How do you see love?

[Just Games]

^^^ Of course a strong passion will be found - nature isn't dumb, it will encourage us to mate, bond, etc. by rewarding us with those amazing feelings. It's just really funny that people when they experience these strong emotions think it's some kind of feeling on a higher mental plane and a special emotional experience only reserved to human kind because we're godly or whatever, and some love is "true love" while other types of love can be of an inferior type.

When you see how mother animals defend their offspring you probably just see it as instinct instead of some deep love on an emotional level. Why though when humans do something that looks like love is it above the level of other animals and becomes virtuous and special?
If other animals bond and feel sexually attracted and enjoy hanging out together is it true love too and not just an instinct and a behaviour they're wired to engage in? Why should humans be different? Some people think we and our oh so special feels aren't bound by the laws of nature and have transcended to something on a higher spiritual level, with a soul and stuff, and our feels are "true love" and not just a result of evolutionary processes. It's really funny how much in love humans are with their own experience.

Of course those nice feelings are there, but they're just that: feelings. Feelings are created in our bodies. Our bodies and brains have undergone an evolutionary process that has resulted in certain biological algorithms that will produce those wonderful feelings of "love". The feels are there for sure and it's great to go after them and enjoy them. Just because it feels good doesn't make it "true" love, especially since the "bond" in the case of sexual partners isn't even an unconditional bond and wouldn't be created in the absence of physical interest. Further, we're not a monogamous species and I don't know why people are trying to delude themselves so hard into thinking they ought to be it to be good, and it's a "goal" to be "accomplished"  and a display "true love". 

I don't even understand the need for "partnership". I very well understand the need for physical affection, company etc. But people always make it out as if we had lived in nuclear family units with long term monogamy already in prehistoric times, with one male supplying his female with resources - and strangely she depended on only him alone for the resources she and her babies (who were apparently all fathered by him lol) ate up, because people conveniently forget we lived in tribes or groups, but nevermind. This whole psychological need for "partnership" and finding one's "other half" to feel "complete" just seems like some psychological problem to me. Sure it's the only option we really have as adults in our current environment with nuclear families as the norm, if we want company, not live alone in a home, get physical touch, ... so people are just going to take that route.

But Myra it's fun mate.It's not a  problem to most people it's a challenge to find that special person that hopefully you get to spend your whole life together with.Don't you think as humans we are amazingly lucky to get the chance to mate up,have loads of ***,have babies,see them grow up with all the lows that life has to throw at you making the highs so special.Alright it can be dull at times but most times it is a drug that humans are addicted to and in my eyes it is the best drug and the majority of people want it.As finished said No one wants to be alone,sit at toilet tables in resteraunt doing city breaks,sitting alone in cinemas etc it's much more fun to do it with someone you really love.Yeah we are on this earth to make babies look after them as they grow up teach them skills to help with the big wide dangerous world out there and it can be dull at times but mostly it's fun,rewarding and we are all lucky to get that chance to do it especially when in a long term relationship with someone you have a deep love for.Some want it more than others and will work there hardest when young to achieve this goal.I bet alot of people who have long term relationships/marriages are the product of their parents having the same thing.My parents were married for 45 yeas,my wife's about the same.My sister and brother,my wife's sister and brother my broth in law are all in long term marriages.Alright there not all a bed of roses for everyone but to alot it's just plain wonderful.One of the biggest websites in the world is Mumsnet where Mums get to offload /moan about there husbands talk about babies,all sorts of human **** that they have to suffer and the majority mostly love it and want the addiction of a long term relationship with someone they really love and all its challenges of long term partnerships .If you have the bonus of having that long term relationship with that partner that you really love after the kids have left its even more fun because you get to do all the **** you didn't have time to do whilst making babies,unless you have pots of money lol and get the best of both worlds.Apologise if all a bit rambling but it's early here in Blighty and I'm really soaked after taking my wife to the station at fuggin five in the morning but I actually enjoy it because it's part of the fun of a long lasting relationship keeping your partner safe.I could write tons more about it but can't be arsed because I'm a bit lazy lol.

 

[Myra]

Don't you think as humans we are amazingly lucky to get the chance to mate up,have loads of ***,have babies,see them grow up with all the lows that life has to throw at you making the highs so special.

No I don't. Nothing is special or amazingly lucky about humans having *** and babies. That's what all animals do who don't reproduce asexually.

I bet alot of people who have long term relationships/marriages are the product of their parents having the same thing.

yes exactly.

My parents were married for 45 yeas,my wife's about the same.My sister and brother,my wife's sister and brother my broth in law are all in long term marriages.Alright there not all a bed of roses for everyone but to alot it's just plain wonderful.

most middle aged people and also many of the people of my generation have parents who were/are married for life. I don't know why people are always mentioning such pair constellations of older people as examples of true love. People of those generations just remained in their marriage whether it was the best for them individually or not, it was just what you do in life. It doesn't say anything about their true desires or the quality of their partnership and love. It just says sth about the society and culture they lived in, and to quote your words again: "I bet alot of people who have long term relationships/marriages are the product of their parents having the same thing." - their parents / enviornment they grew up in did the same so they just copy behaviour and social structure because we're social creatures.

One of the biggest websites in the world is Mumsnet where Mums get to offload /moan about there husbands talk about babies,all sorts of human **** that they have to suffer and the majority mostly love it

Sounds horrible

It's part of the fun of a long lasting relationship keeping your partner safe.

Are us adult humans nowadays really in need of a partner to keep us safe? What from? 

it is the best drug and the majority of people want

Exactly, it's a biochemical reaction. All animals want to feel the wonderful reward hormones rushing through our bodies which cause what you say the addiction. Of course it feels great to have ***, bond, and moreover as social animals to achieve something society has set as a goal (such as "finding the one"). That doesn't make the decision to engage in it anything else than acting on a biochemical algorithm.

 

[Myra]

Hi Yeti1980

Fact is that actions like I've described touch us deeply and unexplainably and we're all the better for feeling that way.

they touch us unexplainably because we still know very little about how the brain and the mind work.

Why is it that good deeds for other people, seeing the alleviation of suffering, enjoying other people's success just because it's good to see them happy, or hearing that some distant person is back out of hospital such good news?

One reason might just be the ego: For some people it might cause them to feel a certain sense of power to be in a position where they can help others with good deeds or to be someone who is consulted for advice etc. But usually people will not be consciously aware of it and not be able to admit it to themselves.

The way we are socialised also impacts on how we show good deeds or even what we consider to be a good deed, if we are people pleasers or not. Helper-syndrome is an extreme form but it provides a clear example for that helpers are helping others to derive an enjoyable feeling from it for themselves. Helping is in fact selfish. Because it feels rewarding to the brain, therefore we do it. It feels rewarding because we're social animals and evolved to not just act in our own interest but also consider the interest of other humans. Therefore we developed empathy. Therefore our brain rewards us with a nice biochemical reaction when we save, protect, care about, bond with, etc. another human.

From an evolutionary perspective, it is also in our own interest to rescue a fellow human from a lion or from drowning, because our own survival depended on that human,  so our brains better reward us for looking out for each other. No, we wouldn't consciously think: "hmm.. should I rescue him? I might need his help tomorrow when I gather food, and he might be useful if I get injured next week, ..."  because it's already an automatic behaviour that has become hardwired during the evolutionary process because those who helped their group members had a better chance of surviving themselves. Therefore you don't think any of that on a conscious level anymore, but your behavioural algorithms are already in place and your brain is going to set off some nice reward hormones when you engage in that behaviour.

If life were just a bunch of scientific sensations and survivalist instincts, this programme would be completely pointless and wouldn't be any kind of success. Fact is that actions like I've described touch us deeply and unexplainably and we're all the better for feeling that way.

We evolved to have areas in our brains that causes us to feel empathy. You see someone bleed on tv, your brain will signal to you that there's pain. If you see a hero on tv rescuing a suffering person, your brain will signal to you the success, reward and admiration for the hero, and signal the pleasant relief of the sufferering, all in the form of an enjoyable mix of biochemicals, while actually you're just sitting on your couch not doing anything. Maybe while watching, your ego will also come in and either identify with the hero or with the suffering person who got rescued, and this will further strengthen the exciting sensations you feel. Like Finished said, that's why different people will be inclined to react to different types of shows, advertisements, etc., because it is always easier to emphasize with someone you identify with, and also because different people have different brains and emphasize differently.

Again empathy doesn't exist because it's such a nice enjoyable lovely extra or a cherry on top of the cake to make our human lives sweet and special. It is there because that's how our brains formed during evolution because it served us. It helps us cooperate, communicate, manipulate, it helps us help others, ... all of which we humans need to do to survive as a species. You see someone suffer, your brain will signal suffering to you and you want to replace the unpleasant feeling by a more positive one.   Because of empathy we like to view humans doing various stuff on tv, because it releases exciting feelings that we otherwise cannot find in our boring homes and our brain seeks out stimulation.  Media knows that and they don't broadcast that TV series because they're altruistic and want to share the love, but to make money. 
When you obersve the strong emotions released by the brains of people who like to watch football/soccer matches, you can see how strong feelings can be simply the products of the ego and of group identification, i.e. some ancient behavioural mechanisms, but all those feelings are actually about something that is in its essence silly nonsense, right?

 

[Finished]

^ Yep!

 

[Yeti1980]

Hi again Myra,

Another interesting post, I don't mean any personal offence with anything I'm about to say below but I have to stay firmly on my side of the river on this one.

Once again I have to completely disagree with many of the things you've said, particularly in relation to good deeds and ego. It appears that your own experience of life and it's motivations is fundamentally different to my own. I'm surprised and quite shocked by the way in which you try to explain away perfectly good things as some kind of flawed or selfish process that reminds me of a snake eating it's own tail.

You'll probably tell me I'm being patronising, but I really wish that you could feel things in the way that I do and that you could see the things I've seen in the way that I've seen them. As I've said previously, to belittle love is to belittle life, and I don't agree with doing either.

I really wish that you could see things from my side, when I attempt to see things from your side I worry for you and how it must make the world seem to you (again, you'll tell me I'm being patronising). Not everything in life is down to some sort of underhand motive or selfish end. I really encourage you to stop trying to twist the snake's tail back in it's mouth, honestly not everything is some kind of self-gratifying circle.

Ps. With regards the TV programme, it's broadcast by the BBC so comes out of a pre-existing budget, it doesn't make money in and of itself. As it is, that budget is limited and many, many people and businesses per episode give their time, effort, skill and materials for no rewards (the BBC doesn't do company promotion etc, so it's not a form of advertising for the businesses involved.)

 

[Myra]

Yeti1980,
You say that I am trying to "explain perfectly good things away as some kind of flawed process". Ask yourself why you believe that saying the human brain being naturally wired to feel love and empathy and to release love hormones is a belittlement, something less good, indicates a sad outlook on life and is a description of a flawed process?  Why is it in your eyes not something that is good? Is nature and evolution not good enough? I am not uncomfortable with or distressed by anything that I write. I wonder why you are?

If I get a crush that's a nice feeling. If I feel sexually aroused that's a nice feeling. But no magic is at work there. Similarly, I engage in exercice because I know it has the potential to elevate my mood by releasing dopamine and some other feel-good chemicals, and it can benefit my health in other ways, e.g. by increasing the oxygen supply to my brain, increase blood circulation in my body, prevent cardiovascular disease to some extent, reduce stress by reducing cholesterol and it works anti-inflammatory etc. I don't see exercice as a flawed process not worth engaging in but as something that improves my experience and life, even though the reason it causes the improvements are of a biological and not of a supernatural nature. 

Ok,I was wrong and the BBC does not directly profit from streaming the show. Thanks for clarifying. However, the reason you emphasize and feel with the people is still because the human brain evolved to be capable of empathy, and I don't know why you think that's bad or why it makes you uncomfortable. Some people such as sociopaths or psychopaths wouldn't enjoy watching those shows due to differences in their brains that cause a lack of empathy. I don't know where you believe our feelings stem from, maybe that we have a soul or something spiritual that produces the emotions. I guess we won't agree.

 

[Yeti1980]

Thanks for your response again Myra, what you say actually makes more sense to me this time around. What's been concerning me in your previous posts is the "meh" vibe that seemed to be coming across in them, sorry if I've misinterpreted your feelings. It all came across as a little too cold and dry, or maybe that was just the way I was reading it.

Nature is breath-taking, hence my earlier comments about tropical birds and all that stuff, and I agree about exercise and hormones and exercising for mood etc. I'm not denying these things, or trying to tell you that you are somehow bad for having a different opinion, it's just that your responses seemed to include all of the most cynical possibilities with none of the emotion. I'm not trying to have a spiritual or religious debate here, it's more a debate about the quality of human feelings and how we experience each other and the world around us.

I still stand by my view that the great scale of life, of evolution, of empathy, of emotion etc are all things greater than us and that we shouldn't try to see ourselves as bionic robots with constantly cynical and self-interested intentions. A key thing here is that you keep talking about our brain functions and how our brains have evolved to think in certain ways etc, but the question that arises is : Do we really just feel with our heads?? My answer is that we are peculiarly heart-led and that our chest is often stronger than our minds. I'm talking about those strange chest crunching feelings, like hearing about a kid being hit by a car a few streets away, hearing that a friend is having a bad time, or after you've said the wrong thing and really hurt somebody's feelings. These are really the deepest feelings of self and conscience, and to me they are the things to be most respected and most led by.

Perhaps that kid was a complete pain and will never break your window again, and perhaps you didn't like that person you hurt the feelings of...but still it feels terrible in your heart and it outweighs anything in your practical thought. And that really is my point, somehow our hearts often seem to know better than our minds, and that is often both mysterious and very strong.

 

[Just Games]

Don't you think as humans we are amazingly lucky to get the chance to mate up,have loads of ***,have babies,see them grow up with all the lows that life has to throw at you making the highs so special.

No I don't. Nothing is special or amazingly lucky about humans having *** and babies. That's what all animals do who don't reproduce asexually.

I bet alot of people who have long term relationships/marriages are the product of their parents having the same thing.

yes exactly.

My parents were married for 45 yeas,my wife's about the same.My sister and brother,my wife's sister and brother my broth in law are all in long term marriages.Alright there not all a bed of roses for everyone but to alot it's just plain wonderful.

most middle aged people and also many of the people of my generation have parents who were/are married for life. I don't know why people are always mentioning such pair constellations of older people as examples of true love. People of those generations just remained in their marriage whether it was the best for them individually or not, it was just what you do in life. It doesn't say anything about their true desires or the quality of their partnership and love. It just says sth about the society and culture they lived in, and to quote your words again: "I bet alot of people who have long term relationships/marriages are the product of their parents having the same thing." - their parents / enviornment they grew up in did the same so they just copy behaviour and social structure because we're social creatures.

One of the biggest websites in the world is Mumsnet where Mums get to offload /moan about there husbands talk about babies,all sorts of human **** that they have to suffer and the majority mostly love it

Sounds horrible

It's part of the fun of a long lasting relationship keeping your partner safe.

Are us adult humans nowadays really in need of a partner to keep us safe? What from? 

it is the best drug and the majority of people want

Exactly, it's a biochemical reaction. All animals want to feel the wonderful reward hormones rushing through our bodies which cause what you say the addiction. Of course it feels great to have ***, bond, and moreover as social animals to achieve something society has set as a goal (such as "finding the one"). That doesn't make the decision to engage in it anything else than acting on a biochemical algorithm.

Myra we are lucky.When did you last see ten old wildebeest sitting in a circle chucking a ball at each other with there kids visiting once a month in a residential home  .Older animals get eaten because they are slow.Alright predators like lions possibly get to lie around in the sun with there paws in the air contemplating life getting scraps left by the younger ones but most don't live to old age.That's why we are lucky as humans  getting to see our kids grow up .As an older male with a daughter I bet from what I can hear your parents are proud of you and lucky to see you grow up ,am I right?That is really special take it from me.Keeping your partner safe from other adults that are out to do you no good that is what.For me being a bit prehistoric that is the role for me as a man.My wife has been knocked over and mugged years ago walking to work in the early morning,but even if that hadn't happened I still make sure when on her own when it's dark i'm there when I can to keep her safe.Now if she was a black belt or marshal arts expert alright could be different  :club: .Anyway that's part of love for your partner ,but that's just me probably different for somebody else.
Mumsnet is very interesting by the way covers all subjects and having four females in my family at any one time under my roof is very helpful to understand stuff from a female perspective.Anyway it's been fun talking to you thanks for hanging around on this website not many do

 

[Myra]

I still stand by my view that the great scale of life, of evolution, of empathy, of emotion etc are all things greater than us and that we shouldn't try to see ourselves as bionic robots with constantly cynical and self-interested intentions. A key thing here is that you keep talking about our brain functions and how our brains have evolved to think in certain ways etc, but the question that arises is : Do we really just feel with our heads?? My answer is that we are peculiarly heart-led and that our chest is often stronger than our minds. I'm talking about those strange chest crunching feelings, like hearing about a kid being hit by a car a few streets away, hearing that a friend is having a bad time, or after you've said the wrong thing and really hurt somebody's feelings. These are really the deepest feelings of self and conscience, and to me they are the things to be most respected and most led by.

Perhaps that kid was a complete pain and will never break your window again, and perhaps you didn't like that person you hurt the feelings of...but still it feels terrible in your heart and it outweighs anything in your practical thought. And that really is my point, somehow our hearts often seem to know better than our minds, and that is often both mysterious and very strong.

A quick Google search tells me the sensations felt in your chest happen because the vagus nerve gets stimulated by the brain in those situations and it also gets stimulated not just by your own problems but, because we're a social species, also by the pain of others via empathy.

I think, personally, it's one of the peoblems of the ego wanting to believe that we look out for each other because of a greater conscious and not because it helped us thrive as a species. It's a problem of the ego wanting to think our lives are meaningful, wanting to believe that there must be something greater than us and that there is a "purpose". 

I understand you see it differently.

It is in no way wrong to listen to our feelings because they are there to serve us and help us navigate various circumstances. The human organism doesn't produce them for no reason, so if they weren't beneficial (or at least had been beneficial in the distant past) in guiding your behaviour, they wouldn't be there.

But they're just a product of our biology - in my opinion.

 

[Myra]

Myra we are lucky.When did you last see ten old wildebeest sitting in a circle chucking a ball at each other with there kids visiting once a month in a residential home  .Older animals get eaten because they are slow.Alright predators like lions possibly get to lie around in the sun with there paws in the air contemplating life getting scraps left by the younger ones but most don't live to old age.That's why we are lucky as humans  getting to see our kids grow up .As an older male with a daughter I bet from what I can hear your parents are proud of you and lucky to see you grow up ,am I right?That is really special take it from me.Keeping your partner safe from other adults that are out to do you no good that is what.For me being a bit prehistoric that is the role for me as a man.My wife has been knocked over and mugged years ago walking to work in the early morning,but even if that hadn't happened I still make sure when on her own when it's dark i'm there when I can to keep her safe.Now if she was a black belt or marshal arts expert alright could be different  :club: .Anyway that's part of love for your partner ,but that's just me probably different for somebody else.
Mumsnet is very interesting by the way covers all subjects and having four females in my family at any one time under my roof is very helpful to understand stuff from a female perspective.Anyway it's been fun talking to you thanks for hanging around on this website not many do

Yeah we are lucky to not get eaten, because humans have positioned themselves at the top of the food chain and become the most dominant animal on earth. 
I think in the past humans became grandparents quite early. There were probably more great-grandparents getting to see their great-grandchild or great great grandchild than nowadays. 

If other animals don't care about seeing their grandkids they aren't really missing out on anything right? It's relative what is important. other animals enjoy doing stuff that we don't care for either and we are therefore not missing out on it. So it's relative. Of course those other animal species are threatened by us humans and even if they never see a human in their lives we will have compromised their health via environmental pollution, which sucks for them. Earth would be nicer without humans.

 

[Yeti1980]

Hi again Myra,

I understand the science that you speak of, that we feel things as nerve stimulations etc. But the question is why, not how. I still dispute the rationale that it is ego, I can't see how doing good for others in ways that will never pay you back can be termed as an ego trip, or how having sympathetic feelings for living things can be seen as self beneficial in a kind of selfish way. If it were purely ego, surely it would be far more negative? Ego is a selfish thing and surely it would be more attuned to wiping other people out rather than helping them along. Instead what we have is Altruism, which seems an odd place to reach if we were always self-interested. People have been willing to die for good causes, that's about as extreme a form of Altruism as you can get. It's hard to see how that person could have been acting on vanity/ego/self interest.

Also with regard to your comment about the world being better without humans, that may be environmentally true at the moment but it is only because you are human that you can appreciate that fact. You might also say that without humans the world wouldn't be so deeply appreciated. We have the gift of intelligence and conscience (well, some people seem not to, but that's another debate), and in a nutshell that's what we've both been trying to say these last few posts.

In the end this is a debate about the quality and enjoyment of life and whether we live it as a heartfelt experience or as a science. I choose the former as the other option is just too dry and takes the joy out of life, to my mind the purely scientific approach bleaches life into a meaningless corner that in my heart of hearts I can't accept.

 

[alexandra93]

"Romantic" love is a conditional type of love and supported (at least in the initial phases) by the release of intoxicating hormones and usually lustful feelings.

Unconditional love is the type of love you can feel for your pet, child, parent. I think, personally, that's probably the "truest" love. You can know you'll love your dog/child no matter what until death do you apart, but when you think or promise you'll love your romantic partner until death does you apart it's just an illusion most of the times.

In most cases it is an illusion, indeed, I agree. But there are exceptions.

---

Hi Alexandra,

I agree with so much of what you say. As I see it, as human beings we are all flawed in some way and one of the commonest flaws is to prioritise other things over love. Money, image, position, you name it. In reality, love is the only treasure. I mean this in the platonic, not romantic sense. If people just had the same basic level of love and respect for each other, society would be a better place and so many lives would be improved or even saved.

As for romantic love and the roles of two people in a relationship, it really depends on the couple. I don't think it's healthy to say that the wife stays home and cooks while the man works, and all of that old fashioned stuff. In truth, modern life and modern love mean that things are much more fluid and that within a relationship the roles can be very happily shifted around to suit each other. What matters is to love, cherish and support each other.

As for being a loner or being single etc, that in no way diminishes a person or their place in the world. There are plenty of positives in the single life, these days I'm married with responsibilities and I look back on my single time and often wish I could go back to that freedom. I don't mean that the relationship is bad in any way, it is just true that marriage and a home etc are things that take priority these days for me.

How to love as a single person? Well having love within you is a good sign of cultivation of character, if that saying makes sense. Having a positive attitude and having a sense of love and goodwill towards the world and other people is a real blessing and I think it can help people to understand their own value.

I hope what I'm saying makes sense, just trying to put my own thoughts down in writing.

Yes, what you said makes perfect sense. Thank you for your reply!

---

Initial romantic love, termed the Honeymoon Phase, between any two people is a chemical reaction in order to propagate the species. After that period people find out if they can go the distance or not. If they can they start to form a much more lasting but less intense love that just might allow them to stay together for a long time.

The role of a man, in today's world in regards to love, is to keep his mate happy and believing that he love's her even more then during the highest points of their relationship and keep her believing that he needs her, she is special, and sexy. But, he also has to give her space, respect, and appreciation. It's all way too much work. All he really wants to do when coming home from work is to have a nice dinner, a few drinks, pat the kids and the dogs on the head, bang his woman, take a shower, and go to bed. But, no, instead he has to do all the other crap and talk to his woman in hopes she is finally in the mood for ***. Damn really, another "headache!" Crap!

The role of a woman is to keep her man happy by making him feel as if he's in charge, is a fantastic lover, super smart, handsome, and handy. It's too much work for her too. She just want's to sip some wine after getting the kids tucked in bed and read a romantic novel while her man massages her feet. Then she wants her man to romance her like in the novels she's readings and spend time on her down below while avoid getting banged again. I think two women make a way better couple in today's world. Two guys are better off too just boning each other because that's all they really want. It's mush less work, although, I can't bring myself to partake in that. Unfortunately I'm a man and only attracted to women. Aren't you women feeling lucky about that.

Hmmm, the loners role in love......... I guess we can just keep up the illusion that love is a wonderful thing while it's unobtainable to us. Hopefully this will help convince the non-loners to seek it out and stay together after having kids in order to better raise them into responsible tax payers to pay for our retirements.

You went nuts on the last part of your post. The writing comes across as the ramblings of a love sick romantic. I suggest poetry.

..."The ramblings of a love sick romantic"...    That's a good one...

 

[Rainbows]

This was the most beautiful thread I've read ever on this forum.

 

[ardour]

Nobody really "falls in love", they find someone they're attracted to, compatible with and a more genuine connection develops down the road.

This usually doesn't work backwards though. Not for me, and probably not a lot of older forever alone types who never had any experience to draw upon. People like to talk about love as some selfless pure ideal, but most people pair up in their 20s and early 30s when there's some attraction there, they're young enough to have kids together and maybe naive enough to buy into that soul mate thing. What are you supposed to do when you're so old you can't find anyone age-appropriate attractive? No shared youthful experiences. Too late to start a family. The normal things that drive people to seek out relationships aren't there any more. I can't actually say I'm all that enthusiastic about dating middle aged women even though I am middle aged. Judge away.

 

[morrowrd]

Hello people! ​

I wonder... How do you see love between a man and a woman? What is the essence of love, in your opinion? What is the role of a man in a relationship and what is the role of a woman? And what is the ultimate goal of their love?​

Can you imagine a world where every couple has a relationship based on true love? How would that world be? Will everything change in the world because of that? Will this world be a better place because of that?​

Do you think that we, loners, can also play a role in that, by staying positive and never losing hope?​

How should we see love? It's a burning question of mine... I think we can change the world. Something tells me love is like a puzzle, we must put the pieces back together. Every second counts. Let's make the best of it. Let's live as if we already found our soulmates. They are out there somewhere, even if we might never meet them personally. We love them even though we never knew them. When we suffer, when  miss something we cannot explain.... it's them whom we miss. And that pain is bitter-sweet. We are capable of love and that's what matters in the end.​

You can be a person who has never experienced true love before, yet once you're in it, you know exactly what it is.  It is the easiest and the hardest feeling to deal with. Real true love is two sided, both people are in love with each other, are into each other.  Motives in a true love relationship are always right, and unselfish.  You find little need to find motivation to compromise if compromise is needed. Even conflicts in a true love relationship are worked out the right way.  I find that being in a true love relationship, I can see other relationships and know almost immediately, if they love each other or if it's just something else. (mutual attraction isn't love for instance). And I agree, it would change the world if everyone had it in their lives.

 

[The Wanderer]

I don't. I don't see it.
The concept of "true love" always had a hint of mutual obsession about it. Most of the time when I hear someone describe their love for someone it is either a pursuit of someone they have not yet attained or an idealized version of someone they have already attained.
It is the pursuit that gives us pleasure and when we have the security of knowing the pursuit is over we get bored and disenchanted.
There is nothing more desirable than an unattainable person we perceive as having inherent value.

We have all had the experience of the pursuit, the success, the disenchantment and the inevitable decline. We know that a hard to attain partner elicits deeper passions than an easy to attain one.
Why not just admit what it is; an evolutionary mechanism for expending disproportionate energy on the most prized mate. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if this demystified version sounds empty, if it sounds like it lessens the value of what we are as a species then perhaps we as a species have invested too much time in attempting to fill voids with others at the expense of filling those voids by building the self.

Look around you. You are surrounded by wonders that are not labors of love but labors of transcendent vision.
Not the product of biologically programmed impulses but the realization of thought and dream.

 

[Finished]

 

[ewomack]

I have never trusted feelings of "love." I agree with the other comments here that such feelings almost always amount to a chemical reaction that makes emotions spew through our beings until the desire gets fulfilled. Sometimes it makes people crazy. Yet I've known too many people who claimed that they had "fallen in love" only to tell me two weeks later that the "passion" didn't last. The word "love" also gets used in too many contexts. The chemical reaction scenario above amounts more to lust than love. In the end, *** is not a strong bond between people because you can really have *** with just about anyone.

But if the attachment lasts beyond the initial so-called "magical" honeymoon phase and you find yourself desiring the person's company, and not only their intimate company, then you're getting closer to what I personally call "love." Love overcomes passionate desire and endures even when the passion subsides, as it nearly always does to some degree. Wanting to be with a person, to have them around, talk to them, enjoy their company, share experiences, thoughts and even downright rotten times really adds up to my ideal of "love." *** can enhance love, but true love doesn't always necessarily require it. If you leave someone only because the passion diminished, then you probably never really truly loved them (or you could have a misguided view of love). This kind of love, to me the only worthwhile kind, is incredibly hard to find, but always well worth it when it comes along.

 

[StarDust]

[video=youtube]http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw78mrc6K5A&list=RDmw78mrc6K5A&start_radio=1&t=0&t=0[/video]

 

[Finished]

^ Good Stuff!