A work in progress
Infatuation is the “magic” of love (and by “magic”, we mean “mystery”; the two are the same). It is that inexplicable feeling which strongly draws one to another, usually for little reason. This is simultaneously the catalyst and bane of love.
This really makes sense. I'd like to hear more about this, and I'd like to know what you mean by this "heart" thing, even though it sounds like some stupid made up thing.
Heh, yeah, it's a pretty corny word. By "heart", I mean the general disposition of a person (way too long to refer to it that way). To have a good "heart" would mean that one is kind, thoughtful, etc. If you can think of a better word, I'd love to hear it, haha.
Same with >>3, I would definitely like to hear more discussion about this. And on the "heart" thing, I think it's fine. I sometimes use that word to express the same thing so it feels natural to me.
I'd like to ask your opinion though, if someone who is madly infatuated creates these deep levels of fabricated truth because of the blanks filled by the imagination, how do you save someone you "love" because of that?
I like what you think about love.
I actually have come to very similar conclusions through those nights in bed just thinking about it. It has sort of liberated me from the superficialities of contemporary relationships entangled in superficial, ill-fated bonds. I sometimes even doubt where the "real" love is out there. But then again, I'm a bit blind to many things. I might even be missing the point entirely.
Oh, you mean "unconditional love"?
My thought on that is that that's only possible for a mother/father to feel towards their children since that sort of "love" is different than the more 'intimate' "love". It's practically impossible to "love" somebody without some sort of condition/s.
Woah woah, let's not jump to such conclusions. Loving unconditionally is totally something else. Mostly because it's, you know, unconditional. That implies that you'd love 'em no matter what they do, which is not quite what I was talking about.
you make some interesting points. I disagree about incest mainly because it would make brother sister relationships difficult if people starting accepting it. I mean one of the reasons they work is because there isn't any confusion with sex and infatation going on in the background. Also you generally spend a lot of time growing up with that person its easy to love them. That's half of love is knowing and understanding them how else would you care for someone. There is more to this but I find it hard to articulate.
I'm curious; how exactly would increased intimacy make familial relationships more difficult? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but I suppose you mean it would complicate matters in our current society, in which these things are still quite taboo. In that case, yes, you do have a point. However, in a more accepting and open-minded society (hopefully sometime in the future), these things would cause no such complications. Of course, if we're going to get that far, we need to start somewhere, no?
Hmm, it's interesting that you continuously reiterate that one must be human as well as consenting; so you're saying if an animal were, hypothetically, consenting it would still be wrong to have sex with it? And is this because of the associated taboo that society places on bestiality, or your own personal bias?
Heh, interesting. I didn't expect such a response on this board.
Restricting to only fellow humans is just for the sake of simplification, because there's not really any other creatures on or above our level of intelligence, capable of truly consenting and such. If we were to come across another intelligent species somehow, then obviously we'd have to consider them as well. Perhaps I should be more specific in the first place.
Indeed, age is definitely dangerous waters to tread. As you said, one who's mind is too young to discern what they truly want is also, perhaps, too young for love. This, in my opinion, raises the question of whether love is simply a chemical reaction that we've got no control over, or a conscious choice that we can only make when we understand what "love" is. Yet, as you and I know, most people have this glorified vision of love, thinking it's on par with the Hollywood definition; so when they they are in love, are they actually? Or is it just an illusion created by their mind, formulated using the guidelines laid by the media?
We humans are all social creatures to some extent. We need people. Love is merely the corollary, a sign of good relations with others. It is actually the people themselves that are truly important. You'd do well to remember that.
I suppose the most important thing to realize about love is that it is actually a lot simpler than what people often make it out to be: it's about caring deeply for a person, and realizing that their happiness is essential to your own.
One needs not many years to learn to love. For example, even young children definitely love their parents. If mommy or daddy doesn't come home, they notice; and that can have some seriously negative effects on them.
Again, though, love isn't necessary for sex to be moral, and shouldn't be. The point of an age of consent in the first place is to protect the young from those who would take advantage of them. Let's not convolute the issue here.
How about, if you're age 12-16, sexual relations are allowed between people in that same age range. Once you reach the age of 16, you have the freedom to choose whom you have sex with, as long as they are in that range or above. Once you reach the age of 18, the previous age range is no longer of consent (sans 16).
Eh, I don't see how that's any more useful or less arbitrary than the [(half age)+7] rule.
Whatever. Tweaking this issue is not really anywhere as important as fixing the other ones.
By the way, I know I've made infatuation sound like a bad thing and all; but really, it's not. With the right expectations, it can actually be a good deal of fun. So long as you both understand love as defined here (i.e. not necessarily partnering for life), you should go enjoy each other while you're in that state of mind. Kiss, cuddle, fuck, whatever.
Me, i'm still inlove with someone i met in the net, but never got to met him in person, I keep rejecting others because I still believe one day that it can be the two of us... It's either single or him...
for most people its a simple chemical reaction. one that eventually dies out, which is why divorce is so prevalent.
Please don't. That's not healthy, and there's no real reason to. Also, long distance relationships suck when you have no one else. The lack of intimacy becomes more of a problem than you think it would. By the way, I highly recommend reading this thread that you're posting in. It's good stuff.
The CnP post is the only good post I've ever read on this board attempting to define love. In fact, disagreeing with it pretty much proves the point of it. Trying to narrowly define something that is understood differently across cultures and individuals is pointless. Not to mention English is one of the worst languages to attempt to define it in. There are no less than 3 words in Japanese that would all get translated to 'love' in English, and none of them mean the exact same thing.
i dont see that this thread provides anything worthwhile to this board. fwiw, im the original writer of >>22.
>>24 i dont see being older as necessarily being indicative of more wisdom or even experience on the subject, but i will halfway agree with your assessment of this thread. the first post is incredibly naive, but im going to give the poster credit beyond a teenage girl because it seems to attempt the application of occum's razor to the concept of love. which is a poor way to use it, but the way i see it the poster came right out of philosophy 101 and started writing this post.
Ah, we're really going there, huh? Alright, maybe you'll bring up some good points. I'd love to hear a good argument from another point of view.
Heh, I missed your post writing my last one. Looking back, you seem to say often that this love is different than that, and such; but you never really go into the particular details. I find it difficult to hold such statements with much weight.
>>27 honestly i find the premise of this thread to be juvenile. nothing personal and theres nothing particularly wrong with that per se, we're all juvenile at one time or another. but this is trite. theres a thread like this on any board anywhere discussing romance. theres countless threads about it in the archives right here. nothing said here is worth repeating anywhere.
To me, this thread reads something like, "hey guys I figured out calculus, its just a bunch of algebra". Might not be entirely wrong but its stupid and you sure as hell shouldn't get cocky about it.
So are we actually going to get some real discussion done here or not? So far you've done nothing to prove your point of view. Rather, you are merely attacking the person, and not the argument itself. Ugh, this kind of closed-mindedness makes me wonder why I even bother sometimes.
>>So are we actually going to get some real discussion done here or not? So far you've done nothing to prove your point of view. Rather, you are merely attacking the person, and not the argument itself.
Like I said. Reads like a teenaged girl. Just the way you phrase things precludes any worthwhile discussion. You are trying to shift the burden of proof because your position is so weak. Finally don't even come to a debate if you don't know the phrase ad hominem, which isn't even going on here. I see attacks being made on the content of the thread itself, no one knows or cares who you are.
An argument cannot stand by arrogance alone. Either you actually start making some real points, or I will simply have to ignore you. I've been more than reasonable. So far, your attacks on my argument have been terribly vague. If you want me to prove things any further, you're going to have to actually point to specific holes in what I've said already.
>>An argument cannot stand by arrogance alone.
Sigh, I came to the internet; I should have expected the internet.
On the basis of how you're defining such a universal and complex topic to a dot, and constructing all your arguments from this skewed, individualised viewpoint- it does sound a bit ignorant and inexperienced. Kudos to finding your own definition of love, but don't think it can be applied to everyone.
Bah, age just makes us more hardened and lose our ability to be dynamic. Given time, we just become more certain in what we believe, because we tend to only perceive what confirms the things we already believe. Everyone does this, myself included.
>>it's like trying to talk about evolution to an hardened, old-fashioned christian
Terrible analogy. Not even remotely parallel to this thread.
Sure there is! Most of us tend to go about love with a certain method. There's a couple of variations, but they're based on similar principles. See if you can recognize them.
A girl starts to really like a boy. They're already friends, but that's not "enough"; she wants there to be more to the relationship. One day, she confesses her love to him, and to her surprise, he says that he loves her too. They become boyfriend and girlfriend.
In a very round about way, it very much sounds like this "system" that you're on about is monogamy. And you're arguing for polygamy/open relationships. Yes or no?
I don't understand why the label is so important, but you could call it that, I guess. Kinda missing the point, though. Why do you want such a binary answer? You make it sound as though the reasons and message are irrelevant once this label is applied. Is it not possible to form an opinion without merely pigeonholing it?
> Why do you want such a binary answer?
I was merely trying to see things from your point of view. Hence I needed to know if I'm on your train of thought or not- which for the record is in need of serious clarification. Pigeon-holing? Let me remind you that you are the one who has been classifying and breaking down the concept of love into a supposed system.
Haha, I didn't say that my point of view is entirely unique. That's kind of impossible in this day and age.
Anyways, you unfortunately did miss the whole point, which was, you know, love. Intimacy in itself is entirely unimportant. As an extension of love, however, it is vital.
>>Rather, it is to teach important things, such as understanding the difference between love and infatuation
sheer arrogance. your posts in this thread are all astoundingly so actually. you arent teaching anyone anything. what you are doing is irritating people with your naivety.
and i hate to quote myself but i think this bears repeating:
>>you want to share your personal observations? fantastic! but dont tell us you figured it out and everyone else is wrong when we all know better.
'Holier than thou' isn't that what you're doing? The 'I'm older card', as I've come to see, is a holier than thou kind of thing because you are saying that you are more experienced and therefore your opinion matters more (sometimes it does too). Rather than establish credibility through labels use logic (not saying you haven't either). If he won't listen to good reason without some kind of weight being thrown around, then you're wasting time anyway. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, nor am I saying he's not being arrogant. I just think people shouldn't use age and IQ scores to give weight to their opinions. >45
>>46 There are good posts slamming the OP throughout the thread. There's really no need for detractors to establish any more credibility. Playing the age card can't be avoided with the content of the OP's posts.
This is how love is defined psychologically speaking. Take a look. It's basically describing the components of love and how love can take many different forms. Every type of love can be explained with this model. from love of a family member to love of a car, to your gf, to your baby etc...
I don't see why love has to be treated like it's science. It's this...this attempt to classify everything that has made us null to exploring our feelings and understanding what we, you, and I want out of life, love, relationship, marriage, whatever. We expect high, we get low, we run away, and we learn to appreciate what we had. That's love.
science is how men make sense of the world. it does seem unhumanistic to define love using a triangle of words, but when you think about in this format, it does explain love quite well.
Analyzing something to understand it better doesn't make it any less meaningful. Personally, I believe connecting with others is the greatest pleasure in life. It's important that we properly understand these things. Otherwise, we hurt not only ourselves, but others as well, with misled beliefs such as that fate will bring you together with "the one", or that you have to stop loving someone when you break up because you can only love one person, or that gay love is wrong. If we actually look at what love truly is, we find that there's no real reason for any of this. They're usually just arbitrary rules based on whatever we feel that love should be. Sometimes we have to detach ourselves from our feelings for a moment to find the truth.
Some people choose to love everyone and simultaneously choose to be with only one partner. Some people choose to love one person and simultaneously choose to be with multiple partners. Love can't be denied if it's love. Relationships is entirely different from love. Emotions are emotions as well. Personally, I don't care whether or not "society" has influenced me in any way. I choose to love as many people as I can while simultaneously reserving my most intimate self for one individual; the one who I have the strongest emotions for and the one who I have the strongest attraction to. It's just more comfortable to live my life that way.