Love or Infatuation? (2354 hits)
Category: RomanceRating: 0.68 on 24 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Bobbie <blue_cookies.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-09-20 02:45:57 EDT
I'm interested to hear what you consider "love" to be.
I guess I could try to define it here, just for kicks.
Some people can't decide between infatuation and love. Most never know the difference. This is what leads to divorce; people think that extreme infatuation is love, when it isn't.
Some people consider love, what is actually a rebound reaction. You are exposed to typical personalities of the opposite sex, and you begin to regard them as the "norm"...and when you finally get sick and tired of that "norm" and run across someone completely opposite, you latch on to them for dear life...and consider it love.
For others, it's an extreme co-dependency problem, where they need someone, anyone, in their life that either caters to their every need, or provides them with some form of balance that they didn't feel before. Some are looking for extremes of this, while others are so fed up with the piss poor offerings they've come across previously that they attach themselves to the first thing that comes along that's "close enough" to what they want.
For me, love is a fairy tale. Love is "true love", what you feel as soon as you meet someone that never dissipates, but grows stronger. You relate to that person on so many different levels that it freaks you out, and gives you this huge adrenaline rush. To be around that person is to be on a permanent high. You are in sync, there isn't much, if anything that you disagree upon, and even when you do, you just see it as different tastes and nothing to get all worked up about. Someone that inspires you, and is inspired by you. Someone that you don't see yourself ever growing tired of, and vice versa. I'm not just talking about similar interests, but on a deeper level. Soul mates, if you will.
Someone that if you were ever permanently without after meeting them, you would feel empty...like you just lost a limb, or your home.
Someone that you would kill yourself for, if it would please them even slightly.
Love is disgusting, it's like watching a heroin junkie sucking dick on a corner for a little bit of smack...
It's that devoid of reason and rationale.
And I don't see how anyone could ever trust another to be in control of it, for love is for both people to let go of restraint and control and to let it all happen however it's going to happen and throw caution to the wind. Where no one has control, and it's just this roller coaster into oblivion.
A contest to see who burns out first....when both people are throwing as much gasoline on the fire as they can.
Poop :(|)
User Reviews
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2003-09-25 01:32:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Love is also highly unselfish. Unfortunately, I'm a slightly selfish person, so when I put someone else before myself, I know I'm in love.
Submitted by SoxSexSax (user info) at 2003-09-25 01:32:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"based off S-cubed's description"
+2 for that. I like it. I might start calling myself that, lol.
Submitted by Cicciro (user info) at 2003-09-25 01:28:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is me, taken, not married.
I would rather she died first, so she wouldn't have to deal with the grief of loss.
I would sacrfice everything for her as long as it did not go against my own moral code of ethics.
Time apart is not boring and pointless, but it is never the preference.
That is love, to me, based off S-cubed's description. I could go on... But there is something that calls me, it's call the boob toob, family guy is comming.
Submitted by SoxSexSax (user info) at 2003-09-25 01:13:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"I know I would survive without him. I know my life would go on. I just dont want my life to be without him in it."
I agree with Belle...this is how I feel about my wife.
If you would prefer your death to your partner's,
If you would sacrifice everything for them,
If time apart is boring and pointless,
You probably love them.
Submitted by Kris (user info) at 2003-09-24 17:01:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bellebrown, tell me you are NOT serious.
Submitted by tuesdaydelay (user info) at 2003-09-23 17:10:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Loathe.
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1064346147240129630
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2003-09-23 16:40:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Ok - just because Im feeling exceptionally emotional right now.
I now know what love is.
Love is being willing to give anything so that they can be alright and it doesnt matter what happens to you. Loving someone is about knowing them so well that you can feel it when they hurt, and you would do anything to take that away from them. Its knowing what they're thinking.
Its knowing that you'd be lost without them, its hearing what they'd say to you in your head when they're not there and knowing that you'd feel empty if you didnt have that.
Its feeling like you'd give your right arm to have them back with ALL they're annoying habits, just so long as they were reachable.
I know I would survive without him. I know my life would go on. I just dont want my life to be without him in it.
Submitted by poop_monkey (user info) at 2003-09-21 18:13:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I still don't like this thing they call "Love". It's sickening.
Who can't spell infatuation? It's easier to spell that some of the other words I've seen you people use!
Bah. People are stoopid. ;-)
Poop (:(|)
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2003-09-21 16:34:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
So, Bobbie, have we here given you something to go on thus far?
--JW
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2003-09-21 11:50:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 for correctly spelling "infatuation".
--JW
Submitted by poop_monkey (user info) at 2003-09-21 04:04:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just to make it clear Jinkies, I am a woman, not a lesbian. ;)
Yes, I agree with just say "love=verb"
And YellowDragon, I try my hardest. :-)
Poop :(|)
Submitted by YellowDragon (user info) at 2003-09-21 03:39:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Cripes almighty fishhooks, Jinky. You could've just said love=verb. I gotta admit, though... you got style, brother. By the way Bobbie, good topic. Anything that draws out a Jinky response is good enough for me.
Regards,
YellowDragon
Submitted by coley (user info) at 2003-09-21 03:36:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
*applause for Jinky Williams*
Damned good reply.
:)
~coley
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2003-09-21 03:11:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think in order to define the word "love", many social connotations need to be viewed and dissected, and ideas of what "love" can and cannot be need to be seriously looked at and questioned. "Love", as the vast amount of society defines it, boils down to little more than gumdrops and warm fuzzies. Notice I said "vast amount", as there are definitely people who feel differently. But, as a whole, the meaning of the word "love" has been so diluted that is hardly recognizable for what it should be.
It can be used so many different ways. "I love Butterfingers!" and "I love you" are just two examples of the vast amount of degrees with which "love" is used. Society at large, I feel, understands "love" to be just a stronger version of "like". Given the context in which most of us use "like" and "love" in everyday vernacular, this conclusion is not surprising. If you think Butterfingers are pretty good, then "yeah, I like Butterfingers" works just fine. But if they are, by far, your preferred mass-manufactured confection, then "I love Butterfingers!" may be more appropriate. It is also supposed that "love" is only emotion; That it is no more than a feeling. It is something you can be in, or something that you feel toward someone else. However, with love being merely emotion, there is no way one could stay "in love" with anyone indefinitely. It is therefore easy to break up on the grounds of "falling out of love". Humans aren't made to sustain feelings or emotions, especially in heightened levels, for long periods of time. It would then be an inhuman feat to be able to fulfill your wedding vow "...to love and to cherish as long as you both shall live." And if "love" is merely an extension of "like", we are also in trouble. "Liking" something depends solely on what it can do for you. You don't like a candy bar because it has saved your life. You like it because it tastes good. If it worked that way, you would be saying, in essence "I love you as I love my Butterfinger I had today for lunch... only more so." Hardly romantic, and hardly functional. It is possible to "fall out of like" quite easily when the object of that affection no longer does what you want it to do, or when you find something in that object that you don't like, or otherwise doesn't meet your requirements.
Another thing that I've discovered through my discussions with different people about love is the fact that the vast majority of them believe that defining love is only necessary/relevant in the realm of romantic relationships. Using this confine, it is a most unfortunate circumstance we are confronted with. As has been observed by probably everyone here, emotions can't just be "turned on" or "turned off". Things can be done to make them happen more frequently, and there can be Pavlovian circumstances resultant in those feelings; but emotion, in general, is flighty and inconsistent.
Part of the traditional marriage vow goes something like "...to love...as long as you both shall live." Now, if love is an emotion, how are we to uphold our vow as we promised? We are stating that we will always feel love for that person, consistently, 24/7, without a hitch. No matter what the circumstance, we are to experience (and exhibit) that feeling of love and never let up. How feasible is that? It can be viewed via society at large that people cannot/will not do this.
Apparently, when that "honeymoon" feeling is gone, and the fuzzies of "love" are gone, it means the two people weren't meant to be married. "I don't love my spouse any more. The fire died. I guess we didn't really love each other after all." People often get married solely on the basis of *feelings*. This view stops the progression and proliferation of healthy marriages cold. They get married on the basis of physical attraction coupled with the feelings they experience when they are around their significant other. They may find each other on a cruise, or a dance, have a drink, go home, have sex, and decide that "this must be love" and, after a few short weeks of getting the specifics nailed down, they tie the knot, only to run into the problem that plagues any relationship, healthy or not: Someone doesn't feel like loving. If our definition of love is limited to understanding it as a mere feeling, how can we expect to fulfill any promise of undying love? And, if you are aware of this going into a relationship, why state such a blatant lie?
When you experience the feelings socially described as "love", you will do things for your signifigant other that you may not otherwise do. In school, you may have waited for her at her classroom and have been there when she got out. You'd send her flowers, hide a note in her locker, and dismiss the company of your friends at lunch just to be in her company. False expectations are created and understood as things to be expected by the receiver of said actions. Soon afterwards, however, the flowers stop. You start hanging out with your friends again. Not as many notes in the locker, and you just don't have the time to wait by her door any more. What happened? Sounds like you don't *feel* like going out of your way for her like you used to. Sounds like you don't *feel* like making a sacrifice for her any more. Sounds to me like you fell out of love, apparently. Guess this relationship didn't work out. Guess you weren't made for each other. Guess y'all may have to try again. Better luck next time. And so it goes, society telling you "don't worry, she wasn't the right one for you. You'll find that special someone some day, and you'll really be in love." And so on it goes, up through adulthood, and then you find someone, and the same type of things happen there. You call her whenever you can. You take time out of your day every day to have lunch with her, even if she's across town. You spend all your time, when you aren't working, with her. "Could this be love? Must be. I feel like I can love her forever." But no more than a few months later, something familiar takes place: You don't call her as much any more. Not enough time. You need your space, so you don't keep her company as much as you used to. No more flowers, definitely. You make all the excuses as to why you aren't doing these things any more, and try to explain that you are really, truly, cross-your-heart still in love. But it's not true. You just plain don't feel like doing it any more. Again, you don't feel like going out of her way, making sacrifices for her.
I propose that love is an action first, emotion second. Without works, love is dead. It means nothing, and cannot amount to anything more than fireworks and sizzle. I am going to take a quote from a book many of you know of.
"Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right."
"Ohhh yay, it's the Bible. /rolls eyes. Why did you quote that? I don't believe in it." The reason I quoted this passage here is because it is relevant, and because it *works*. Regardless of who you think wrote the Bible, or of how many errors you believe it to contain, there are many parts in there that are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for greater understanding of humanity. In this case, the Bible sheds very applicable light on a socially skewed and misunderstood subject. Love, using the quoted definiton, is perfect for a relationship, yes? And a relationship of any kind, not just a romantic one. Love can be used without any hint of romantic or emotional attraction. This is why I believe it to be action first, emotion second. Love is the genuine caring of the welfare of another. It is looking to the good and well-being of others or another. Love acts. It displays itself.
To delve even further, let's look abroad. In the Greek language, there are very clear definitions for different kinds of love:
Agape (ah-gah-pay) - This love is unilateral and unconditional. It is desiring that which is best for the other person being willing to go to whatever length is necessary in order to achieve that well-being with no expectation of return. Here, words mean nothing, and actions are necessary for the communication of this kind of love. This love cannot be based on emotion.
Phileos (fi-lay-ohs) - This is the word for love from which we get the word Philadelphia: the city of Brotherly Love. There are some people we say that we love like we love a brother or a sister. It describes the relationship between two people which implies a commitment. It says, "there are a select group of people who are so important to me that even though they are not my family, I would be willing to make a sacrifice if it would help to make their life better." Again, this kind of love is displayed totally by action. Words mean nothing here, and again, cannot be based on emotion.
Storge (stor-jay) - This is the Greek word for love which is used when describing the kind of love a parent has for a child or a child for a parent. It is the love which someone feels toward another when they are responsible for their well being. It is instinctive and it is protective, but it is not universal. It is reserved for those for whom we feel responsible. Here, again, it is not emotion that drives this kind of love, but a sense of responsibility.
Eros - (eh-rhos) This is the relationship of physical affection between two people. It is a love which feels wonderful, but it is fleeting. It does not last and needs to be constantly reinforced to be the basis of a relationship. This is the most commonly-used definition of love, especially in America. This is what is glamourized in the media. And the applying of this definition to the yardstick of how our society considers love to be is the largest reason marriages, and relationships in general, do not stay solvent. The understand of love stops here for so many people, and they grow up believing that this is what should be able to be sustained in a romantic relationship, and if it disappears, then they have obviously nothing left, and depart from each other's presence. Using this definition, it is indeed possible to "fall out of love" by no decision of your own. It is an emotion, and the human body is not created to have an emotion "equipped" for extended periods of time.
These definitions have the pedigree of a nation's language behind them. I believe them to be very informative as to what love meant, and how it was used, and how, today, in our life, it should be applied.
I hope this can shed light on a totally convoluted subject.
--JW
Submitted by Socialist_Joe (user info) at 2003-09-21 02:34:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Just dont mention "love" please its realy just a boring and rather dumb subject.
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2003-09-21 02:19:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think I should try to describe love, but I'm going to anyways, even if it causes me to ralph on my keyboard.
When you love someone, you know it with your whole heart. If you doubt your love for someone, it isn't love. Love happens, I think, when the other person becomes a part of you. If they left, a portion of your being would be gone.
I hate myself for writing that.
Submitted by Lady_Emily_03 (user info) at 2003-09-21 02:05:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
True love: I could never put an exact definition on it, never try and pinpoint with a label, but I could certainly provide a few examples.
1. Old people you see still holding hands in church or at the park, always looking out for eachother. True love endures time and other stresses and can manifest itself in the smallest of ways.
2. Patient mothers in stores with fussy, whining children that stay calm and get through to their kids with love instead of anger when handling the situation. There is nothing worse than seeing a mom who freaks out and starts whacking her kid in the middle of a store, whose already bawling, about whatever the problem is.
3. Husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends/etc, who, when they are wrong, will sincerely apologize and try their best to make things better, and, conversely, will forgive if a wrong has been committed against them. True love takes dedication and effort to make it work and preserve itself. This dedication includes attribues of charity, humility, support, desire, passion, affection, and so many others that make True Love whole and complete.
That being said, I'm going to put my idealist self to bed.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2003-09-20 17:44:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is a pretty good definition of love. You can summarize love with another word,
"self-sacrifice."
Tom and goddam_it_all are mere 15 year olds. They wouldn't know.
Submitted by momanlad (user info) at 2003-09-20 09:43:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
loves the feeling you have after you have cum, and managed to get rid of her quick sharp so you could watch the football. That cosy feeling of contentment is love. Saver it because most ladies don't understand it properly and think it's all about cuddles and snuggles and flowers.
Love does stimulate an area of the brain known as shatners bussoon. Read up on it, things will become clearer.
Submitted by gtashorty (user info) at 2003-09-20 09:18:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think love can be different things for different people. I feel love all the time. It might not be the love that we all read about or watch on tv. But here in a country far from my real home. I have a met a few good people that i consider to truely love. It's more like family love. They are the ones that i spend my holidays, they are the ones i call when i need someone's shoulder, they are the ones that I call when i am happy.
Then there is the the romantic love the puppy dog and everything is great. I don't know if i truely have felt this yet. I think i have but it could have always just been a deep infaction or lust. But what i have learned from my life is that sometimes you have just let go and let yourself be opened up comepletely bye someone. Yes, you probably will get hurt. But something that pain is worth is. Because you will always learn from those experiences. This is probably the closest i have had to love.
Submitted by goddam_it_all (user info) at 2003-09-20 09:17:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
i think your description of love is probably a bit romantic and naive. love is something more realistic than that. its living everyday with that person, and managing a happy life with them, its more than what you said. if i was in the right mind id go on about it, but im not. good post though.
Submitted by Bigmike (user info) at 2003-09-20 09:03:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Love is what happens when you get blindsided by lonliness.
Submitted by seanfogy (user info) at 2003-09-20 02:59:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yet again, another person who has posted three times in one day... If you keep posting at the same rate, in 32.5 days you will have more posts than good ol' Mick.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2003-09-20 02:51:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I see love like religion. It's man-made and you either choose to believe and have faith, or you simply ignore it.
-Tom