|
|
Kitzyma
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
Should 'real' love last forever?
If a love doesn't last, was it 'real' in the first place?
If it can be 'real' love and still not last, in what way does it differ from other forms of love or even from mere infatuation?
If it can be 'real' love and still be temporary, what's the point of looking for 'real' love? Why not settle a temporary infatuation?
If 'real' love doesn't last, won't it bring more pain when it ends than the ending of a 'lesser' love?
Why should I want someone to 'really love' me if that love might stop at any time? Would I not be better off if they just fancied me and wanted to be nice to me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
|
|
|
It starts exciting and turns into friendship. Good friendship lasts, sometimes for ever. What am I missing?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
Having not paid $11.95 for the full article, my comments relate only to the abstract. The key part of which seems to be:
"that romantic love, without the obsession component typical of early stage romantic love, can and does exist in long-term marriages"
I don't think that answers all my questions.
e.g.
Can that be interpreted to mean that the long-term marriages that retain romantic love start with 'real' love, but the long-term marriages that do not retain romantic love didn't start with 'real' love in the first place?
Is 'real' love (sometimes referred to as 'true' love) the same as 'romantic' love?
There seem to be several ways in which the word 'romantic' is used, e.g. "evoking or given to thoughts and feelings of love, esp idealized or sentimental love" or "impractical, visionary, or idealistic". Neither of those, especially because they contain the words idealised or idealistic, fill me with confidence that such love is 'real'.
Even if it is assumed that 'real'love is the same as 'romantic' love, the study (or at least the abstract) doesn't give any indication of what proportion of long-term marriages retain romantic love, merely stating that it can and does exist. People can and do win the lottery, but it wouldn't be a great idea to make plans for one's future based on the possibility of winning the lottery.
It seems that a large proportion of couples in the UK nowadays live together without getting married, and as a large proportion of marriages break down before they become particularly long-term. That, combined with my own experience of the proportion of 'loving couples' that break up, makes me wonder if the study is particularly relevant to the nature of 'real' love or 'true' love.
Suppose someone says to me, "My love for you is real, and you are my true love."
Does that mean the love is forever or just until they fall in love with someone else? Or maybe it merely means they fancy you and will be nice to you as long as you don't annoy them, or irritate them, or piss them off too much.
My feeling at the moment is that if it isn't at least likely to last for a lifetime then there's not much point in investing lots of effort to obtain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
|
|
|
But, if it turns up, what if it lasts? Isn;t that worth some investment, just in case?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me, love is a "now" - it's a function of the present, so not something that I worry about obtaining, nor worry when it's absent, but enjoy when it's there.
I do think that different relationships have different timespans: we all grow and change, and if that means two people run together for a while and then their paths diverge, I see nothing wrong with that. But I've known couples (both gay and straight) together for over fifty years, and still evidently very much in love. But most of my own relationships have lasted between five and ten years - I don't think that makes them in any way valueless, and (with the exception of my disastrous first relationship)I still cherish all my ex's.
My current relationship has been running for three years. If it lasts the rest of my life, great. But given the 36 years age difference, there's a strong chance he'll outlive me, or our paths will diverge. But in some sense Maurice will always be part of who I am - the love may or may not change to affection, but what we have now will be no less valid.
When my heart leaps for joy at seeing a rainbow, or hearing a bird sing, or a shaft of sunlight through the clouds, I don't worry about what happens when it's over: I simply enjoy.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
"NW wrote on Mon, 01 April 2013 09:56" But most of my own relationships have lasted between five and ten years - I don't think that makes them in any way valueless
--
I hope that I've not given the impression that brief relationships are valueless, because I believe that even a brief 'holiday' romance can have considerable value. I also totally agree that enjoyment of many things like relationships, rainbows, sex, etc. is very much a 'now' thing. Also, I appreciate that trying to hold onto such transient joys can actually destroy the enjoyment of the moment.
My 'problem' (for want of a better word) is that for me love and relationship are not necessarily the same things. Maybe I don't properly understand exactly what people mean by the two words. I've experienced love without a relationship and had relationships in which there was no romantic love but more a sort of caring friendship with mutual sexual attraction. So I agree that a transient relationship can be valuable, but I doubt the value or importance of transient 'romantic love'.
Romantic love, especially when it's not returned, can be more painful than pleasurable. So I wonder why, in our society, people seem to put so much value on, and spend so much effort looking for, a romantic-loving-relationship.
Other kinds of love aren't so epemeral as romantic love. e.g. The love of a parent for a child may change with time, but it doesn't go away, even if they have a 'nicer' child. If romantic love is so likely to be transient then why is it given such great importance? Why should I care if someone says they love me if I know it's only temporary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WTF does it matter? If you feel it, enjoy it. If it lasts, great, if it fades, ah well.
You might as well ask if water is really wet, and if it satisfies your thirst, why drink it when you will just be thirsty again later?
Or, why have coffee with breakfast? You'll just be thirsty again by lunch, and end up leaving coffee for juice with your lunch. But why have juice for lunch when you'll cheat on it by having a soda mid-day. And then, why even have that soda since you'll leave it and have wine with dinner.
Oh, why eat oatmeal with that coffee in the morning when it will fade over time and you'll have that sandwich with the juice for lunch? And indeed, why have the sandwich? You'll just have salad and pasta at dinner.
So, why drink or eat? Just starve and wonder why you can't stay with only coffee and oatmeal for every meal for the rest of your life.
[Updated on: Mon, 01 April 2013 18:22]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 228
|
|
|
"Smokr wrote on Mon, 01 April 2013 18:17"WTF does it matter? If you feel it, enjoy it. If it lasts, great, if it fades, ah well.
--
Well, actually, that's my point, though (in my usual manner) I wasn't quite so succinct. 
One might well ask 'WTF does it matter' if romantic love exists, if it's transient, if it's real love, if it's true love, or if it has any real value at all. Yet our society makes a big thing of romance, of finding the soul mate, of living happily ever after, of a deep love that never ends. Look at all the movies, TV programs, and stories (even some of my stories!) about such things. Romantic love may have always existed, but until the mediaeval age of 'courtly love', less than a thousand years ago, was it given so much importance?
If romantic love is a transient thing to enjoy while it lasts, is it a good basis for a committed relationship or even a marriage? If transient enjoyment of a temporary romantic love is all that matters, why is it any more important or more desirable than a good shag with someone you like and who likes you enough to be nice to you? If romantic love is just something transient to enjoy in the moment, why use up so much time an energy looking for it (the 'real thing') when with much less effort you can get a lot more shags and fun with a nice guy who likes you but doesn't romantically love you?
If we brainwash our children (well, not my children, cos I don't have any) into believing that romantic love is more important than anything else, is it any wonder that relationships break down when they realise that romance doesn't last and the relationship doesn't have any more permanent foundation? This isn't recent - e.g. Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet believed their romance was more imnportant than family loyalty - but was it always of paramount importance?
If people enter into relationships and even marriages based upon 'real' love and its long-term viability, is it any wonder that those relationships and marriages break down?
Isn't it time we accepted that romantic love is just a bit of transient fun and accept that it's apparent importance was mostly propaganda spread by 18th and 19th century Western novelists, and that the propaganda was spread so successfully that by the 20th century it was accepted as important by most of Western society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Kitzyma wrote on Mon, 01 April 2013 13:11"Romantic love, especially when it's not returned, can be more painful than pleasurable.
--
I don't see that kind of thing as being any kind of love - I see it as being a hormonal obsession (which is often one-sided, but can be mutual). If things go well, it can be a precursor to love, which is great, but I don't mistake it for the thing itself. Some people get off on that kind of buzz, and it can be both fun and dangerous: it certainly isn't anything I'd go out of my way to look for.
I think a real long-term love has to be built, step by step. One can build from a starting point of obsession, or from a starting point of friendship, or probably from others. It can be massively life-enhancing, or considerably restricting. Couples can grow alongside each other, or grow apart - there aren't any guarantees, and it always involves work on the part of both parties (like anything worthwhile).
For me, I'm happy being single, but if a friendship offers the chance of developing into love, I'm happy to try for it, on the basis that the best things in my life have just been possibilities that have presented themselves unplanned which I've followed up. Of course there's work, and the certainty of getting hurt to some greater or lesser extent ... for me, those have never been reasons to refrain from doing something (compare with coming out as gay), but I understand that for others it may be different.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Well, actually, that's my point, though (in my usual manner) I wasn't quite so succinct.
A pitfall I drop off into myself far too often. That landing is a bitch. LOL
Quote:One might well ask 'WTF does it matter' if romantic love exists, if it's transient, if it's real love, if it's true love, or if it has any real value at all.
Exactly. That is what we ask in great stories and movies.
Does it matter if John loves Tom? Does it matter if Tom loves him back? Will John and Tom find love? Or will they carry out a dalliance and discover they have nothing in common but a love of giving each other orgasms? Is that 'love' enough to make a relationship? Will that kind of relationship last? What happens if one finds something more intangible and rewarding? What if the other won't give up what he has?
Entertainment. Don't form a life-view based on entertainments. Be entertained and move on with life.
Quote:Yet our society makes a big thing of romance, of finding the soul mate, of living happily ever after, of a deep love that never ends. Look at all the movies, TV programs, and stories (even some of my stories!) about such things.
Entertainment is just that - entertainment. We don't want to read about the guy that never found love, or gave it a shot, but lived alone and never tried. Boring and depressing. The stories exist, and I've read a few, they aren't fun. We want entertained, and entertainers entertain. They write what we want to read, or what they want to write.
Quote:Romantic love may have always existed, but until the mediaeval age of 'courtly love', less than a thousand years ago, was it given so much importance?
No, it wasn't. But then, neither were baths and hygiene, cooking foods properly, fidelity, nor free speech or thought. If you said the Queen of Spain was fat, you died in the stocks while the fat, filthy, diseased whore watched as unwashed slaves stuffed undercooked pig into her craw. Meantime, the peasants had to dodge chamberpots being emptied from windows into the streets, thus it became custom for the woman to walk to the right of the man and carry a parasol.
Quote:If romantic love is a transient thing to enjoy while it lasts, is it a good basis for a committed relationship or even a marriage?
Hell yes. Life itself is a transient thing to enjoy while it lasts.
Quote:If transient enjoyment of a temporary romantic love is all that matters,
...and it is...
Quote:why is it any more important or more desirable than a good shag with someone you like and who likes you enough to be nice to you?
Who says it is? Depends on whom you ask, and when you ask it.
Quote:If romantic love is just something transient to enjoy in the moment, why use up so much time an energy looking for it (the 'real thing') when with much less effort you can get a lot more shags and fun with a nice guy who likes you but doesn't romantically love you?
Because it's worth looking for once you find it. Like treasure on the beach.
Not to mention, that "moment" it lasts for can be your entire life. Rarely, but it can.
If you say something you may or may not find, and that may or may not last, is too much work to try to obtain, then what about looking for a better job? Or better car? Or better place to live? The job might be eliminated, the car will certainly break down and wear out and need replaced, so why even look for one to begin with? Or why move to a better place when it might change and become like where you moved from?
Because if you don't, there is no chance it will be better.
"If you try and it didn't matter, at least you tried. But if you try and it matters, then it mattered to try and it was worth it." - Alex Raymond
Quote:If we brainwash our children (well, not my children, cos I don't have any) into believing that romantic love is more important than anything else, is it any wonder that relationships break down when they realise that romance doesn't last and the relationship doesn't have any more permanent foundation?
No wonder at all. We indoctrinate children to the stupidest things.
Quote:This isn't recent - e.g. Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet believed their romance was more imnportant than family loyalty - but was it always of paramount importance?
To them. They were kids, true, but it was to them all the same. Tragic at that, thus becoming an immortal story. STORY = ENTERTAINMENT. Though often this has been a very real thing, too, thus making it even more endearing a tale. Shakespeare knew what made a good story.
Quote:If people enter into relationships and even marriages based upon 'real' love and its long-term viability, is it any wonder that those relationships and marriages break down?
Generalization. Not all marriages thus based break down. I can point to several marriages in my own family that are still going strong, and several that lasted full lifetimes. They didn't break down. Some do, some don't, no absolutes.
Quote:Isn't it time we accepted that romantic love is just a bit of transient fun and accept that it's apparent importance was mostly propaganda spread by 18th and 19th century Western novelists, and that the propaganda was spread so successfully that by the 20th century it was accepted as important by most of Western society?
No. Not only was it not spread solely by Western novelists, romantic love was written about in all societies throughout recorded history.
The one guy I loved more than anyone/anything else was enough that I still have little to no desire for another. If it happens, great. If not, I had what I consider the real thing. Enough so, I don't care to try again, but remain open to finding it again. I just don't see finding someone so perfectly wonderful again. It was a miracle the first time, I'm not betting on a second coming. Pun omitted. LOL
I'd accept a far less powerful love. I'd accept infatuation and dalliance. I'm not excluding them, I'm simply saying - Love is worth finding! That makes it ipso facto, worth looking for. And fighting for.
And edited to add...
Yes, yes, and yes, to NW's points.
[Updated on: Thu, 04 April 2013 12:36]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
