|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 104 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 37 of 104:
| 
Jan 19 01:01 UTC 2006 |
re #33 all of the above, I guess different people have different
criteria. When a couple stops being hopelessly in love with each
other, loses that "feeling" about the other, stops having sex together,
stops sleeping in the same bed. When a person realizes he/she cares
for a person more than he actually is in LOVE with that person. When
that person has become more your friend than your lover. Etc.
|
tod
|
|
response 38 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:03 UTC 2006 |
What kind of sucker lays down for that kind of marriage?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 39 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:04 UTC 2006 |
Re #37 (nit-picking): I think it's a contradiction in terms to "care for" a
person more than one is "in love" with them. (Provided that they're the
sort of person one could be "in love" -- and again, I have a broader definition
of "in love" than the "romantic entanglement" definition.)
|
tod
|
|
response 40 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:04 UTC 2006 |
Maybe his idea of "care for" means to be the breadwinner and sugardaddy?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 41 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:26 UTC 2006 |
Samantha: How do we know when we fall in love?
Mrs Krabappel: Oh, don't you worry. Most of you will never fall in
love, and marry out of fear of dying alone.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 42 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:30 UTC 2006 |
Hah.
But then again, I think I've already "fallen in love" several times. (I'm not
sure those meet my own definition for the term, but they certainly meet the
cultural-stereotype definition.)
|
glenda
|
|
response 43 of 104:
|
Jan 19 06:39 UTC 2006 |
Richard, what you are describing as love is really more like infatuation.
Caring for a person more than being IN love with that person is really loving
that person. Loving someone is very, very different than being IN love with
them. Part of the reason marriages fall apart is that people are too wrapped
up with being IN love rather than loving and caring. The infatuation is what
brings a couple together, love is what keeps them together. Infatuation can
happen almost instantly, real love takes time to develop and work from both
parties to stay alive. Deeply caring for your partner is a very big part of
loving them. How can you love without that deep caring? I know that I
wouldn't want any part of that.
STeve and I have been together for over 23 years, the infatuation is mostly
gone. But there is a strong underlying love that is based on friendship
(I don't know about you, but I couldn't stay long term with a person that
wasn't first and foremost my friend) that gets stronger with every year we
are together. I wouldn't want it any other way. Infatuation can get very
annoying after a while, where a lasting friendship and love just gets better
and better. I feel that infatuation is too much of a selfish type of love.
It is more about what you feel when the two of you are together. Loving and
caring for someone is more about sharing the feeling and supporting each
other. Much more important for the long haul.
|
keesan
|
|
response 44 of 104:
|
Jan 19 16:30 UTC 2006 |
Jonathan, do you care for your parents and brother?
|
edina
|
|
response 45 of 104:
|
Jan 19 17:52 UTC 2006 |
Dave and I were friends for a few years before we started "dating"...it's made
a huge difference in our relationship. We knew a lot of each other's quirks
before hand, and I wouldn't be involved with him if we weren't friends now.
Glenda has made a great point about infatuation...in the beginning, there's
so much new relationship energy that once it settles down (and the real work
begins), they see it as a sign of no longer loving the other.
|
tod
|
|
response 46 of 104:
|
Jan 19 18:28 UTC 2006 |
re #0
Changing ideals:
I don't like to take shit from people or be treated as a 2nd citizen.
I've found that I give society as a whole much more slack but those close to
me get less slack and then myself the least amount of slack. Expectations
change and you become more comfortable with who you are and what you need in
your relationships to the point that you learn to either communicate more
effectively or else the bad stuff just boils inside you until it becomes much
harder to address. I try not to let anything boil up inside.
One thing that has changed dramatically in my ideals is my wish for
close family ties while juggling my time with stupid relatives enough to
have a relationship without feeling compromised. In the past, I always
had to compromise myself because I felt helpless when giving an opinion
about who was socially involved in my family. It fell on deaf ears.
Some of that probably came from me not giving alot of slack to people for
who they are..but more often than not I just wasn't part of the picture.
It helps tremendously to have a spouse that puts you before all others
and communicates well when events attract friction.
Instead of getting "whatever" as a response in conversation and then the
S.O. going off on a tantrum or giving the cold shoulder and bitching to their
friends, I'm allowed some slack to discuss things without alot of
belligerence getting in the way or hearing complaints second hand.
My previous relationships had alot of rude people in the fray and it bothered
me that I couldn't punch their lights out. Now, my spouse is more critical
than I am about the same issues so we get along like peas in a pod.
|
edina
|
|
response 47 of 104:
|
Jan 19 18:37 UTC 2006 |
I think Todd and I subscribe to the notion that "Second time's a charm". ;-)
|
kingjon
|
|
response 48 of 104:
|
Jan 19 18:49 UTC 2006 |
Re #41: I don't think I could possibly care for someone in the same way I care
for my parents and my brother and at some other time in my life be "in love"
with her -- the attractions, while similar, are directed toward different (IMO
mutually exclusive) traits. (Confusing the discussion is our language's lack of
precision.)
|
tod
|
|
response 49 of 104:
|
Jan 19 19:05 UTC 2006 |
re #47
I don't really consider my former marriage legit when I do a mental
comparison.
|
edina
|
|
response 50 of 104:
|
Jan 19 19:12 UTC 2006 |
I consider it training ground. Dad refers to it as my "mulligan".
|
keesan
|
|
response 51 of 104:
|
Jan 19 19:24 UTC 2006 |
Jon, do you care for your friends and would you want to fall in love with
someone you could not care for as a friend? And do you really believe that
you can't have a relationship with someone unless you are in love?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 52 of 104:
|
Jan 19 19:28 UTC 2006 |
I don't believe that I can't have a relationship of some sort without being "in
love" -- just that a romantic relationship and a (very close) friendship are
*two breeds of fish* that just happen to look similar at the very beginning and
after the "infatuation" wears off. And family is a third kind altogether.
|
tod
|
|
response 53 of 104:
|
Jan 19 19:32 UTC 2006 |
If romance wears off, count me out. Might as well be a bowling buddy.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 54 of 104:
|
Jan 19 20:04 UTC 2006 |
My husband and I started off as friends first. Also, there's a
difference between loving someone and acting in a loving manner. Being
'in love' to me implies the first- loviing someone. That doesn't mean
you treat them well. A loving manner can last beyond the initial
infatuation stage of a relationship.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 55 of 104:
|
Jan 19 20:12 UTC 2006 |
Re #54, first sentence: The people I got my idea on the subject from are of the
opinion that "love" (in the sense that gets people married) and friendship are
mutually exclusive -- just their early stages can look identical. (They
recommend *assuming* it's a friendship until it's blatantly obvious to everyone
that it isn't, since the easiest way to ruin a male-female relationship is to
try to make a romance where there isn't one.)
|
jadecat
|
|
response 56 of 104:
|
Jan 19 21:03 UTC 2006 |
Well, how does the blatantly obvious happen?
At some point one of the two people has to make a move, there's a
conversation that must take place that changes the relationship from
'just' a friendship to a relationship of a more romantic nature.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 57 of 104:
|
Jan 19 21:11 UTC 2006 |
Never having gone through this process myself -- I only heard this theory last
semester, and I've never gotten up the courage to ask someone out anyway -- I
don't know.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 58 of 104:
|
Jan 19 21:19 UTC 2006 |
I suppose it's not uncommon for the relationship to pass through an
awkward stage where it may not be clear, even to the participants
themselves, whether there is a romantic quality to what is going on.
And yes, it is probably best for outsiders to keep a respectful
distance and not make a big deal out of things. Nothing kills
romance (or even a non-romantic one-night-stand) quite like clueless
meddling.
|
tod
|
|
response 59 of 104:
|
Jan 19 21:23 UTC 2006 |
Yea, I try to keep the caretakers out of the parlor when we're going at it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 60 of 104:
|
Jan 19 22:19 UTC 2006 |
Jon, do you have any women friends? Cousins? Neighbors that you know well?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 61 of 104:
|
Jan 19 22:22 UTC 2006 |
Friends, I hope so -- but not any I know well enough to begin to differentiate
how I would hope to stand to them. (I counted once, and found I could think of
over sixteen different kinds of "love" -- with romantic love being only one.)
|