Romantic Love, what is it?

[kaelum]

Everyone has their own and differing definition of what romantic love should be:

For example, unconditional vs. conditional love,
or best friend and lover in one person,
your true equal,
your life long fixer-upper/project/experiment,
hot trophy wife/husband/partner,
the person you admire and put on a pedestal,
or person you raise kids with, but you save your inner thoughts for your friends, etc.

I'm not here to debate what romantic love should be----I want to see what you think it is.

Thank you.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Romantic love and committed relationships are for GROWTH. One of my favorite quotes:

"Approached in this light, committed relationships become epic dramas of heroism rather than soap operas. The suffering and strife inherent in marriage are as purposeful as its delights. Hugh and Gail Prather write in Notes to Each Other:
Did I pick the right person? This question inverts the starting and ending points. We do not pick our perfect match because we ourselves are not perfect. The universe hands us a flawless diamond in the rough. Only if we are willing to polish off every part of ourselves that cannot join do we end up with a soul mate."

 

[ZenRaiden]

Bed as many as you can so much for romantic love.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Romantic love and committed relationships are for GROWTH. One of my favorite quotes:

"Approached in this light, committed relationships become epic dramas of heroism rather than soap operas. The suffering and strife inherent in marriage are as purposeful as its delights. Hugh and Gail Prather write in Notes to Each Other:
Did I pick the right person? This question inverts the starting and ending points. We do not pick our perfect match because we ourselves are not perfect. The universe hands us a flawless diamond in the rough. Only if we are willing to polish off every part of ourselves that cannot join do we end up with a soul mate."

Sounds like Tristan and Isolde.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Sounds like Tristan and Isolde.

I don't think so but I'm not familiar (never saw the opera). Googled it and found it to be a love triangle. What do you mean?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Romantic Love, what is it?

Awesome.

 

[Grayman]

A lot of work. Give then get. A lot of patience. Being understanding. Showing you care. Action equals energy. The energy of these actions.

Thank Not for giving me the energy idea.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't think so but I'm not familiar (never saw the opera). Googled it and found it to be a love triangle. What do you mean?

Well it was simply a story to put it shortly where Tristan suffered all the shit in the world just to be with Isolde starting somewhere around slaying dragons.

I just thought that what you say make sense, but it is about the inner drive to pursuite the nobel goal of love. I say nobel, because that is what romantic would mean in contrast to just love.

 

[Moser]

An excellent question. For some romantic love is simply 'loving' something for a moment, which in other words the equivalent of a one night stand, in a sense. But for the most part, people do not enjoy loving beautiful idiots for long periods of time, and becoming bored with this, search for something greater. What exactly greater is, I am not certain.

 

[Cognisant]

Well there's the dopamine rush of having great sex but that's just a dopamine rush, people who consider that love are in my opinion simpletons.

Then there's attachment which develops over time, I consider that to be the standard for romantic love as it's pretty universal, you can love your friends, your family, your pets, it's more about the security of simply being there rather than anything reproductive, married couples have this plus the dopamine rush, because if sex is all they've got the marriage isn't going to last.

Then there's intimacy which is like a personal revision of the social contract, or simply trust, for example being able to have sex with someone requires a certain degree of intimacy because it puts you in a vulnerable position, your delicates are exposed, the flaws of your body can be seen and felt, your unconscious sounds/expressions are on full display, if sex wasn't so much fun I think many people would never work up the courage to do it. Then there's kinky sex which requires even more trust, especially for the less socially acceptable kinks, but don't get the wrong idea intimacy isn't just about sex that's just a good example. Intimacy can also involve opinions, beliefs, day the stuff you do when the other person's not around, even stuff like how much you're willing to trust that person to make decisions without you for the both of you, I mean if you were in a coma and someone had to decide when to pull the plug who would you want making that decision?

A friend, your family, your lover, your dog?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_-qRcHAhzk

 

[Moser]

So then perhaps romantic love is a culmination of material and mental intimacy. I like that idea. It reminds me of a word in Greek meaning of being of one mind, which was attributed to a good marriage and/or a romantic partnership. But how does one get there?*Now*that is something to talk about.

 

[Ink]

I'm subscribed to a lot of channels like this on youtube, I'm undecided whether it's good or not yet. I liked this guy though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujm9sEfOu34

 

[Ink]

Actually I don't see the need to define love. If you've experienced it you know it, there are tons of different dynamics of love, if you haven't trying to define it won't make a difference.

 

[Moser]

Good point and a good video. I love people who don't speak publicly that often. Always seems more sincere when they do.

 

[Jennywocky]

Well it was simply a story to put it shortly where Tristan suffered all the shit in the world just to be with Isolde starting somewhere around slaying dragons.

I just thought that what you say make sense, but it is about the inner drive to pursuite the nobel goal of love. I say nobel, because that is what romantic would mean in contrast to just love.

For me, I don't really view true love as chivalric love -- which really is just a way for males to prove their personal mettle while placing women on a pedestal and thus out of reach, neither party able to actually touch each other in real and tangible ways. It's all single-sided.

Even the recent Disney movies (like Tangled) offer a closer approximation of reciprocal love, where both parties are equal, vulnerable, and sacrifice for each other out of mutual respect and caring [Rapunzel is willing to live in permanent slavery to the antagonist to save Eugene's life, where he is willing to die so that she won't have to.] If there is something epic about love, it's in the capacity to give without expecting or asking for anything in return, for the benefit of the other.

--

"Romantic love" is a term often used to express emotional passion, but ends up being about some kind of emotion that is shallow and cheap, or lopsided. I'm not even sure what the shallow form is good for. I suppose it's fun the first time or two, but when you're both pushing through life and need something substantial, it doesn't do much for you. It's rather like eating candy -- maybe you can skip real meals for an afternoon while orally mainlining sugar, but soon enough you'll feel ill and your teeth will rot out of your head if you're not eating something substantial.

I've found that the kinds of sacrifices I mentioned above -- choosing to place value in someone else -- actually creates value and a tight reciprocity that also begins to generate emotions that go much deeper than what I remember from my first romance in high school. I kind of laugh at the earliest experiences because I just didn't grasp it back then. So yes, @paradoxparadigm7, I do more agree with what you've suggested, and that kind of love relationship for me was a large impetus for growth in my personal life

I also find it interesting because that kind of love really never goes away or at least doesn't dissipate. I'm the edge of a divorce but while we can't share a life together anything, it's not like we haven't stopped loving each other. You can't just stop loving someone who you have spent so much time loving. Even if they leave you, you still love them on some level. One thing that has been difficult in my divorce has been manufacturing boundaries to limit active responsibility to the other person, since that depth of commitment is no longer required and actually inappropriate, leaving me vulnerable.

----

I think from my experience with various types of people, for me the best kind of love is a love with an equal partner. I also need someone who is more like me than not, rather than someone who is very different. I want someone who 'gets' me and who is in sync with me and with whom I can resonate. I've done my time with complementary partners and become more well-rounded; I'm ready now for a relationship where I can go deeply with my partner and have a more intuitive relationship where we can share many thought and experiences. For me personally, it also needs to be a place of safety where I don't have to worry about protecting myself and where I can also rely on my partner and vice versa even if we are both self-sufficient on our own.

 

[Cognisant]

Even the recent Disney movies (like Tangled) offer a closer approximation of reciprocal love, where both parties are equal, vulnerable, and sacrifice for each other out of mutual respect and caring [Rapunzel is willing to live in permanent slavery to the antagonist to save Eugene's life, where he is willing to die so that she won't have to.] If there is something epic about love, it's in the capacity to give without expecting or asking for anything in return, for the benefit of the other.

I'm not a fan of self sacrifice, it's like the whole "Jesus died on the cross for you" thing, it sounds good and all but really what's up with that? It's like an abusive relationship where one partner uses all the things they've done for the other as a way of entrapping them, a kind of scam where a gift given comes with unspoken strings, except in the "I'll die for you" scenario it's either chauvinistic nonsense (if the person is just risking their life) or self entitled dogooderry, a desire to be remembered as a hero.

Would someone be so keen to die for another if they knew the other would never find out?

Even if the answer is yes they're more likely to be dying for an ideal rather than personal love.

Personally I would never expect someone to die for me, especially if I love them, and if I were to die for them it would be for more than simply their sake, if I had a wife and child I would die for both of them because two for one makes sense, or if I'm a miserable bastard I might sacrifice myself because I was looking for a reason to die anyway, and if my passing goes without mourning or recognition well that's how the world naturally is, so I expect nothing.

In terms of people making lesser sacrifices for a relationship that's just pragmatic, though not that it should go unappreciated, but nor should that appreciation be expected, simply put the world isn't perfect and people have to make do.

 

[BigApplePi]

Romantic Love, what is it?

Here is a try: X feels romantic love for Y = When X has the feeling (Fi) that Y would be a positive enhancement of the self beyond what was previously expected. Ti, if present, meekly goes along with or rationalizes this. Se is stronger though Ne could be a substitute.

I'm not sure romantic love carries an illusion with it. I tried to say the view of the object is positive beyond what was imagined before. One cannot "know" what is missing and the object of one's love completes or enhances what is unknown and missing.

 

[BigApplePi]

"Jesus died on the cross for you" thing, it sounds good and all but really what's up with that?

Good question. I've often wondered how one could answer that with mere words.

If one has a love for someone, one does not want to see them go down. So it makes sense if one can make a sacrifice that prevents them from doing so. On the self-interest side it leaves them better off for you.

Women and children get off the sinking ship before men because a world without them presumably would be one of misery.

Jesus died a miserable death because the big deal of it would let Jesus get across better the loving nature of what He wanted to be known for. If people think that He shouldn't have been so foolish as to have done that, then they are not concentrating on who Jesus was.

 

[Cognisant]

Women and children get off the sinking ship before men because a world without them presumably would be one of misery.

I think it's more because if there's only so many lifeboats and you need some significant demographic to willingly stay behind it's easiest to manipulate men by playing to their egos, I mean are you afraid of a little cold water, what kind of man are you?

Upon a group of men the affect is magnified, so much so that boys would feel insulted if they don't get to stay behind, c'mon you know it's true

If people think that He shouldn't have been so foolish as to have done that, then they are not concentrating on who Jesus was.

A fool?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

A fool?

Jesus is an idea. If there was a man that decided to die on a cross for the people, he was not selfless. Maybe he felt love for the masses that sent him to death, however, he chose to die aware of the idea he is creating. He was focused on his idea of being selfless, this only shows how important to him was the image he creates.

 

[BigApplePi]

I think it's more because if there's only so many lifeboats and you need some significant demographic to willingly stay behind it's easiest to manipulate men by playing to their egos, I mean are you afraid of a little cold water, what kind of man are you?

Upon a group of men the affect is magnified, so much so that boys would feel insulted if they don't get to stay behind, c'mon you know it's true

Seven feet of warm water or 2 miles of cold ... makes no difference. Lemme off. Lemme off! You can call me a boy, a coward and insult my ego all ya wants, but lemme off.

A fool?

Think legacy. His will last longer'n yours.

 

[Moser]

Hmm, has anyone read the Symposium by Plato? Or Plutarch's letter on contentment? If so, I would recommend applying those lessons to the nature of romantic love and to fables such as Tristan and Isolde, or was it Romeo and Juliet, or maybe Challirhoe? It does not seem wise to look for good examples of love in tragedy or theatric presentations, or even poetic interpretations. While they make for good stories, better to view them as what not to do rather than what to do.

 

[Call Me Fishmael]

To me, being "in love" has always been something of an enigma. I have relationships with people, and there are some some that I feel great attraction towards. Whether you call it "love" or not kind of defeats the purpose to me. It's like laying out rules for one of the basic emotions. To me, it seems like it's all about imposing definitions and rules on words, people and things instead of acknowledging them as they are and not twisting them in your mind. For instance, a lot of religion/philosophy separates the ideas of "love" and "lust" into entirely different categories, which seems to me like a mind-body dualism type thing. That's not to say I don't think there's a way in which to differentiate the two; They can be together, separate, some of each, etc. And right there is where I just got into the idea of rules and labels. If you have to say "I love this person this much" or "I love this person more than that person" it just defeats the purpose to me. Is it not enough to have feelings without putting all these restrictions/labels on them?

 

[kaelum]

To me, being "in love" has always been something of an enigma. I have relationships with people, and there are some some that I feel great attraction towards. Whether you call it "love" or not kind of defeats the purpose to me. It's like laying out rules for one of the basic emotions. To me, it seems like it's all about imposing definitions and rules on words, people and things instead of acknowledging them as they are and not twisting them in your mind. For instance, a lot of religion/philosophy separates the ideas of "love" and "lust" into entirely different categories, which seems to me like a mind-body dualism type thing. That's not to say I don't think there's a way in which to differentiate the two; They can be together, separate, some of each, etc. And right there is where I just got into the idea of rules and labels. If you have to say "I love this person this much" or "I love this person more than that person" it just defeats the purpose to me. Is it not enough to have feelings without putting all these restrictions/labels on them?

The following is my opinion, which happens to be almost directly against your opinion, so um, warning given...


Whatever kind of love a person has, some sort of communication needs to be there for it to grow. Whether that communication is picking someone up from the airport at 3am, or being there for your friend or lover or family member when another loved one dies, we inadvertently put labels on it by what we are willing to do for that love. A part of the meaning behind the actions is to be a reflection on how much this person means to you, so the label will be there regardless. My actions = I am willing to do this much for you, I will go this far for you.
With growing love, there will be a reciprocal response in the other party.

In any case, I see marriage as a label that shows commitment, implies love and also comes with a bunch of rules, implied as well as legal, (no adultery, gotta cut down on flirting with others, etc).

Part of what I identify as the classical INTP part of myself is that I enjoy defining and labeling how I feel, the urge to articulate my cloudy emotions into words. I'm not satisfied with happy emotions alone, I also need to communicate what I am going through, and I need to see that the person I'm talking to, that that person understands. Not only are they recipients of whatever actions I'm willing to do for them, but I also need to communicate my internal thoughts/feelings about them. The really resourceful friend, or the brother I look up to---to show that I respond to their feelings too. Some people need to hear it also.

I agree that the essence of love is how you feel for another, but how you feel also translates into actions and words----and that those actions and words interplay with the feelings/thoughts/actions/self esteem of the object of your feelings.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Well it was simply a story to put it shortly where Tristan suffered all the shit in the world just to be with Isolde starting somewhere around slaying dragons.

I just thought that what you say make sense, but it is about the inner drive to pursuite the nobel goal of love. I say nobel, because that is what romantic would mean in contrast to just love.

Love IS noble. The pursuit of an ideal. It will probably never come to full fruition but the pursuit and progress toward that romantic goal makes it 'divine' or transcendent. The motivations you have/I have, makes it so. I don't know about you or anyone else, but I want life and love to be MORE than mere chemicals and reductionairy language. I want to fly

 

[kaelum]

Love IS noble. The pursuit of an ideal. It will probably never come to full fruition but the pursuit and progress toward that romantic goal makes it 'divine' or transcendent. The motivations you have/I have, makes it so. I don't know about you or anyone else, but I want life and love to be MORE than mere chemicals and reductionairy language. I want to fly

This is BEAUTIFUL, and on a practical note, flying probably takes alot of personal growth too---something you mentioned earlier in the thread. I know that it's a popular idea that love accepts you as you are, but I see it as a mix of the conditional and unconditional----accepting of what you are now, but with the understanding you'll be better version of yourselves in the future.

(I still chafe at the language point though, but whatevs, agreeing entirely is probably against my nature)

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

This is BEAUTIFUL, and on a practical note, flying probably takes alot of personal growth too---something you mentioned earlier in the thread. I know that it's a popular idea that love accepts you as you are, but I see it as a mix of the conditional and unconditional----accepting of what you are now, but with the understanding you'll be better version of yourselves in the future.

(I still chafe at the language point though, but whatevs, agreeing entirely is probably against my nature)

You get it! It is about loving the imperfect person AND the soaring both are capable of. Why settle for "good enough" when you can shoot for so much more

As for my language, it tends to be poetic, metaphorical but bald faced facts just doesn't capture what my mind/feeling/being is trying to convey. It might be against your nature, but you like it