Singles Rant Thread, 3rd Edition (196)

109 Name: Secret Admirer : 2009-10-27 18:44 ID:BPZxVKQ4

> If the internet had been around back then, he'd have been cyberbullied..

I'm only saying he could have found that blind girl he was always looking for, or someone with a similar illness. Surely, might not the hope for love be what kept him going?

> I thought the rule was always that you had to be a healthy and complete person before you were allowed to even consider finding a "compassionate lover."
> Love is something you have to earn, something you have to convince other people to share with you

There is no 'rule' that says certain people are not 'allowed' to 'even consider' finding love.
If someone has problems dealing with intimacy, how can they work on that by themselves? Hug a tree?
Consider the story of a girl that was raped and beaten as a child by her stepfather. Her scars are physical and emotional. Now as a young woman she's painfully shy and pulls away when someone touches her. Along comes a man who sees something in her and has the patience to show her the love, both emotional and physical, that she's never known.
She is not 'healthy', has done nothing to 'earn' love, has not had to 'convince' anyone to love her. But it happened, and as a human being, she deserves it as much as someone that was brought into the world under better circumstances.
Is this not a plausible situation, which possibly has happened before and will happen again in variations, in which all your presumptions fail?

> since one ought to be healed before ever meeting the lover?

Absolutely not a pre-requisite. If anything, I believe love is required for healing. And it's really that the healing is a side-effect.

> And other people are perfectly free to decline the opportunity to be that partner.

There is no reason this would not be true. But there's more than six billion people out there. The damaged one can not expect love from any one particular person. She can not walk up to a stranger and expect him to love her. But she's free to try.

> Except this is about love, not survival.

There are needs we all share as humans that go beyond basic survival.

> one isn't entirely dependent on others for one's own survival

Everyone in the world is. There are degrees by which we are all entirely dependent on each other in order to survive and thrive. Since I don't grow my own food and don't know enough about plant life to even forage, I depend on the grocer and the long line of people that supply the food he sells. Unless your name is Les Stroud, you will depend on others.

> If you have issues that prevent you from being able to engage in a loving relationship, there's no imperative that compels other people to help you surmount those issues. In that respect, nobody deserves to be loved.

I must clarify a distinction: To deserve something is no guarantee that you will get it. I've admitted such. No one is compelled to help any other person for any reason. I would also hope that for someone with these issues, any one who seeks their companionship doesn't view it as charity work. But simply out of love or hope for love.

> But others don't necessarily need to love us back. I hate quoting pop song titles, but love really is a two-way street.

You are absolutely right. Loving someone and not being loved back can not fulfill that need. And that's what we all wish for and need, that two-way street. Others need to love and be loved. Assuming other are healthy, they really don't need it as much because they've probably already have it or had it.

I'm not saying that there's someone out there for everyone. Tragically, some people will live and die without ever having had that critical part of the human experience. And if you say that's fate, I say it's merely hindsight. What we all deserve even more than love is hope. And I feel you're saying there are some people out there that should not be afforded that limitless commodity.

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: