lucynad: i'm not joking, ambrose but maybe we are talking about two slightly different things...
i wouldn't be in a relationship with a person who doesn't love me...
but...
i can love a person that doesn't love me..
and i don't necesserily consider it sad or heartbreaking...sidenote: i was married for 20 yrs to a man that surely loved me but there were other serious issues that lead to break up...
i did say after my separation that i would prefer to be less loved but more understood...
Okay, Lucy. I think I (sorta) see what you mean.
Can you imagine being with someone you love but they don't love you, and being content with that - not to mention feeling sad? True, maybe you could get along with someone who understands you better (and maybe gets along with you better) than someone who loves you, and maybe that might even be arguably preferable...but why would you settle for those two choices?
I think that would be a "sad" decision, myself. Find the man/woman who both loves and understands you. And in my opinion, love based on a lack of understanding probably isn't love at all - at least not of the actual person. I mean that if you love somebody without understanding them to a significant degree (allowing for the fact that we always have trouble understanding some aspects of our partner or anyone else for that matter), you are not loving that person, but rather an image/idea you have of that person.
Ambrose2007: Okay, Lucy. I think I (sorta) see what you mean.
Can you imagine being with someone you love but they don't love you, and being content with that - not to mention feeling sad? True, maybe you could get along with someone who understands you better (and maybe gets along with you better) than someone who loves you, and maybe that might even be arguably preferable...but why would you settle for those two choices?
I think that would be a "sad" decision, myself. Find the man/woman who both loves and understands you. And in my opinion, love based on a lack of understanding probably isn't love at all - at least not of the actual person. I mean that if you love somebody without understanding them to a significant degree (allowing for the fact that we always have trouble understanding some aspects of our partner or anyone else for that matter), you are not loving that person, but rather an image/idea you have of that person.
Ambrose2007: Okay, Lucy. I think I (sorta) see what you mean.
Can you imagine being with someone you love but they don't love you, and being content with that - not to mention feeling sad? True, maybe you could get along with someone who understands you better (and maybe gets along with you better) than someone who loves you, and maybe that might even be arguably preferable...but why would you settle for those two choices?
I think that would be a "sad" decision, myself. Find the man/woman who both loves and understands you. And in my opinion, love based on a lack of understanding probably isn't love at all - at least not of the actual person. I mean that if you love somebody without understanding them to a significant degree (allowing for the fact that we always have trouble understanding some aspects of our partner or anyone else for that matter), you are not loving that person, but rather an image/idea you have of that person.
nope, i guess i wouldn't settle for a relationship without love...
but...
i could settle for love without the relationship
i don't know if you need to understand a person to love her/him
love is an emotion while understanding relates to logic...
they can exist separately
love without understanding is not "smaller" or less intense, the emotion is the same
lucynad: nope, i guess i wouldn't settle for a relationship without love...
but...
i could settle for love without the relationship
i don't know if you need to understand a person to love her/him
love is an emotion while understanding relates to logic...
they can exist separately
love without understanding is not "smaller" or less intense, the emotion is the same
it is a relationship that requires both
Well, it's like saying you don't need to know someone in order to love them...a certain paradox there, no?
Let's say you don't know/understand someone but love them. What are you loving about them? How would you distinguish between loving "them" and an "idea of them"?
Ambrose2007: Well, it's like saying you don't need to know someone in order to love them...a certain paradox there, no?
Let's say you don't know/understand someone but love them. What are you loving about them? How would you distinguish between loving "them" and an "idea of them"?
hi ambrose,
no, it is not a paradox for me...
i don't need to know/understand a person to love them...
Romeo didn't know Juliet either...
i don't love "anything in particular about" them...
i love (and accept) the person
then knowing/understanding them, can make me appriciate his traits...
or, on the contrary, not appriciate some of them grin:
but it won't affect my love for them
i guess the kind of love i speak about is something different from searching for the right/compatible person..
as i don't want to be loved because of some of my traits...
nor i want to be compatible with the person i love...
i don't need to..
being compatible, having similar interests is something i look for in my friends
i may be influenced by my parents, though
they are two completely different individuals, with very distant interests..
my mom is a sophisticated, city lady that i have never seen without her perfect make-up or dressed casual...
my dad couldn't care less about how he looks..
he loves camping..
my mom thinks that platfomrs (shoes) are sneakers,
and it is funny to see her camping and sitting in the middle of the woods so unfit in the environment
but she has always camped with my dad and he has always searched a comfortable stool for her in the "jungle" to let her have her make-up done...
in 50 years of the marriage, i have never heard them talking about their relationship..
though they would argue about him being late or her leaving the lights swithed on in a room..
none of them changed the way they are..
they are not compatible in the usual sense of this word..
and they would probably never be together of one of them was searching for the right/compatbile person...
eduwriter: This came up at a party. Men and women were asked if they had a choice between a traditional marriage and a renewable contract what would they chose.
If they chose a renewable contract, at the end of the contract they gained assests would be divided equally and both parties would be equally financial responsible forthe welfare if any children
I am not certain if this is ok, but I would like to put in my two cents.
I think that respect, honor, trust, and faith are key components in any relationship. Requiring a contract implies a lack of one or more of the above. If you ask an attorney a contract is only as good as the intent and honor of the participants
In more personal relationships we also have to be able to give a large part of ourselves. We do so because we have faith in the person and the relationship.
Love is a merging of two souls. Gibran said (paraphrase) that love is drinking the same wine, but not from the same cup).
I believe elationships fail because of a lack of honor and /or a lack of respect. Intimate relationships fail because one or more of the partners does not want to or cannot hear the other (I don't know a better way to put that.
I believe that none of this can be quantified, therefore I do not believe in the contract.
eduwriter: This came up at a party. Men and women were asked if they had a choice between a traditional marriage and a renewable contract what would they chose.
If they chose a renewable contract, at the end of the contract they gained assests would be divided equally and both parties would be equally financial responsible forthe welfare if any children
I did once say I read a book by Desmond Morris who reckoned humans should have a contract 3 times in their married life.They could renew if they wanted, he said we had three main changes in our life thinking wich we then could grow apart from partners. He said first contract should be around rearing children no broken contract mind, so mindset would be hopefully 2 parent familys. Then anothert 2 stages but all reached at different ages, but I kinda like the get out clause
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
i wouldn't be in a relationship with a person who doesn't love me...
but...
i can love a person that doesn't love me..
and i don't necesserily consider it sad or heartbreaking...sidenote: i was married for 20 yrs to a man that surely loved me but there were other serious issues that lead to break up...
i did say after my separation that i would prefer to be less loved but more understood...
Okay, Lucy. I think I (sorta) see what you mean.
Can you imagine being with someone you love but they don't love you, and being content with that - not to mention feeling sad? True, maybe you could get along with someone who understands you better (and maybe gets along with you better) than someone who loves you, and maybe that might even be arguably preferable...but why would you settle for those two choices?
I think that would be a "sad" decision, myself. Find the man/woman who both loves and understands you. And in my opinion, love based on a lack of understanding probably isn't love at all - at least not of the actual person. I mean that if you love somebody without understanding them to a significant degree (allowing for the fact that we always have trouble understanding some aspects of our partner or anyone else for that matter), you are not loving that person, but rather an image/idea you have of that person.