Printable View
What makes you fall in Love?
Is it something the person does, how they act, how they look, or how they smell?
Is it sometimes at first sight, or just something that grows?
Is there a way to tell the difference between desire, lust, and love?
Or is it everything wrapped up in one?
Is it Love if the passion is overwhelming, and it just feels right, and they are all you think about?
I find myself in a very strange situation and I was hoping for others views on this matter.
I know it may seem very lame......but for me it just happened. I was kinda seeing this guy and I thought he was gonna be a long time relationship and then the right one just came along. I don't mean love a t first site we were friends first had some common intrests and it grew from there. and that was 7 yrs ago and I can't ever see myself with out him. I once saw my ex and after our breif encounter I was thinking to myself...What was I thinking!
the way the person smells (you know it's all chemistry...), talks, looks...
love ends when person acts..
though, it does have very random character in occuring...
though, after my last *BIG* crush - I'm sorta affraid to trust people...
for me it just kinda happens. like with malcolm, i was just getting out of a REALLY bad relationship and didnt want anything close to one, but i guess things turn out the way they are suppose to.
it doesnt really matter what someone looks like or "how they smell" *lol* it all depends on their attitude and their personality. if someone is smoking hot but a fucking dickhead it really doesnt matter to me. its whats on the inside that counts anyways.
my penis.
he tells me what to do, i just listen and nod.
I think falling in love has to do with having trust in the possibilities.
Letting go of cynicism.
If you have fears of the relationship failing,
or fears that they will lie to you, etc, then you will not be able to open up.
I feel that "falling in love" feeling, when I forget logic, and the past,
and pretend that nothing bad will happen, and nothing will go wrong,
because I believe that both people feel the same way, and all will go well...
Which is totally stupid, but that's what you have to do if you want to fall in love.
Either that, or wait a long time, until you feel like you really have a good reason
to trust that person, etc... But I think it's harder if you wait, and it's also less passionate.
It's probably more fun to just jump in there and hope for the best...
If it doesn't work out, then deal with that later...
Nothing really makes me..it's more like it tells me. Where your with someone that every part of your being "tells" you. Then you dont have any choice but to fall for that person. Sometimes blindly, but often hard.
I truly agree. You just know you're falling in love with that person, not to be confused with falling in lust. Even if you move away and don't see that person again you can tell that the feeling has already rooted itself deep inside of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilbink
Yes it's sad that more often than not we fall hard instead of blindly.
knowing the status of a potential partner's immune system. sampling oral bacteria cultures is a good start (ie kissing). if the two immune systems would combine to make healthy offspring, the brain triggers the love subroutine. this is why people who have nothing in common, who, in fact, may detest each other, sometimes fall in love.
ummm
being different
and generally all round lush.. especially personailty wise
a smile
eyes, the eyes of a woman can make even a cold heart melt if they are the right ones, I perfer dark deep eyes, like a ocean on a moonlit night, ever flowing to her soul
What makes me fall in love is when my brain releases various chemicals causing certain emotions when it feels I have found someone suitable to reproduce with.
I beleive that the suppostion "In love" is a dillusion created by christianity to justify people having sex to spawn more zealots, but to keep them from being polygymous so as to not leave thier children to be rasied by people that will teach them to think for themselves, and as to not expereince too much pleasure, both physically and spiritualy that will make them favor humanity and worldly things over God and church.
"the love for one individual is barbarous, for it is practiced at the expense of everyone else."
-FW Nietzsche
I'm not going to explain what real love is. if you know it, then you know. if you don't, then you don't.
I met my g/f 7 years ago online.. she moved near me. She then had to move away and i gave her one of my favorite rings and told her not to worry..anytime she feels blue she can look up at the stars and know that im looking at the same ones. We reaquainted last year and are together and happy. Its just one of those things you know when its real instead of a crush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
right. love didn't exist before about 3 AD.
" I beleive that the suppostion "In love" is a dillusion created by christianity to justify people having sex to spawn more zealots......"
I am a Satanist and I don't think the Xitan Church has anything to do with how I feel about different things. I have no use for it and it does not color my life in any way shape or form. Most people don't think for themselves no matter what their religious upbring is. Besides, the Xitan church has more of a historical involvement in S&M anyway.
"the love for one individual is barbarous, for it is practiced at the expense of everyone else."-FW Nietzsche"
Yes, but Nietzsche also believed in living with someone before marriage to see if it was worth it. Also, the Uberman, the super individual was something to be aspired to. Trying to achieve it does sometimes come at the cost of other individuals in your life. Sometimes Nietzsche spoke about different things that when taken out of context can be made to mean just about anything. This was one problem he had with how some of his stuff came to be associated with the Nazi party during ww2.
'I'm not going to explain what real love is. if you know it, then you know. if you don't, then you don't."
I was looking for different views on what it means to different people. I was hoping that by addressing the question here would get me better answers than anything like rainbows and sunshine. For me, at this point, Love makes you messy. It messes everything up so nothing really makes sense and you find yourself doing things that you would think you would never do. I think Passion, desire, lust, and chemical inbalances all make you fall in Love. It seems that the only cure for it is a broken heart.
Morgan
"I was looking for different views on what it means to different people."
ok maybe it was a little crass of me to tip toe around the real point, but I think what I said as a historical context is still acurate. It can't be simply summed up from me here right now. if you'd like an essay on it in the future maybe I will provide you with one. that wasn't sarcasm or bitterness, I think it's a complex issue on many levels.
"Sometimes Nietzsche spoke about different things that when taken out of context can be made to mean just about anything."
I think this isn't really the place fo dissecting nietzsche, either. let me just say his views on love are well documented on many accounts and I think that statement is quite clear, although further meaning can be attirbuted to it with the following line (which I ommited) "...even for one's god."
I think you aren't quite right about the superman. If PM's were working or you'd like to make a new topic, i'd be happy to chime in a few words on the subject.
well consider this: the greeks had at least five different words for "love" that somehow have ended up as one in translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheramil
My point was that I think you'd have a hard time finding a precedent for the idea of singular romantic chivalrous love before the fifth century BC. maybe homer's Helen. But that's a stretch- I think it would be more accurately described as mass hysteria.
hakim bey has a cool essay on this subject... talking about how 'romantic love', or 'courtly love' was a weapon of psychological warfare created (or adapted) by the trubadores and employed against the middeval feudal nobility (which they couldn't defeat militarily) they probably got it from some mutant form of moorish tantra...
he talks about the difference between modern ideals of 'romantic love' or as he describes it 'obessessive love' and 'erotic friendship'... which we'd probably just call polyamory... good stuff... i'd link to the essay, but i'm the laziest clown ever...
personally speaking, i can reflect that i've 'fallen in love' at moments when i was feeling needy, and inadequate... and that the requited experiences turned out to be even more painful, and disaterous than the unrequited ones...(although it doesn't start out that way i'll grant ya)
whereas when i'm feeling emotionally stable, and fufilled the idea that someone outside of myself is going to provide the 'missing half of my being', and be 'the one' that will 'make me whole' for the rest of eternity is an absurdity... i also tend to attract a better type of partner when i'm 'not looking'...
anyway my two cents...
be seeing you
1. Women who cook.
2. A smacktastic ass.
3. Attiude.
4. Classy yet knows when to dump the act.
5. Nice smelling hair north and south.
6. IQ over 110.
7. Simplicity.
8. Looks... I can work with decent.
But don't you think it is a form of elation, being excited and hopeful for your future happiness? That's the way I see it at least. I know there are chemicals and hormones at work, but the mental process is that you see someone you really like, think they are awesome, and start thinking about how wonderful it will be to be with that person. You build up an fantasy dreamland of a romantic future, with or without any facts to back it up. When two people feel this way about each other, they reinforce the delusions. Each person tells the other one how much they love each other, and that makes the other person even more sure that "this is the one". And that makes you even more happy, high, elated, deluded, etc... I think "real" love, is when you have these same kinds of feelings, but have a good reason to feel them. When you realize you *can* trust that person, and you *do* have a lot in common, and you *do* get along in the long run... The main problem is that most people "fall" in love before they know these things for sure. Their hopes and expectations for the romance, and the relationship, come before any real facts about the truth of those things...
Ok.
the feelings of elation, hope filled visions of the future, and excitement are what I call being 'manic'... yay mania!!!
(I like that feeling)
...and I can create that by working out with some tai *** sword...
it's when I start externalizing these feelings, and making them dependent on some 'other' person that they start to cause problems...
...I should restate something... when I'm feeling 'self-sufficient', it's not that I attract a 'better type' of girl... it's that i tend to act more intelligently towards the wonderful women who have already decided to put up with my hijinx. I am fully responsible for all of the stuff that goes on in my life.
right on buster, thanks for that info. (yes, I do say that with much bias.)
you have to simply observe the world around you to see that monogomy is not the natural normal state of relationship. there are very few animal species that pratice it at all, and I think less then five that practice it with a lifelong partner. it's simply not practical. in fact the opposite is practical from a survivalist standpoint. males and females will want to copulate with as many different partners as possible to ensure that thier genes pass on to future generations.
I understand that this is no longer neccesary to sustain a species of modern human, but millions of years of biology aren't going to be undone by fashionable social constraints.
I'm not saying to go out and have sex with everyone you see and to never get emotionally involved with anyone. That's the other myth, that you can't be emotionally polygamous without being sexually promiscuous. I'm saying the opposite. I do like to practice monogomy with my partners, because they tend to follow that mindset and they can't imagine a divide between intamacy and sexuality. my romantic relationship in terms of physical/sexual interaction may be limited to one person (out of practicality), but my concept of love is mature enough that my feelings toward the value of emotional connections between people is not limited as such.
And that's the fault of the european romantic traditian: it supposes that through the act of love people are submitted to a value system that would be thought absurd in any other context. valuing an arbritrary race, gender, class as being higher then all others? we reject this principal as contradictory to fundemental human equality and ultimatley, as a matter of human freedom. but to place a loved one as the highest value before all other people? this is encouraged and taught as nobile - and who is it that teaches us the model for love? our parents, whose loving union is sanctioned by the church who receive the conditions for what love and union is from thier divine will of god. if you look at it that way I think it's pretty hard to argue that contemporary views on love aren't based on judeo-christian morality- which is made all the more hypocritical since it is still so widely accepted by people that claim to otherwise break away from those traditions.
One of my old book of poety includes some from the Chinese its called the shi king or Book of Odes from 500 bc. It also has some Sanskrit from 1500bc as well as Ancient Hebrew(10th), Japanese(8th cent.), Greek(7th), and Egyptian(3500 bc). I think that part of the problem is that Europe is more well know for the midevial courtly love stuff, and tends to forget about the rest of the world existing as possible more advanced in other areas. Those other cultures had love poems, courtly love poems and just regular stuff earlier than Europe did.
"I think it would be more accurately described as mass hysteria."
Love isn't mass hysteria, its mostly between 2 people or one if its unrequitted then just 1 person is involved.
Love isn't practical, it makes no sense, sometimes not even to the two people involved. So its not mass hysteria, sometimes its just stupidity and hormones.
"I understand that this is no longer neccesary to sustain a species of modern human, but millions of years of biology aren't going to be undone by fashionable social constraints."
I don't think its a matter of social constraints. If after all these years, people still want to be with one other person then its something else. I don't believe that the idea of being with one person was originated by the Catholic church. I think that sometimes just being with one person who wants to be with you is the right thing to do or feel. Just like how the Mormons and Muslims tend to have 3+ wives, it works for them. Just not for everyone.
Yes, I can agree with you that it is possible to Love more than one person because I believe there are different levels of love. Like how you love your dog may be different than how you love your current fuck buddy. Just where do you draw the line between someone you are intimate with and someone you are sexual with? Why can't they be both found in the same person?
"but to place a loved one as the highest value before all other people? this is encouraged and taught as nobile"
I would put anyone I am involved with over anyone else. If you have a choice to save one person, wouldn't you save the person you actually love over a stranger?
Placeing any belief in what our parents taught us in general about relationships or love or marriage would mean the lot of us would never leave the house. Most marraiges end in divorce because they fail to talk and forgot what was so special about the person they fell in love with.
Should it be special and looked on as a gift to find that someone cares about you as much as you care about them or is it that sometimes love just not enough?
I am still confused as to why attraction works, and why fat chicks look like bowling balls with legs.. but i love em