to take less.

[bananatree]

5 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

Such great points, bananatree!

Another theme that I see emerging here is that for whatever reason, people cannot fathom integrating the two. They almost compulsively make it 'either / or.'

In fact, what I meant by #1 was not the "white-light, pharmaceutical grade love, the pure Colombian s*** that's honestly too atomic to become the kind of situation where you end up spending Sundays shopping for shelves and IKEA."

What a great metaphor btw! It was fun reading it. But really, what I meant by #1 is more like some of that atomic feeling due to great compatibility + ability to settle into the functionality of life once married. Do you really believe it is not possible for these two aspects to merge? Why does everyone make it sound like we need to be married to bores, more or less, so we can make life function in those moments where we are not being 'atomic?' Is it maybe because bores make for functional marriages whereas those with atomic personality cause marriage to explode?  Too binary to be believable. Human personality is not that simple. Os it it too difficult to find a Goldilocks partner?

I just wonder about this split. In all honesty, the only marriages I have seen that looked truly happy and successful over the long term, not just functional like most - are those where both atomics and functionality were present, and it all certainly started with strong romantic feelings. Again - rare.

Those without the atomics often go from sensible, to dull, to devitalized, and finally perfectly indifferent - over time. When one spouse passes way, it's a bit of a relief. I can't imagine anything sadder. All the functionality in the world is not worth that moment when you realize the widow/widower did not even shed a tear and is hardly affected. In fact, relived.

I have seen such marriages and they are absolutely revolting, despite a perfect run. They functioned perfectly for decades with both acting like the epitome of duty, functionality and stability - not a voice raised, not a task neglected, ever. (Never mind separate bedrooms for decades and nothing left to share, mentally). When one was gone, the other one was "oops." Just part of life.  

I cannot put it in words how revolting I find this 'sensible approach' to marriage. If this is what it means that "marriage is of the world" perhaps our marriage design should change.

Some may be OK with an evolution towards sheer routine, some will not (see not just divorce rates but the rates of marital dissatisfaction even when marriage stays intact). 

In retrospect, it becomes clear there must be a magnetic draw somewhere in there, especially in the beginning. If it's not, I'd say 'stay away,' no matter how wonderfully functional and well-adjusted for day-to-day life the couple looks.

Otherwise, we become puppets in the hands of society and slaves to material existence. Which is fine by many, but for some - this will feel like a life wasted.

I wish the young, and even not-so-young, later on - could be warned about the puppet show (the Truman show?), so they could make better informed and more honest-to-themselves choices, even if some of these choices would involve risk and upsetting the social order. 

I don't mind upsetting the social order even one bit.  But that's a big responsibility in and of itself.  I was talking about those etheric Love Bites that can link two people who are wildly inappropriate for each other in meaningful ways long term.  But I do agree with you.

I'd say I married an option #3. I was magnetically drawn to my husband, but not in a way that signaled wild sexual attraction.  It was more like an unbridled "baby fever." That's a physical magnetic response to another person that is not often talked about, as if sexual attraction and desire to be... uh... impregnated by a person are the same thing.  They are not.  It's a different feeling entirely. 

We did have babies, and we are great friends, but happy as a couple?  Nope. You are correct.  

I have now developed many unorthodox views of marriage and relationships that the longer I spend on this board, the more you might see.  I have now begun advocating for "alternative relationships" that don't fall within the typical templates that we currently understand.  I believe as a species we aren't able to fully comprehend how these relationships might work, but maybe in the future as we become more used to different conceptions.  For instance, I see nothing wrong with marrying your best friend for stability, life-partnership and paying down the mortgage.  And then ALSO having a love affair.  I personally see nothing wrong with that.  I would have NO problem with that situation in my life.  But that's just me.  Most people don't want that.  They want the package.  And then get pissed when that doesn't occur.  Sigh.

[Soul-shards]

1 minute ago, lana-banana said:

Who exactly is telling this to the young? I feel like almost every piece of media I've ever seen has been about how it's more important to be alone and be confident in oneself than settle for a nice, boring guy. My generation is marrying later in part because of that reason: we know what we want, we know what we value, and we're not going to take less.

Los of mixed and confusing messages out there today: the new inklings that something MUST change in the way humans do R-s, mixed with conventional, practical approaches about marriage - settle down with nice person so you can function, butterflies unimportant. This very thread is full of voices like that.    

I have reached the conclusion that neither the Conventional/Convenient view (settle down for nice, boring guy by the deadline) nor the New Way (endless chaotic searches in a huge mass of mixed-up humans) leads to much overall good at the population level.  The latter makes for 40+ year old singles withering up on the shelf, forever searching. 

Young people should learn how to be highly effective match-makers in their 20's, so they can maximize odds of an excellent match in due time.

There is minimal "how to" education in this area, mainly because if it was done right, it would require the revelation of some very inconvenient truths which younger generations are not prepared to hear. So now they err on the side of chaotic searches which take too long and wear you out. On average, the outcomes are even poorer compared to what people used to get in ordered, traditional societies even from an almost random pairing up. 

Some get lucky, of course.  

I think we can do better. 

[DKT3]

8 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

Actually, it isn't. You just confirmed below that it's not and that you DID benefit from the reality of romantic love / 'in love' feelings. Right here:

Have you ever considered that some people never get that in their marriage? Nobody argued that #1 (being in love) means being in an atomic state 24/7. This is a caricature of a rational argument.  It means benefiting from a full package from the start - romantic feelings, high compatibility, functionality, everything.

I am not sure why it is so difficult to comprehend.

 So see, you're back in love. Some marriages are luke-warm, low key all the time and have been so from the start, often because the partners paid heed to views that prevail here, namely that strong romantic feelings don't ultimately matter. Just like people do it here. 

In fact, I don't see that. What I see is that the feelings are there and they are only activated at certain times, but they sure do exist in latent form all the time. Some marriages don't have them at all.

Real love is THAT and a lot more (commitment, functionality, the works). Real love is everything in one package - but an absence of strong romantic feelings from that package disqualifies it from real love status, in my view.

I'd say it's finally time to stop lying to the young that 'sensible' marriages with a focus on 'commitment' and good intentions will ever do anything significant for their quality of life if the magic magnet is missing from the start. Time to teach the young how to be honest with themselves and effectively selective when they pick a marriage partner.

[Removed]

My message isn't stick it out in a bad to ok marriage.  My point is work to make it good or bounce. 

[Removed]

Of course most marriages are not great, in large part based on this foolish notion of soulmates twinflames and other such nonsense.  

Over the summer,  I watched a reality show with my daughter,  on this show one young couple kept going on about how perfect they were for one another,  my daughter was goo-goo over this foolishness.  I kept telling her they will implode,  200% failure ahead.  You see, people get these foolish ideas that instant chemistry is the foundation,  and because its easy they get lost when it isn't. The immature notion that love and romance is easy, is a setup to fail. 

BTW, that young couple failed terribly. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Removed Inappropriate Comments and Extra Spacing

[Soul-shards]

12 minutes ago, bananatree said:

I don't mind upsetting the social order even one bit.  But that's a big responsibility in and of itself.  I was talking about those etheric Love Bites that can link two people who are wildly inappropriate for each other in meaningful ways long term.  But I do agree with you.

I'd say I married an option #3. I was magnetically drawn to my husband, but not in a way that signaled wild sexual attraction.  It was more like an unbridled "baby fever." That's a physical magnetic response to another person that is not often talked about, as if sexual attraction and desire to be... uh... impregnated by a person are the same thing.  They are not.  It's a different feeling entirely. 

We did have babies, and we are great friends, but happy as a couple?  Nope. You are correct.  

I have now developed many unorthodox views of marriage and relationships that the longer I spend on this board, the more you might see.  I have now begun advocating for "alternative relationships" that don't fall within the typical templates that we currently understand.  I believe as a species we aren't able to fully comprehend how these relationships might work, but maybe in the future as we become more used to different conceptions.  For instance, I see nothing wrong with marrying your best friend for stability, life-partnership and paying down the mortgage.  And then ALSO having a love affair.  I personally see nothing wrong with that.  I would have NO problem with that situation in my life.  But that's just me.  Most people don't want that.  They want the package.  And then get pissed when that doesn't occur.  Sigh.

Very interesting thoughts.

There seems to be some consensus that sexual attraction and the desire to be impregnated by that person are pretty much one and the same thing; but we might be missing fine discrimination here and you may be onto something.

There is also the the school of thought where we are wrong to expect a partner to meet ALL of our modern needs (note none of us are starving, under a bridge, facing a lion charging towards us, or a horde attack..so we moved up the Maslow  pyramid and now want a whole lot more; this is where all the soul torture and the grasps at self-actualization come from...which doesn't mean these needs are imagined, illegitimate, or that failure to meet them won't lead people to despair, even mental illness. They are very real. I just don't see how we can fit these "alternative" R model within our current modern  system (social isolation , minimal community, prevailing individualistic attitudes, ego focus, etc).

You're so right when you say most people want THE PACKAGE (monogamous), because the alternative model you described is inconceivable for most. I'd feel very weird about it too even though some may become open to it due to a lack of viable alternatives (read desperation). 

This is why those who score THE PACKAGE can be seen as R jackpot winners.    

 

[pepperbird2]

Personally, I think there's a benefit to getting some experience under your belt before you "choose for life". It allows you to find out who you are, what you need to be happy, and just as important, what you bring to the table for someone else.

What do you do when a relationship gets tough? How do you handle stress in your life? What are your goals/hopes/ dreams? Do you want to have children? What are your values? What's your overall world view? What's your conflict resolution style?

A friend of mine lived with the woman who would become her wife for a few years before they got married. She was head over heels for her, and they seemed to be very much in love. They didn't make it past two years. They're still good friends and co parent their son, who is a thoroughly lovely kid.  When we talked about this, she said she didn't realize that there were needs her wife just couldn't meet, and she hadn't known about herself when they got married. A big part of her learning curve came when her wife was deployed and she was on her own. She'd never been "alone" before. She went from living with her mom and dating to meeting and moving in with her future wife. When her wife left, she wanted to work on herself so that she could be he best "her" for when her wife came home. That year on her own allowed her time to learn a lot about herself, and the sad irony is it showed her she really wasn't happy/ couldn't grow within her marriage.

To me, a big part of being able to love deeply is knowing who and what you are- the good, the bad ad the ugly. She'd never had that chance.

 

[Wiseman2]

13 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

..so we moved up the Maslow  pyramid and now want a whole lot more; this is where all the soul torture and the grasps at self-actualization come from...

I've never thought of maslow's pyramid as a static, ridgid or evolution related concept.

For example, at any point in time anyone could be fighting for their lives or survival. Just look at Covid.

I also don't see in love v to love as a fixed tier. In some cultures it's the norm and a necessity to marry for survival.

Marriage is in itself a relatively new concept and marriage for love is an even newer one.

I do however see love and empathy as survival instincts for social creatures.

 

[Soul-shards]

6 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

I've never thought of Maslow's pyramid as a static, rigid or evolution related concept.

For example, at any point in time anyone could be fighting for their lives or survival. Just look at Covid.

I also don't see in love v to love as a fixed tier. In some cultures it's the norm and a necessity to marry for survival.

Marriage is in itself a relatively new concept and marriage for love is an even newer one.

I do however see love and empathy as survival instincts for social creatures.

 

You may have small variations over the short term, but in the large scheme of things, the Maslow pyramid IS static over any one lifespan and also evolutionary because it is anchored in society. Modern societies are well past food or shelter-driven survival concerns. Or horde attacks. Now psychological needs come into question all the time.

I promise you that if we had to be focuse on concrete daily, physically exhausting and sometimes scary survival, all day long, we would not have time for thoughts on self-actualization (Am I with my great love? Frustrating not to). 

We'd just need to grab a partner, whoever, to help us with the goal of eating, NOT freezing, and not being attacked by a horde.  Reproducing would be an automatic by-product, something that just happens, no love needed.  

Love is a quintessentially modern preoccupation, which doesn't mean is illegitimate, misguided or to be stifled, derided or ignored. 

Modern humans have additional needs and ignoring them can wreak havoc on their mental health. 

[Wiseman2]

2 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

 Or horde attacks.  being attacked by a horde. 

Love is a quintessentially modern preoccupation, which doesn't mean is illegitimate, misguided or to be stifled, derided or ignored. 

What are horde attacks? Plato, Socrates and Aristotle all wrote extensively on love and it's forms.