True Love

[ThePRPD]

Do you believe in it?

[Yellow]

Nope, the phrase is meaningless and is very inefficient speech.

[scott.exe]

Do you believe in it?

Not necessarily, but that's because I haven't had much experience with love in general. I do partly agree with Yellow in that the phrase has become meaningless, though I believe this due to its overuse.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I don't think that it exists in the context that people put it in. People have turned "true love" into a mushy gushy overly-romantic term that doesn't perfectly apply to any real relationship. Usually when someone says that they've found their true love, I kinda roll my eyes and think that they're being completely naive about what it means to actually love a person.

[Underling]

I FUCKING LOVED THAT GAME

[AllisonWalker]

True love is true until you break up.

[Koneko-Chan-Nya]

I find the phrase 'true love' to be extremely confusing. People add so many labels to it these days, I don't even know how I would attempt to describe it anymore.

[Basketcat]

Only in cheesy romance movies.

[musigal]

I didn't used to believe in true love. I thought is was an exaggeration of emotion with no substance.

Now I believe that true love does exist, but only when both people honestly look at the other person and all of their flaws and accept each other anyway. It only exists if people are totally open and vulnerable with one another - when they put each other first in all ways and equally give of themselves. I have found my true love. =)

[OverMind]

Eh, looks like I helped spark something.

True love doesn't exist. Nice guys often finish last. Life doesn't have happy endings. And, of course, the glass is always half empty.

[Aninamar]

We are together! I need you forever! Is this love?
What is love?
Baby, don't hurt me!

True love exists, definitely.

Nice guys often finish last.

That's what she said. Be a nice guy, your sexual life will flourish!

[OverMind]

I have found my true love. =)

I'd give it 6 months tops.

[musigal]

dude, we've been together for almost 2 years and knew each other for a long time before that as friends.
we're past the "honeymoon phase." real life has hit, and we still like it, still put each other first, and are still in love. we're both committed to keeping it that way too.

[OverMind]

dude, we've been together for almost 2 years and knew each other for a long time before that as friends.
we're past the "honeymoon phase." real life has hit, and we still like it, still put each other first, and are still in love. we're both committed to keeping it that way too.

Surely, then, this will last forever.

[Xanadu]

I didn't used to believe in true love. I thought is was an exaggeration of emotion with no substance.

Now I believe that true love does exist, but only when both people honestly look at the other person and all of their flaws and accept each other anyway. It only exists if people are totally open and vulnerable with one another - when they put each other first in all ways and equally give of themselves. I have found my true love. =)

that is the cheesiest thing I have ever heard lol!

[OverMind]

Don't pretend you know what the future will be.

I don't claim to know the future.

But, using logic, probability, and separation rates in the Western world, I can make some conjectures.

[OverMind]

After playing fire emblem 4 and seeing a swordmaster chain astra, criticals, adept, and using a brave sword to kill an optional boss that took about 2 damage a pop, probability means fucking NOTHING to me.

Now now, good sir, don't be too brash and dismiss a whole field of knowledge altogether.

I'm quite sure that it's not probability's fault that most relationships don't work out.

[Koneko-Chan-Nya]

that is the cheesiest thing I have ever heard lol!

:squintyface: That wasn't very open minded...

[Xanadu]

I never said I was open minded :tongue:

[OverMind]

Of course not. There's a lot that goes into it. But it all depends on your definition of true love.

I think that every meeting happens for a reason. However, I believe we make that reason. Can that reason be true love? Yes, it could be. But only if we make it so. If you say true love doesn't exist, it will never happen for you. If I say it does, it will happen for me.

Glad you believe that. Of course, that doesn't make it true.

[OverMind]

When something undefined is presented before you, you can either leave it as undefined, attempt to define it, or attempt to make the case that it doesn't exist.

This seemed like it was going somewhere interesting. Then I read further.


Technically, 0 doesn't exist, yet mathematics relies so heavily on it that it would crumble without it there.

Not gonna lie, but I facepalmed for like 10 minutes.

Hey, ShiningRadiance, how many apples are in the basket?

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_431/1251404192Y1D8Ia.jpg


That makes it exist in some form. Is it the form we want? Maybe. Maybe not.

Love is the same way. True love, doubly so.

Hey, ShiningRadiance, how many 'love' are in the basket?

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_431/1251404192Y1D8Ia.jpg

Because, apparently, abstract finite quantities and human emotions are not too different from each other.

[Eia]

... there's false love?

[musigal]

Now now, good sir, don't be too brash and dismiss a whole field of knowledge altogether.

I'm quite sure that it's not probability's fault that most relationships don't work out.

which is exactly why us being committed to making it work makes a difference.

[MrsSallyBakura]

which is exactly why us being committed to making it work makes a difference.

lol it does.

The reason why so many relationships go down the toilet is a lot of the times out of pure selfishness and stupidity.

Even though committed relationships do break off as well (I know from experience), it's for the better anyways, and because you were committed in the first place, you probably grow as better individuals because of the relationship.

[MrsSallyBakura]

uzrGFQysfYU

lol this song makes me all teary-eyed. XD

[Eia]

What is love?

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

What is love?

Baby, don't hurt me.


sorry, Haddaway reference.

Nobody knows what love really is.
I can say honestly though, the ONLY time I felt true love for the first time was when I held my daughter, the first time, and looked at her.

[musigal]

wicked ftw ^ ^

[OverMind]

0 is not a number. It is a concept. It represents the lack of existence. However, in that form, it exists.

I'm not saying love is 0, but rather, love is what happens when you divide by 0.

http://craigswinejourney.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/facepalm.jpg

[Fat1Fared]

-I think Overmind answered that in rather eloquent and Appropriate way ^_-

=As for what is true love?
-Simple its a set of different internal chemicals and drugs which are released when see someone which body decides is perfect partner for you to make offspring with highest chance of survival while giving you a sense of supreme well being, it then releases another chemical which the other reacts to, giving them a sense of lust and well-being and thus love is made ^_^

=Though on serious note, do I believe in truth love?
-Depends what you mean, do I think their is 1 perfect partner for everyone and that love is completely unselfish, perfect and concuring of all forever? NO!!!!
-Do I think that there are poeple who you can get emotionally and physically close to for some time that makes you both very happy, without being unfailing, then yes, that does exist

PS before you people who believe, those who break up, simply don't try hard enough come along, remember most of you poeple are barely out your teen's at most and so don't make such judgments, I have seen poeple "stick" together because think it is "proper" thing to do and they spent their out lives completely Miserable, while know poeple who have spent their lives "faithfully" with several partners and these are the emotionally happy and well devepoled poeple as are their partners.
=Love is not about spending your lives with one person, that is naive, this is about trying to make a relationship through the good and bad times, but not binding yourself to something which is no longer the right thing (IE simply no longer feel for them,) because poeple change, their wants change and their emotional minds change, so you cannot blame people if they love changes as well,

[MrsSallyBakura]

I have been told that your spouse is gonna be the person who you "sin against" the most. Even if you stay together until death. I certainly believe that, lol.

So if people believe that true love is a love that never causes harm to another person, then it certainly doesn't exist in human relationships.

[Basketcat]

...

I don't quite want to listen to someone who has never dated anyone before talk about love.

Right because if you date, you obviously know everything about love.

[Yellow]

You know something about love if you've dated. You know nothing if you haven't.
Black and white dichotomies are never accurate.
You may have never dated before and got married, and knew something about love.
You may date alot and may never understand love.
All-encompassing statements are usually wrong most of the time.

[Yellow]

And who say's dating is a good way to find love?

[Fat1Fared]

...

I don't quite want to listen to someone who has never dated anyone before talk about love.

<arrrrrr> keep that up holy and may hurt my feelings, :wink:

PS guys do not bother with holy, he is trying to wind me up, as he knows I have never met a person who I would be willing to attach myself to in that way and he has most narrow views of the world, because he refuses to see past his own small part of it, and if he did, he would see apart from a joke, a never actually said what actually love is, because I do agree with him, that I do not know what it truly is, but at same time that does not stop me knowing a general view of poeple do when they believe there in it, and the only thing I really said indepth about it, was that I do not believe love is infallible and that comes from watching other poeples experiences with it, yes, but I still think enough evidence to support such a view and contrary to popular belief, most people do not give up on relationships at drop of hat, but if simply is not going to work, then it is better for ALL involved to get out of it.

PS there is more than one kind of love, and my closest personal experience was, that there is girl who I probably would have been to go to this area with, however she did not return those feelings for me and she only wanted me as friend and I felt that if I did truly care for her, then I had to respect her wishes as much as my own wants, and so I still cared enough for her to be the friend she needed and wanted through both the good and the [B]bad[/B times of her life, even when that actually hurt me more to do so, now holy is right, I do not actually know what it truly feels like to actually be in love with anyone, but I think that was about as close as I have come and think it shows lot more unconditionally feelings than most couples have, but heh maybe I am wrong,

[OverMind]

Exactly! It proves my original point!

LOVE AND LOGIC DON'T MIX

I'm sure in your head this all makes sense.

But, for the rest of us, we have no idea what you're talking about. That hardly proves anything you've been saying.

[OverMind]

Now, I know there's a very low chance of Tess taking me back again, but do I give up? No. Can I give up? I've tried several times, but I can't. She's my best friend, and much more than that to me.

So I'll be close to her, be there for her to rely on, and do everything I can to make her feel happy, comfortable, and protected. Even if it means my heart breaking again, I can't and won't stop.

[...]

Some people say this is creepy, but it's only creepy if the other person doesn't accept it at all. She's said I'm her best friend. I have a shot to be more than that to her. I'm going to take that shot. If I fail, at least I can say:

I did it for love.

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/ImageDatabase/PostImages/7492/Large/Friend_Zone.jpg

[OverMind]

Proof that OverMind's a bigger troll than me.

I feel that since your arguments don't actually make sense, responding to you in the traditional way doesn't quite work.

http://www.daxxterity.com/images/friendzone2.jpg
Mind you, you're going to have to walk on foot.

[Yellow]

Is there more of that comic you just posted? If there is I think I'd be interested in seeing it if you wouldn't mind providing a link please.

[OverMind]

I'll walk there without any feet if I have to.

Oh, for sure. I'll definitely bet that you'll try really hard to walk there.

Of course, it's the likelihood of failure in this endeavour that I'm trying to point out.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I'm... fairly certain that the general concept of true love is the topic at hand, not SR's personal endeavors. They're related, yes, but the discussion is drifting from "true love" to "it's not gonna work out with your girl."

Just saying.

[OverMind]

I'm... fairly certain that the general concept of true love is the topic at hand, not SR's personal endeavors. They're related, yes, but the discussion is drifting from "true love" to "it's not gonna work out with your girl."

Just saying.

He feels it will work out because it's 'true love'.

Never mind that it could simply be another case of unrequited love; the usual suspect.

[Fenrir502]

Sounds more like unconditional love, to me.

What love is truer than unconditional love?

[Fat1Fared]

I agreed with most of this up until "More than most couples have".

Maybe I have too Pollyanna a view of the world. But I'm quite proud of that.

I know I'm not that experienced in life. I'm a sheltered person. But I still believe in true love.

I think that Tess and I are soul mates, even though she broke up with me... that's why I decided to completely change myself. It's good for me to not be as mean to people and not be as brooding. It creates a lot of stress for people I rely on. I went through a lot of stuff with her, and even though she was my first girlfriend, I know that isn't why I love her.

I once dated a really, really hot woman. She had C's for breasts, a bubble butt, she was thin, she was blonde, she was smart, nice, social, and nearly perfect.

But I didn't really love her. She broke up with me because I couldn't say it, or even write it. But for Tess, I can honestly say I love her. Now, I know there's a very low chance of Tess taking me back again, but do I give up? No. Can I give up? I've tried several times, but I can't. She's my best friend, and much more than that to me.

So I'll be close to her, be there for her to rely on, and do everything I can to make her feel happy, comfortable, and protected. Even if it means my heart breaking again, I can't and won't stop.

This ability to completely change oneself for another person... and this change of self out of self-love... when these two occur together, that's a strong growth. Lovers help each other grow much more than one can grow themselves. Tess is my world, even though we're not dating now. Absolute devotion. Wanting to know her at her very core, and still accepting all of the ugly parts, and still seeing her as being beautiful inside and out. To me, this is true love. This devotion, ability to grow with the other person, accepting their negative parts, and still being able to love them-- even if they can't love you back.

So you may be right about that devotion thing. But when it comes to 'most couples', I just believe there are many more people than you think that feel this way.

Some people say this is creepy, but it's only creepy if the other person doesn't accept it at all. She's said I'm her best friend. I have a shot to be more than that to her. I'm going to take that shot. If I fail, at least I can say:

I did it for love.

-And here are the problems with "unconditional love," you give a lot and do not seem to get much back, plus seems to me your emotions are lot deeper than hers which is what somewhat creates/adds to the unbalances in the whole thing, when I made that comment holy my point was not that all relationships are selfish, but that there is always a selfish unbalance to love and this means in "some" relationships, it is about what take, rather than what you give, for at least one of the partners, maybe both and that is a somber but real truth.

=Take me and this girl, she takes a lot more from me than what she gives and that in its own way is her own selfishness but I cannot blame her for it, as I let her do it and she doesn't realise what she is doing.


-However if you truly wish for me to say what think love is, I do not know, but I "think" it is when you can sit silently in a room, not doing or saying anything, but because your with the other person, you feel content and happy anyway, maybe I'm miles off as you correctly pointed out, when f""k guy like me know about love, but that is what I think

[ThePRPD]

I'm a hopeless romantic... '_';

[AllisonWalker]

Fared's a romantic! :'D

[Yellow]

True love is a humbug.
And quit ruining the word "romance" for me. Its best used describing languages or mythology not petty conceptions of what people think is love. I'm joking, of course, the word was ruined long ago~

[Aninamar]

Fared's a romantic! :'D

This calls for some surprise buttsex!

And quit ruining the word "romance" for me. Its best used describing languages or mythology not petty conceptions of what people think is love. I'm joking, of course, the word was ruined long ago~

Language evolves. Deal with it. There's nothing inherently wrong with the fact that romance now is related to love. How "ruined" it was when it was derived pretty nicely from its mother word? Or do we have a case of basement anon who is too busy wasting his time on the internets? *coolface*
http://seniath.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/team-fortress-2-pyro.jpg
Love is a burning thing
And it makes a fiery ring
I fell into a burning ring of fire
I fell down, down, down, and the flames were attire
And it burns, burns, burns
The ring of fire
The ring of fire

[Yellow]

Language evolves. Deal with it. There's nothing inherently wrong with the fact that romance now is related to love. How "ruined" it was when it was derived pretty nicely from its mother word? Or do we have a case of basement anon who is too busy wasting his time on the internets? *coolface*
I'm an aspiring (<--- important word there, means I doesn't know what the f*ck I'm talking about) linguist, those I know language evolves. I'm allowed to have qualms with how it evolves, as somehow we transplanted Romans, as in the guys who go and slaughter a whole bunch of people to get land becomes Romance, as in love. I just like the original definition better. I find the 180 degree change in meaning fascinating to observe, however.

[Aninamar]

I'm an aspiring (<--- important word there, means I doesn't know what the f*ck I'm talking about) linguist, those I know language evolves. I'm allowed to have qualms with how it evolves, as somehow we transplanted Romans, as in the guys who go and slaughter a whole bunch of people to get land becomes Romance, as in love. I just like the original definition better. I find the 180 degree change in meaning fascinating to observe, however.

Also, they have been the superior culture in Europe with influences in the entire world. The Roman culture had been one of the driving forces behind Renaissance (and the following period of leaving the medieval ages of superstition and poor education) and even to this day this culture is still admired. It's been ages since Roman Empire fell, and their culture doesn't seem "passe". It took its roots from the finest aspects of the already splendid Greek culture and adapted the juiciest parts. People like Horace are long dead, yet their legacy lives on.

But why is it?

Why was it so admired by Renaissance thinkers? Why do people come to Rome just to eat pizza at the feet of the Colosseum ruins, anyway?

If we go by what you say, then could Voltaire's fame rise from the fact he loved the Roman orgies, conquests, and Russell Crowe kicking ass?

Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans ever done for us? ...Brought peace, you say? Oh, shut up!

[Aninamar]

Without putting it in context and seeing how it impacted now, you get nothing but a bad taste in your mouth.

Without putting it in context and seeing how it impacted now, you get nothing but a bad taste in your mouth.

putting it

you get nothing but a bad taste in your mouth.

That's what she said.

http://www.tomys.com.ar/web_images/awesome_face_bigger.png

[OverMind]

Thanks for killing the thread.

[Yellow]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c360/amydelune/CB/ThreadKiller.jpg

[AllisonWalker]

:D

American Psycho.

[OverMind]

:D

American Psycho.

Well, this conversation's become awkward.

I'm leaving. I have to return some videotapes.

[Aninamar]

roflmao OverMind still watches porn on VHS

[OverMind]

roflmao OverMind still watches porn on VHS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF4mlPxVWUk

[Arkanoodles]

Is it even possible to argue about this subject? It's friggin impossible to tell. You can't possibly tell how every single person in the world feels. Maybe it exists for some and it doesn't for others.
Anyways, if you have the ability to tell how every single person in the world feels, fell free to post here.

[OverMind]

Is it even possible to argue about this subject? It's friggin impossible to tell. You can't possibly tell how every single person in the world feels. Maybe it exists for some and it doesn't for others.
Anyways, if you have the ability to tell how every single person in the world feels, fell free to post here.

That's the thing, it tends to exist for so few people that it's something more of a coincidence than anything genuine.

[Arkanoodles]

Uh dude that doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if one person feels it, then it is real.

[Yellow]

Uh dude that doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if one person feels it, then it is real.
So if one person feels that there is a unicorn pony with a turtle back that can spew fire, then it is real?

[OverMind]

Uh dude that doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if one person feels it, then it is real.

A coincidence; as in a relationship that just happens to work out, not necessarily one that was destined to happen because the couple in question are 'star-cross'd lovers'.

You can't honestly tell me that the only criterion that defines 'true love' is a relationship that works out, can you?

[Fat1Fared]

Is it even possible to argue about this subject? It's friggin impossible to tell. You can't possibly tell how every single person in the world feels. Maybe it exists for some and it doesn't for others.
Anyways, if you have the ability to tell how every single person in the world feels, fell free to post here.

Uh dude that doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if one person feels it, then it is real.

So if one person feels that there is a unicorn pony with a turtle back that can spew fire, then it is real?

For a second I we were talking about religion again :thatface: (come on, someone had to say it)

PS Looks at holy's comment, decides not worth the effort of refuting

[Arkanoodles]

A coincidence; as in a relationship that just happens to work out, not necessarily one that was destined to happen because the couple in question are 'star-cross'd lovers'.

You can't honestly tell me that the only criterion that defines 'true love' is a relationship that works out, can you?

I wasn't talking about destiny, pumpkin. Love is an emotion that can be explained scientifically. True love is normal love. People say it true love because the meaning has been raped along the years.

(also that unicorn comment was just retarded.)

[OverMind]

I wasn't talking about destiny, pumpkin. Love is an emotion that can be explained scientifically. True love is normal love. People say it true love because the meaning has been raped along the years.

Given your take on the matter, I can 'love' someone once, and then hate their guts after divorce proceedings.

This hardly seems like 'true love'.

[Arkanoodles]

Given your take on the matter, I can 'love' someone once, and then hate their guts after divorce proceedings.

This hardly seems like 'true love'.
I don't remember saying that people that love each other need to have sexual contact with each other.

[OverMind]

I don't remember saying that people that love each other need to have sexual contact with each other.

I don't remember saying that you said that people need to have sexual contact.

[musigal]

I don't think that love is an emotion. emotion is often involved, yes, but I believe that love is a decision to put the needs and wants of another person before your own.
as someone once put it "love is a verb"

so to me, the fickleness of emotion has no bearing on love. love can outlast emotion.

[OverMind]

Well... depending on how you read what you said...

Well, then, read it the way that doesn't bring sex into it, i.e. the correct way.

[OverMind]

I don't think that love is an emotion. emotion is often involved, yes, but I believe that love is a decision to put the needs and wants of another person before your own.
as someone once put it "love is a verb"

so to me, the fickleness of emotion has no bearing on love. love can outlast emotion.

Hypothetically, if you're loved one was dying, and you could save him but at the cost of your own life, would you do it?

[musigal]

without hesitation
James has also said before that he would rather that I and all of his friends die before him so that he's the only one to have to experience sadness.

[OverMind]

without hesitation
James has also said before that he would rather that I and all of his friends die before him so that he's the only one to have to experience sadness.

And, I'm sure, James will spend the rest of his life, in such a situation, remaining celibate in your memory.

[musigal]

so he has said. and I believe him.

[Fat1Fared]

though I know it sounds nice and romantic to say things like that, you honestly do not know what you will do in situration like that, till you have already done it

[musigal]

I'm not trying to be romantic. =|
I know myself. There is no doubt in my mind that I would. also, if I have decided beforehand to do so, there would be no hesitation anyway.

[Aninamar]

Well, then, read it the way that doesn't bring sex into it, i.e. the correct way.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/4647/overmindbuzzkill.jpg (http://img713.imageshack.us/i/overmindbuzzkill.jpg/)

[OverMind]

Please stop derailing the thread. Thanks.

[Xanadu]

this thread reminds me of the song "Do You Believe in Love"

[Fat1Fared]

I'm not trying to be romantic. =|
I know myself. There is no doubt in my mind that I would. also, if I have decided beforehand to do so, there would be no hesitation anyway.

-I'm not trying to be a jerk here honestly, but this is not something you make a choice about in that way, even if you do not realise it you are caught up in a romantic ideal at moment and sadly reality is harsh thing when comes to crushing romantic ideals, I'm not saying that you cannot do it or you can do it, I'm merely saying you will not actually know unless the time comes actually have to do it, which hopefully for all involved won't come,

[JesusRocks]

Hmmm... reading through some of the comments... I've realised I made an error

When I voted that I believed in True Love, I didn't realise people were referring to the whole "There is one perfect person for me out there somewhere" and the whole "star cross'd lovers whom fate has brought together against all odds" kind of crap.

No. You make love work. You have affectionate feelings for someone, great, and those emotions lead you into actions which properly show these feelings outwardly, fantastic. But you still might not actually be in love.
For the first year or so of any serious relationship (could be more, could be less - depends on the couple) there's usually a period of mindless infatuation, where you ignore your differences because of the thrill of having someone in your life - it's new, it's different.... and it's easy to mistake for love.
When that wears off and you finally come to your senses, your relationship is then tested in the fires of your own warring personalities. You start arguing with each other.

Surviving this period is the most important period of your early relationship. This is where either True Love or Apathy show themselves. When this period comes along, many couples break up, because they aren't prepared, or aren't ready to face the difficulties, hurts and disappointments that surrendering to another human being can bring.
True Love shows when you decide to act. To choose to say "this is worth it" and carry on - acknowledging the other person's human faults and forgiving them, realising that they will inevitable disappoint you, because they're not perfect.

I'm sorry to bring this up, but a good model is 1 Corinthians 13. Showing patience, kindness and forgiveness in a relationship displays love a LOT better than mere wishy washy, namby pamby emotions. Especially through the testing, argumentative period of your relationship.
Putting your own wants, needs and even rights aside for the wellbeing and good of the person you're in a relationship for ends up far more fulfilling than going into a relationship thinking "what can I get out of this" and to a degree it is also the testing criteria in the argumentative phase, the people who take, take, take all the time end up splitting apart. The people who give, give, give all the time end up splitting because they burn out. It's better to go into a relationship with the attitude of "give, give, give" and then learn to take sometimes as well, than to try to do it the other way around.

True love shows itself very much in action. And it doesn't need to wait for a special "one-off, once in a million, perfect star cross'd, fated" person.

Obviously, no single relationship is the same as any other, and all things work out differently according to everyone's differing personalities - some people just aren't good together, and would never be good together... that's just the way it is.

BUT let me give an example of myself and Kanga. As far as I remember most of our relationship stuff worked out in yearly increments. Our first year or so was all "lovey-dovey" where we could find no fault with one another. Our second year was marked by quite a lot of arguments and disagreements. By our third year we came to a balance. Our fourth and fifth years have been great ^_^
We're soon coming to the end of our fifth year together, and starting our sixth. I can imagine that we're going to be continuing along this pattern as we keep getting to know each other and dealing with the situations that are put in front of us. I find it exciting.


So essentially, yes OverMind. The criteria I would place on True Love, is a relationship that works out - because obviously these people are doing something right, even if they make a tonne of mistakes, and appear completely useless.

[OverMind]

So essentially, yes OverMind. The criteria I would place on True Love, is a relationship that works out - because obviously these people are doing something right, even if they make a tonne of mistakes, and appear completely useless.

In that case, even an 'arranged marriage' (i.e. those common in Asian cultures) can be considered 'true love' because, in all respects, it is often also a relationship that just works out.

Of course, I don't feel that a relationship artificially constructed by social forces is 'true love'.

[JesusRocks]

In that case, even an 'arranged marriage' (i.e. those common in Asian cultures) can be considered 'true love' because, in all respects, it is often also a relationship that just works out.

Of course, I don't feel that a relationship artificially constructed by social forces is 'true love'.

Well I was talking more about what happens during the process of dating, before marriage, which is more common in the western world.
I don't suppose there would always be much of an opportunity to test the water as it were, with an arranged marriage...
So with my above comment, I hearby inject the implication of a certain degree of autonomy on the parties to the relationship

But who knows, what usually happens in the process of dating over here, might also happen over there during marriage.

But I'd agree with you that artificially constructed relationships can hardly be called "true love"
But I'd go on to say that even in these artificial environments, true love can, for want of a better word, "blossom"
It's not like it's a black and white thing where "dating = love, arrangement = misery"

People are just often good at working with what they've been given.

[OverMind]

Well I was talking more about what happens during the process of dating, before marriage, which is more common in the western world.
I don't suppose there would always be much of an opportunity to test the water as it were, with an arranged marriage...
So with my above comment, I hearby inject the implication of a certain degree of autonomy on the parties to the relationship

But who knows, what usually happens in the process of dating over here, might also happen over there during marriage.

But I'd agree with you that artificially constructed relationships can hardly be called "true love"
But I'd go on to say that even in these artificial environments, true love can, for want of a better word, "blossom"
It's not like it's a black and white thing where "dating = love, arrangement = misery"

People are just often good at working with what they've been given.

That sort of cheapens the genuine ideals behind 'true love' though. I'd be more satisfied labeling such successful relationships as simply 'love' than anything "genuine" because love isn't "genuine" if it can be made to work out with just about anyone. I'm not even satisfied that it can be called "true" if it can be made to work out with smaller subsets of people.

If 'true' love is what it is as described by a millennium of literature, legend and (recently) media, then it can only happen in a 1:1 ratio. But, this seems counter-intuitive to what you're saying (which, for the record, I don't disagree totally with what you're saying because it's a practical approach to the matter).

So, in a nutshell, I'm more inclined to say that "love" (not true love, just love - something, interestingly that no one's brought up until now) probably exists, it's no where like anything we've been raised to believe though, and ultimately true love is apart of the human mythos - something we aspire to attain, something we idealize, but something that just doesn't exist.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

love is what you make of it

[JesusRocks]

@OverMind: I agree with pretty much everything in your post. And besides, I've never been a fan of using the term "true love" purely because it does convey the centuries old mythical term.

Nothing wrong with aspiring to attain the ideal of true love. As they say, "shoot for the moon, even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars"

But then, considering we're a relational and communal species, I don't think our ability to love anyone necessarily makes it less genuine, but it's certainly not "genuine" in the legendary sense.

[Arkanoodles]

I don't remember saying that you said that people need to have sexual contact.

You talked about mariage, people that are just friends, without sexual contact, don't get married.

[JesusRocks]

You talked about mariage, people that are just friends, without sexual contact, don't get married.

But, people who are more than friends, and are on the way to marriage, don't always necessarily have sexual contact prior to it. So it's not a prerequisite.

[AllisonWalker]

But, people who are more than friends, and are on the way to marriage, don't always necessarily have sexual contact prior to it. So it's not a prerequisite.

QFT

[OverMind]

You talked about mariage, people that are just friends, without sexual contact, don't get married.

Whatever. I don't even remember what we were arguing about.

[Fat1Fared]

Hmmm... reading through some of the comments... I've realised I made an error

When I voted that I believed in True Love, I didn't realise people were referring to the whole "There is one perfect person for me out there somewhere" and the whole "star cross'd lovers whom fate has brought together against all odds" kind of crap.

No. You make love work. You have affectionate feelings for someone, great, and those emotions lead you into actions which properly show these feelings outwardly, fantastic. But you still might not actually be in love.
For the first year or so of any serious relationship (could be more, could be less - depends on the couple) there's usually a period of mindless infatuation, where you ignore your differences because of the thrill of having someone in your life - it's new, it's different.... and it's easy to mistake for love.
When that wears off and you finally come to your senses, your relationship is then tested in the fires of your own warring personalities. You start arguing with each other.

Surviving this period is the most important period of your early relationship. This is where either True Love or Apathy show themselves. When this period comes along, many couples break up, because they aren't prepared, or aren't ready to face the difficulties, hurts and disappointments that surrendering to another human being can bring.
True Love shows when you decide to act. To choose to say "this is worth it" and carry on - acknowledging the other person's human faults and forgiving them, realising that they will inevitable disappoint you, because they're not perfect.

I'm sorry to bring this up, but a good model is 1 Corinthians 13. Showing patience, kindness and forgiveness in a relationship displays love a LOT better than mere wishy washy, namby pamby emotions. Especially through the testing, argumentative period of your relationship.
Putting your own wants, needs and even rights aside for the wellbeing and good of the person you're in a relationship for ends up far more fulfilling than going into a relationship thinking "what can I get out of this" and to a degree it is also the testing criteria in the argumentative phase, the people who take, take, take all the time end up splitting apart. The people who give, give, give all the time end up splitting because they burn out. It's better to go into a relationship with the attitude of "give, give, give" and then learn to take sometimes as well, than to try to do it the other way around.

True love shows itself very much in action. And it doesn't need to wait for a special "one-off, once in a million, perfect star cross'd, fated" person.

Obviously, no single relationship is the same as any other, and all things work out differently according to everyone's differing personalities - some people just aren't good together, and would never be good together... that's just the way it is.

BUT let me give an example of myself and Kanga. As far as I remember most of our relationship stuff worked out in yearly increments. Our first year or so was all "lovey-dovey" where we could find no fault with one another. Our second year was marked by quite a lot of arguments and disagreements. By our third year we came to a balance. Our fourth and fifth years have been great ^_^
We're soon coming to the end of our fifth year together, and starting our sixth. I can imagine that we're going to be continuing along this pattern as we keep getting to know each other and dealing with the situations that are put in front of us. I find it exciting.


So essentially, yes OverMind. The criteria I would place on True Love, is a relationship that works out - because obviously these people are doing something right, even if they make a tonne of mistakes, and appear completely useless.

Well I have not dated and you have for almost 6 years so not going to disagree with you here, just say, I do not think to many star-cross lover believers here (and look where that got R and J heh) and for me personally, my idea of love is more about being content than anything and I diff do not believe love is everlasting, like I said I think break ups are as natural as getting together and know that staying in relationship which is not working is worse than breaking up, (trust me on that one, there is a reason I took my parents telling they were getting devoiced on christmas day as christmas present)

[marjoh3]

A true lover should:

Never gonna give you up,
Never gonna let you down,
Never gonna run around and desert you,
Never gonna make you cry,
Never gonna say goodbye,
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

[Aninamar]

marjoh:

Fajnie, ale wykurwiaj w podskokach.

[musigal]

Hmmm... reading through some of the comments... I've realised I made an error

When I voted that I believed in True Love, I didn't realise people were referring to the whole "There is one perfect person for me out there somewhere" and the whole "star cross'd lovers whom fate has brought together against all odds" kind of crap.

No. You make love work. You have affectionate feelings for someone, great, and those emotions lead you into actions which properly show these feelings outwardly, fantastic. But you still might not actually be in love.
For the first year or so of any serious relationship (could be more, could be less - depends on the couple) there's usually a period of mindless infatuation, where you ignore your differences because of the thrill of having someone in your life - it's new, it's different.... and it's easy to mistake for love.
When that wears off and you finally come to your senses, your relationship is then tested in the fires of your own warring personalities. You start arguing with each other.

Surviving this period is the most important period of your early relationship. This is where either True Love or Apathy show themselves. When this period comes along, many couples break up, because they aren't prepared, or aren't ready to face the difficulties, hurts and disappointments that surrendering to another human being can bring.
True Love shows when you decide to act. To choose to say "this is worth it" and carry on - acknowledging the other person's human faults and forgiving them, realising that they will inevitable disappoint you, because they're not perfect.

I'm sorry to bring this up, but a good model is 1 Corinthians 13. Showing patience, kindness and forgiveness in a relationship displays love a LOT better than mere wishy washy, namby pamby emotions. Especially through the testing, argumentative period of your relationship.
Putting your own wants, needs and even rights aside for the wellbeing and good of the person you're in a relationship for ends up far more fulfilling than going into a relationship thinking "what can I get out of this" and to a degree it is also the testing criteria in the argumentative phase, the people who take, take, take all the time end up splitting apart. The people who give, give, give all the time end up splitting because they burn out. It's better to go into a relationship with the attitude of "give, give, give" and then learn to take sometimes as well, than to try to do it the other way around.

True love shows itself very much in action. And it doesn't need to wait for a special "one-off, once in a million, perfect star cross'd, fated" person.

Obviously, no single relationship is the same as any other, and all things work out differently according to everyone's differing personalities - some people just aren't good together, and would never be good together... that's just the way it is.

BUT let me give an example of myself and Kanga. As far as I remember most of our relationship stuff worked out in yearly increments. Our first year or so was all "lovey-dovey" where we could find no fault with one another. Our second year was marked by quite a lot of arguments and disagreements. By our third year we came to a balance. Our fourth and fifth years have been great ^_^
We're soon coming to the end of our fifth year together, and starting our sixth. I can imagine that we're going to be continuing along this pattern as we keep getting to know each other and dealing with the situations that are put in front of us. I find it exciting.


So essentially, yes OverMind. The criteria I would place on True Love, is a relationship that works out - because obviously these people are doing something right, even if they make a tonne of mistakes, and appear completely useless.

Thank you JR. This is what I believe.

[OverMind]

Thank you JR. This is what I believe.

That's great and all, but I'd hardly call this "true" love.

[Aninamar]

That's great and all, but I'd hardly call this "true" love.

MAH BOI, this love is what ALL the true YGOTASfags strive for!

[musigal]

why not? what would you call "true" love? star-struck destiny? personally I enjoy having the freedom to choose whom it is that I love.

also, what is truer than choosing something, working toward it with all of who you are, following it, and sticking with it?

[OverMind]

OverMind has a definition of true love that he doesn't agree exists, yet he's unwilling to change that definition based on the real world which is what causes him to disagree with the idea behind true love...

...

That's fucking stupid.

My point is that 'true love' is idealism. Ideals don't have a perfect translation into our real world. Sure, you can get close and I'm satisfied with calling such an approximation just "love".

So, yeah, I am arguing that 'true love' can't exist because it adheres to my strict definition of romantic idealism. Sure, you can adjust the definition to be more "realistic", but as I've been arguing with JesusRocks, doing so cheapens it and I don't feel it warrants the "true" part anymore.

Everyone is confusing a coincidentally successful relationship (a relationship that could be had with many other people if not your current partner) with 'true love'. I'm more satisfied with just calling it 'love'.


why not? what would you call "true" love? star-struck destiny? personally I enjoy having the freedom to choose whom it is that I love.

Well, yeah, that's what I've been saying; the concept of "true" love goes hand-in-hand with destiny. Of course, such things are idealistic, that's why I don't feel they exist.


also, what is truer than choosing something, working toward it with all of who you are, following it, and sticking with it?

And, what if it still fails?

And could you not do this with any relationship and still potentially make it succeed?

And, of course, if it was 'true love' to begin with, shouldn't that mean it will work out inevitably regardless of how little effort you put into it?

Again, I'd still call this a case of 'love' rather than 'true love', according to my position.

[OverMind]

Prove that all people think that. If you can't, then there are different definitions to true love besides idealism.

That's assuming the definition of 'true love' is based on a democratic vote. That's just silly.


It's better to have a dollar a bit lower in value than a dollar that doesn't exist.

Yeah, that's fine. It's better to work towards the oh-so-real 'love' than investing in the ideals of the non-existent 'true love'.


True love doesn't just happen. You have to work at it. But does that mean it could work out with everyone? No, because a relationship between two people that hate each other will simply fail.

Right, but take any given person, and you could match them up with a subset of people of the human population that are 'compatible'. Obviously, someone you 'hate' wouldn't be in that subset but, my point, the subset is not confined to a genuine individual a la "soul mate" which is what the concept of "true love" is.

That's the premise of dating sites, right? As such, do dating sites promote 'true love'? That's another question to think about.


That's only because you refuse to open your eyes to the truth. To you, there's no God, no destiny, nothing spiritual or psychic, no links between people, absolutely nothing.

Well, now, this seems more like a personal attack, and the discussion of "truth" is a thread all unto itself. I could just as easily argue that truth is no determinism, no God (at least a personal one in the Western Judeo-Christian sense, I'm a little more open to pantheism- just slightly), no soul, and just a purely physical world in our earthly bodies. Propositions juxtaposing yours directly- You live, you die, and the wheels on the bus go round and round.

In fact, that's what the whole school of materialistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) philosophy is about, perhaps one that has influenced me deeply. (In addition to existentialism, the freethought movement, Libertarianism, and egoism).

You'd make a horrible parent.

I'll do you a favor and not expand on the ad hominem that you walked into. Just because you don't know what it means or else you wouldn't have walked into it in the first place, knowing that I would call you out on it.


No, you can't. I tried it with Liz. I acted perfectly, but there wasn't any love between us.

Let's try testing your theory.

Make me fall in love with you. I absolutely hate your guts. However, there is a bare definition of relationship between us in that we know each other and have interacted. We have a bond, even if it's a negative one. You can singlehandedly improve the relationship between us and make me, a straight man, fall in love with you.

Don't say something like, "I don't want to." I'm calling you out. Prove your theory or retract it.

Well, you got me here. I didn't mean for the "any" part to be literally, I sort of implied potential compatible relationships. So, I can't fault you for that one.

To clarify, and this adds on to something I've been talking about earlier, you can't just make random pairing of people work as a relationship. But, one given person is compatible with a variety of other mates, a subset of the human population, and so a relationship can be made to work. "Love" can be engineered to work with one person or another which, as my critics here have been quick to point out, involve effort. But, it's the fact that one such individual has such a variety of people to be in a successful relationship with that makes me critical of "true love".


No. That's just the media's definition of true love. You have to work at it. However, your actions and beliefs are determined by history and fate. Therefore, what you choose to do, while controlled... are still completely necessary for success.

Aren't fate and putting in one's own effort contradictory, though? If "true love" will happen regardless, why put any effort at all if fate will make it all work in the end anyway?

[musigal]

That's assuming the definition of 'true love' is based on a democratic vote. That's just silly.

but isn't thinking that everyone else has the same idea of true love as you kind of foolish? If other people are telling you that they have always thought that true love is something other than what you think it is, who are you to say that your definition is the true one?
also, isn't that what language is: symbols given meaning by those who use them. language is dynamic; it changes all the time, so saying that we can't change the definition of "true love" (which we aren't trying to do, but even if we were) would be counter to the nature of language itself.

but all of this is just semantics. literally.

[JesusRocks]

If every single person in the world that speaks English agrees that for is spelled f-o-r, then why would you think that it's spelled y-e-l-l-o-w? It's just plain stupid. I know I'm blowing that out of proportion, but the point is that you're sticking to one definition that most people just aren't using. It's fine to say that idealistic stuff isn't real, but that's not what those words mean to everyone else. Make up a new word with those letters that people will agree with, don't try to keep saying that's how it's spelled.

I see your point here, but OverMind is talking in the context of the mythical "true love" that resides in the realm of fairy tales and in the minds of playwrights, novellists and film-makers.

He's arguing in one context, you're arguing in a different context. I'd advise meeting OverMind on the ground he is arguing on, because that will stop comments like these about semantics. Which, in the long run are pointless.

You missed my point entirely and you did it on purpose. Don't do that.

Actually, no... I think he just touched on the meaning most of us took from this part of what you said. If you wanted it to mean something else you should have added some explanation to your metaphor.

What does compatibility matter? You never once mentioned this before, as far as I can remember. Keep tap-dancing.

He's saying that there is no "soul mate" or perfect individual for one person, but instead there are groups of individuals who would fulfill this role.

To understand my point, you have to understand my own (slightly deterministic) view of free will and fate.

The 'initial action' refers to the big bang.

Suppose that you give the big bang a physical form. Imagine it as a sphere as large as a marble that children (used to) play with. Now imagine that it has multiple colors. Suppose it's in a completely empty space. Now, make it explode.

The colors that were there go in different directions and form the universe.

Now, looking at that, when you chose to look at it a certain way, you created a chain of events. In other words, if there were red dots on the left side and more yellow on the right, you caused the red dots to go a certain way and the yellow ones to go another.

These dots of multiple colors in multiple directions bounce off of each other a certain way, and it's based entirely on how it was originally formed (supposing you had control over the explosion as well and how it was happened, that was done in a certain way by your own will as well).

Now, because those dots ended up a certain way, planets were eventually formed, and every single reaction that took place happened because of that planet being formed in that exact point in space.

It all roots back to the big bang once again.

Now, these planets that had reactions within themselves can be described at any point in their history. Suppose that organisms are born.

This is where people begin to think of free will. Do you have the choice to do things? No, you don't.

The things that influence your choices are:
Environment
Social factors
Genetics
Experiences

All of these things are completely out of your control. How you react to them, too, is out of your control.

The reason for that goes back to the idea of the big bang. Events that have happened since then happened because of the way you formed that sphere.

However, it's not in a linear path, as I described above. Every dot bounces off of another dot. People are the same way, but in a huge scale. Every single thing that is made, every resource, every person, every breath of air, absolutely everything is the result of several reactions of other people.

Your environment is entirely controlled right down to your birth by factors out of your control, all because of the initial action.

This is my definition of fate. Free will is an illusion. Now, if you believe that the ability to choose, even though your choices are controlled by factors out of your control, is the very definition of free will, then I can't convince you otherwise.

(Yes, it's a bit materialistic, I guess. But it has a sorta psychological spin to it. If this idea already exists, can you give me a name for it? I'd guess that someone else thought of it before me)

Bold is where you lost me. I managed to pick it up again a few paragraphs on, but dude... I can't say I agree with it in the slightest. But, to each his own I suppose...

Dating sites promote sex. They look more like legal prostitution to me.

This.

You're a pathetically misled person. Try thinking about things that you learn about before instantly accepting them. Oh, but you're too prideful to think any opinion other than yours is valid.

How to raise a child, birth to age 5:

Be as lighthearted as you can possibly be around them. Be a kid. Be pollyanna. That's all. But you can't do that. Personally, I won't accuse you of hurting them, but I'd accuse you of being too busy cheating on your wife to share any fatherly love with your child. You did say that's what you want to do on the BAR after all...

Completely irrelevant to the argument. Please refrain from personal attacks.

However, the reason I dislike you the most is because you're completely unwilling to believe in anyone who disagrees with you. You don't try to learn from anyone at all. While this is who you are, it's rather sad that you're not actually trying to learn from others. You'd rather tap-dance than admit when you're beaten, and you have been beaten before, at least a few times. You tend to ignore things when you can't think of any proper counter. Either that, or you'll reword things or completely change your opinion in a way that makes more sense but still disagrees completely.

Again, bordering on an attack on his arguing style. The tone of your posts is very agressive, and it doesn't need to be.
However, this time, if any of what you've said is true, then OverMind has the opportunity to adjust his style of arguing, and get better at it, so I'll leave it be.

I really think you should start reading what others say without the automatic need to disagree with them

I'd call this critical analysis.

and I also think you should be more critical of things after having read them.

Which would be why he doesn't automatically agree with everything everyone says >_>

Essentially, look at these things, completely consider all points, attack the weaknesses in your mind, defend the strengths, and pick the stronger side. You probably think you do this, but most of the time, if you see me post, you tend to disagree with what I say or talk down to me instead of actually considering what I say. The reason I can't practice what I preach involving you is because of the way you act. I act based on how others act. I haven't always been this way, but this is how I am now. If others flame me, I flame them back. If others treat me as an equal instead of some huge idiot, then I'll see them as an equal and be more likely to listen to them in a sophisticated discussion.

As far as I've argued with OverMind, he doesn't do pleasantries, but instead gets straight to the point he disagrees with.

[eternity]

What is love~

[Yellow]

What is love~

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more!

[OverMind]

I feel JesusRocks has sufficiently responded to ShiningRadiance's post for the most part. There's one thing I'd like to discuss further, though.

Dating sites promote sex. They look more like legal prostitution to me.

I would like to point out that not all dating sites are "prostitution rings". Perhaps there are some, but I feel it is necessary to pick apart such a generalized, sweeping statement. In fact, one of the oldest and largest ones, eHarmony, has been attacked by critics for promoting a Christian, right-wing agenda. eHarmony is supported by the lobbyist group Focus on the Family, which is an evangelical Christian organization. And, to top it off, eHarmony does not provide for same-sex matches.

One would think that a community of mostly Christian individuals on such a dating site aren't primarily focused on sex, but genuinely concerned with pursing a meaningful relationship. Taking the opposing position which I have quoted above, these Christians would technically be engaging in 'prostitution'. However, I find that to be silly.

So, my point, I was referring to dating sites that promote relationships as opposed to 'flings', though the latter do certainly exist.

but isn't thinking that everyone else has the same idea of true love as you kind of foolish? If other people are telling you that they have always thought that true love is something other than what you think it is, who are you to say that your definition is the true one?
also, isn't that what language is: symbols given meaning by those who use them. language is dynamic; it changes all the time, so saying that we can't change the definition of "true love" (which we aren't trying to do, but even if we were) would be counter to the nature of language itself.

but all of this is just semantics. literally.

Well now, after reading over JesusRocks post (who, as an off-tangent point, is in the middle-ground) and this one (you mentioned semantics), it seems as if this whole argument is based on definitions. It's apparent that neither side can agree on this, so any arguments derived from here are meaningless. We'd might as well annul the last 2 pages of discussion.

So, let's start from the basics.

My position, whether you agree with it or not, and whether it has not been clear from my previous posts:

True Love is idealism; the love one would find in literature or mythology. The love in which 2 people are "made" for each other to the point that one cannot bear to live without the other. The kind of love that started the legendary Trojan war. The kind of love which caused Romeo to take his life when he falsely believed that Juliet had died. This is the kind of love we try to aspire to have but, ultimately, it'll never be this perfect.

Love is real, malleable; the love that can be made to work, but its not eternal and subject to change as people change. One can have many "loves" throughout life, starting from the high school sweetheart or even the ex-spouse.

So, I ask all of you, what is the difference between "love" and "true love"?

[OverMind]

I'm not going to change my opinion to argue a weaker position. If he says I'm wrong, he has to prove that I'M wrong, not that you're wrong or fluffymcshutthefuckup is wrong.

He hasn't done that.

The onus is on you to prove your own argument.

Basically, you tried using a straw man argument to discredit my position.


He does it on purpose all the time, so forgive me if I don't believe you.

It just seemed like a vague analogy which could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. I apologize if you were dismayed by my attempt at both pointing out its vagueness and bolstering my own position.

As JesusRocks pointed out, I dislike fancy language, I try to be more direct with my points.


I know he's saying that now, but he didn't say that latter part before. He pretty much said that anyone can fall in love with anyone else. I was attacking his transition into a different arguing point in order to still try to be right even though his previous position was wrong.

It's nice that he learned something, but instead of admitting that, he tried to say it's what he was saying all along. Maybe I just don't remember him saying it, but as far as I can remember, this is the very first time he's proposed that little group theory.

If you look back, take note that whatever insignificant point you're busting my balls on right now originated in the form of a question to musigal. I was attempting to poke holes in her position. I didn't formulate my own contradictory position based on that, if that's what you're getting at. I was trying to paint a contradiction in her position.


I don't like eHarmony because they tend to pretend they know exactly what you'll like.

Well, now, it's a business. They advertise to sell a service. What do you expect them to say? Our service only works half the time?


Just because two people are compatible does NOT mean that they're compatible, basically.

That makes sense. Wait, no it doesn't.


I mean, if I had someone exactly like me, I'd hate them. That's why I hate you, OverMind~

And, I'm not going to rebuttal against this, but I'm going to mention that you seem to be trying to side-step your original position that dating sites are prostitution rings. In fact, you haven't upheld this position at all in this post and, instead, seem to now accept them as a legitimate service, albeit one you disagree with.


Sorry. Of course, I'm saying sorry to you, not to him.

Keep in mind that attacking me (which you did, with that 'terrible parent' comment which came out of no where), and then apologizing to JesusRocks doesn't actually count as an apology. It doesn't even make sense.

Of course, I don't much care for an apology anyway.


I'm attacking his arguing style, but there's no rule against that. I'm not attacking him. I'm attacking something he's doing that particularly pisses me off.

No, you're attacking both my argument style and me.

But, in regards to "style, there may not be a rule against attacking my argument style, but you've pretty much derailed the thread by doing so. This topic seems less and less about 'true love', and more and more about me being evil or something.

At the least, this would seem to be in bad faith. Hey, lawyer-boy (Yes, I'm talking to you JesusRocks), mind giving us a definition of 'bad faith'? Yeah, I know I can do it, but ... you do it much nicer ... *wink wink*


I'm not asking him to. The point is that he looks at things people write and he dives in with this mindset of, "Everyone against me is wrong. I'm always right. Yay me." He's incredibly arrogant if you've spent any time at all interacting with him. He's flamed me more than any other user on the forums, so maybe that's why I'm a little harsher with him than anyone else. Now, telling me to be nice to him... that's not gonna make a difference. I'm seriously awaiting the day that he disappears for another 6 months, because that means TitanAura will come back. TitanAura is cool. OverMind is not.

As I've said before, this thread seems to be less and less about 'true love' and more about me and now its turning into a personal attack.

And I'm disappointed that you feel my inactivity will alleviate whatever anguish I am causing you.


Then you don't argue enough. You'll learn eventually. He trolls.

A troll is someone like Pokey who creates 'controversial' topics to get a rise out of people. Or, Boss Nigger; I'm sure you can fish out that old Holocaust denial thread. The most controversial thread I've ever made was the one relating to Freedom of Expression.

I'll admit that I argue a lot, but I agree with a lot of people. For instance, I agree with many points JesusRocks has put out in this thread. Heck, Fat1Fared and I always seem to agree on everything, such as homosexuality and the religion thread (except one incident where I blamed the Israeli conflict on Great Britain). And, I pretty much agree with Underling on everything when he posts in this sub-forum, regardless of how rarely this happens. Of course, when he does it, it's not trolling apparently, but that's a separate issue all unto itself.

The point you're missing ShiningRadiance is that we're both usually on opposite sides of the field. 99% of the time. Not 100%, you ask? Recall that I agreed with your position that the 'Nobel Peace Prize' was a farce. Not because I was doing you a favor or anything but, rather, it was something I believed in.

But, most of the time, whenever you've discussed anything with me in this forum, it's always been to disagree. So, you're misinterpreting our constant "debates" (sure, let's call them that) as something I do with everyone. As such, from your point of view, I'm a trouble-maker that's always stirring up arguments.

... Maybe the problem isn't me ...

Just sayin'

[MrsSallyBakura]

*insert OverMind comments*

I agree. I don't even hesitate to say it.

I think that these Serious Discussion threads could have a lot more substance and a lot less nonsense if you, SR, actually used logic.

As I've gotten to know you a bit better, SR, I've come to discover that true logic doesn't come very naturally for you. Almost all of your arguments are driven by pure emotion, which doesn't make for a good debate around these parts. It's not that it's wrong to have an opinion based on emotions (although I'm pretty sure that some of the people who frequent these threads would disagree with me on that one), just don't expect people who are used to thinking logically and are naturally very good at it to buy your arguments when you post them.

I know this because I would be the exact same way if I hadn't been working for years to think more logically about situations. I'm a lot better at it than I was 5 years ago, and even still, I get emotionally driven to type some of the arguments that I post in these kinds of threads. But in the end, I know that my emotions on an issue don't mean very much to some of the people in these threads, which is why I don't post my emotions unless I have enough logic to back up why I feel a certain way.

Now, what were we talking about again? True love?

Eh, I'm surprisingly cynical about the subject. As I said earlier, I just don't like it when people toss the word around. Because others toss it around, I can't take it seriously no matter when it's mentioned.

Yes, we do love multiple people in our lives. Does a widow who remarries stop loving her first husband? Do we ever "get over" our very first serious romantic relationship? Why or why not? Should you marry the first person you have sex with because you felt like you were truly in love while having sex for the first time?

These are all questions that can only be answered on an individual basis. As a whole, there is no right or wrong answer for any of them.

I suppose the question is: when does love become true? And can you have more than one true love in your lifetime?

[HolyShadow]

If my emotional arguments are meaningless to you all, then I retract all of my comments and arguments from all topics in this section and will not post any more.

That is all. Farewell.

[OverMind]

Now, what were we talking about again? True love?

Eh, I'm surprisingly cynical about the subject. As I said earlier, I just don't like it when people toss the word around. Because others toss it around, I can't take it seriously no matter when it's mentioned.

Yes, we do love multiple people in our lives. Does a widow who remarries stop loving her first husband? Do we ever "get over" our very first serious romantic relationship? Why or why not? Should you marry the first person you have sex with because you felt like you were truly in love while having sex for the first time?

These are all questions that can only be answered on an individual basis. As a whole, there is no right or wrong answer for any of them.

I suppose the question is: when does love become true? And can you have more than one true love in your lifetime?

I was going to bring these points up too, after the whole definition business was to be sorted out. In particular, I'm interested in the scenario of a widow and her second husband.

For argument's sake, let's assume that her first husband was her 'true love'. Now, he's dead. What does that make her second husband? If the first husband was her 'true love', does that not demean the value of her second marriage? If her second husband is her 'true love', does that not demean the value of the first marriage?

I don't buy the argument that both men can be her 'true love'; the very nature of 'true love' is a relationship between two people. It's not a ménage à trois.

Thoughts?

[Fat1Fared]

Ok, going to just cross examine random points as read them, ok first:-

SR (oh god it must be a personal attack ^_-)

It's better to have a dollar a bit lower in value than a dollar that doesn't exist.

-OK first we will ignore the millions of very well read intellectuals who would very quickly tell you how wrong this statement can be and say that money is a good thing and therefore by that logic failing money is better than no money at all, how do we link it to Love again?
=I mean seriously linking a thing which is a Synthetic fact to a thing which is a subjective nature, is just plain wrong, because 1 is man-made and therefore its status is factual as we make it, we define it, therefore it is, the other is a natural event, which cannot be completely defined because by its own nature it is a subjective truth and therefore holds no factual basis at all, merely the interpretations of their obversing it and/or experiencing it. So therefore they cannot have any corrolutation between each other, because simply 2 different, making this whole point redundant.

That's only because you refuse to open your eyes to the truth. To you, there's no God, no destiny, nothing spiritual or psychic, no links between people, absolutely nothing.

You'd make a horrible parent.

Ok, first God is not truth, he is faith, so cannot open eyes to him, only believe in him, so that point is plain wrong

-Second, dare I ask, what the hell you think a good parent is? (because though I do not know overmind very well, I think he would make good parsent as he would not try and make his kids see the world from uneducated and narrow point of view, he would want them to see it in boarder light than that)

No, you can't. I tried it with Liz. I acted perfectly, but there wasn't any love between us.

Let's try testing your theory.

Make me fall in love with you. I absolutely hate your guts. However, there is a bare definition of relationship between us in that we know each other and have interacted. We have a bond, even if it's a negative one. You can singlehandedly improve the relationship between us and make me, a straight man, fall in love with you.

=Holy, you do know, when poeple use extra words, there normally in there for reason?

=The word potentially is very important one, and if you bother to use it, then may understand his point lot better

More SR (seriously, I do not think I will ever see another person who interests me as much as you, maybe we're soul mates ^_-)

If every single person in the world that speaks English agrees that for is spelled f-o-r, then why would you think that it's spelled y-e-l-l-o-w? It's just plain stupid.

=This goes back to Synthetic facts and subjective natures, Language is man made thing, therefore its facts are what we made it to be, that is why Yellow is not For , love cannot be compared to them, in this way, because love is not made coniously by man, therefore its definition is not defined by us ether, merely interpretate it, no its basis not sound enough to make factual ideology which everyone agrees on

This is where people begin to think of free will. Do you have the choice to do things? No, you don't.

The things that influence your choices are:
Environment
Social factors
Genetics
Experiences

All of these things are completely out of your control. How you react to them, too, is out of your control.

OK, all of this was generally, well wrong in my opinion, but pulling it all to pecies bit by bit seemed like lot of effort, when i can take one part and simply destroy from the base and leave rest to crumble on its own. ^_-
=Here is your major problem holy, you will always be limited in your intrepretations of the world in views of poeple like me and Overmind (not saying we are right here, as this is all subjective, not substantive at moment) because you see everything as Black or White, there is no gray in your world, and well Humans are no so easily defined as to be boxed black or white, because a lot of what we do is gray, which is why we cannot agree on what ultimate truth is, because there is not one which can be gray. I am not saying we control our environments completely or our environments control us completely as logically truth would say it is somewhere in the middle, IE a kid born into a slum is more likely to be a slum liver all his life than someone born into middle class family, but it is not a dead set thing as some of the most noted and powerful poeple throughout history prove.

Dating sites promote sex. They look more like legal prostitution to me.

-Point in Case:-
=So if someone finds a lover on dating site, does there love mean less than your love with Tess, even if their love is 2 wayed, rather than one? (or maybe this is little more complicated than that and the exsintic values come into play here)

-I had a friend, who's mother was mail order bride, now at first I found it all little strange, but when I got to know his step-father and mother, I saw too of the most happy and commited poeple in the world, however under your limited and Coherence view of world, there love is worth less someone who found their love in a bar in middle of drug dent?

However, the reason I dislike you the most is because you're completely unwilling to believe in anyone who disagrees with you. You don't try to learn from anyone at all. While this is who you are, it's rather sad that you're not actually trying to learn from others. You'd rather tap-dance than admit when you're beaten, and you have been beaten before, at least a few times. You tend to ignore things when you can't think of any proper counter. Either that, or you'll reword things or completely change your opinion in a way that makes more sense but still disagrees completely.

this just made me LOL, I mean seriously only you holy could say this without seeing any irony to it all LOL

Finally someone knew and its overmind and well, just saying I agree completely, how boring

True Love is idealism; the love one would find in literature or mythology. The love in which 2 people are "made" for each other to the point that one cannot bear to live without the other. The kind of love that started the legendary Trojan war. The kind of love which caused Romeo to take his life when he falsely believed that Juliet had died. This is the kind of love we try to aspire to have but, ultimately, it'll never be this perfect.

Love is real, malleable; the love that can be made to work, but its not eternal and subject to change as people change. One can have many "loves" throughout life, starting from the high school sweetheart or even the ex-spouse.

SR again <___<
>___>

I don't like eHarmony because they tend to pretend they know exactly what you'll like. Just because two people are compatible does NOT mean that they're compatible, basically. I mean, if I had someone exactly like me, I'd hate them. That's why I hate you, OverMind~

So this comes down to, they don't fit my theory, therefore they do not count, well that make work as religious agrument, but we have more solid thing to debate here 0_o

Overmind on SR (Hmmm, oh well)

Keep in mind that attacking me (which you did, with that 'terrible parent' comment which came out of no where), and then apologizing to JesusRocks doesn't actually count as an apology. It doesn't even make sense.

Of course, I don't much care for an apology anyway.


Well good thing don't as last time Holy said sorry, he ended up insulting more people than he originally needed to say sorry too in the first place and there wasn't even really apology in there 0_o

Heck, Fat1Fared and I always seem to agree on everything, such as homosexuality and the religion thread (except one incident where I blamed the Israeli conflict on Great Britain).

I think that is because we both like to look at world from the "interpretated intellectual stance," so rather than place ourselves in any set ground, we look at each one on its own merits and judge it from there with "accepted logic" (true children of the post-modern age)

PS I did not disagree that britian was too blame, I just did not agree with your reasoning as to why they were. (just so know that)

Sally

-My GOD, the DAY has come when I can say I agree with you on something lol, though I suspect I am one of the poeple you are on about and just so know, I do not mind poeple using emotion as guide, as long as they try to place some reasoning behind it, I mean "I shot the man because it felt right" just doesn't seem a strong agrument compared to "It felt right to shoot the man because he stole my ice-cream" (when comes to emotion I take lord Atkin's view)

Overmind and a point on TOPIC OH MY GODDDDDDDDDDDD

I was going to bring these points up too, after the whole definition business was to be sorted out. In particular, I'm interested in the scenario of a widow and her second husband.

For argument's sake, let's assume that her first husband was her 'true love'. Now, he's dead. What does that make her second husband? If the first husband was her 'true love', does that not demean the value of her second marriage? If her second husband is her 'true love', does that not demean the value of the first marriage?

I don't buy the argument that both men can be her 'true love'; the very nature of 'true love' is a relationship between two people. It's not a ménage à trois.

Thoughts?

well, I agree with you again (hmmmm) and using an example from my own life, my father is currently with his second partner (who he does not plan to marry as now "believes" (or realises in my view lol) that is silly waste of time) and he is happier than he has ever been, however does that mean, he never loved my mother?
=Well on the face of it, would be easier to say, probably not, as they were woeful couple, but he did love her (and several actions he did for her prove that, these were not over blown romantic gestures, these were far more deep and real things than that, these were things that in my opinion show far more love than any white dress, fancy necklass or....etc, however they are not my things to go into, so move on)
=now can we really compare the two loves?
-No as both very different things, and though he is happier with his new partner than probably ever was with my mother, he has not done the same things for his new partner than ever did for my mother, but does that devalue his second love?
-Well not in my opinion, but who knows

[AllisonWalker]

HAHAHA!

[ChouToshio]

I didn't believe in true love (I guess I still don't). I always figured life was about finding someone you could trust and work with, and go from there. No one's perfect, and what's really important is making a family, not sweeping emotions.


. . . and then this incredible girls just walks into my life, and I am having a hard time with those old thoughts. God has a really dry sense of humor. :/

[OverMind]

I didn't believe in true love (I guess I still don't). I always figured life was about finding someone you could trust and work with, and go from there. No one's perfect, and what's really important is making a family, not sweeping emotions.


. . . and then this incredible girls just walks into my life, and I am having a hard time with those old thoughts. God has a really dry sense of humor. :/

Are you currently in a relationship, or are you just a victim of cupid (Well, Valentine's day is coming up)?

[ChouToshio]

In a relationship

[Arkanoodles]

MAH BOI, this love is what ALL the true YGOTASfags strive for!

This was the best thing to be posted here.


But seriously now, can't you guys talk about stuff without getting amazingly fired up and bashing people around?

[killshot]

But seriously now, can't you guys talk about stuff without getting amazingly fired up and bashing people around?

Where would the fun be in that?

[Arkanoodles]

Where would the fun be in that?

:squintyface:...................

[Aninamar]

But seriously now, can't you guys talk about stuff without getting amazingly fired up and bashing people around?

THE FIRST DUTY OF EVERY YGOTAS MEMBER IS TO THE TRUTH, WHETHER IS IT SCIENTIFIC TRUTH OR HISTORICAL TRUTH OR PERSONAL TRUTH! IT IS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE ON WHICH THOSE FORUMS ARE BASED! IF YOU HAVEN'T GOT IT WITHIN YOURSELF TO STAND UP AND TROLL ABOUT YOUR OPINION LIKE IT'S THE FUCKING SECOND COMING...

(how was it going again? Oh right.)

...FUCK OFF AND DIE!

(there was something about the uniform?)

...AND CUM ON YOUR UNIFORM.

[JesusRocks]

THE FIRST DUTY OF EVERY YGOTAS MEMBER IS TO THE TRUTH, WHETHER IS IT SCIENTIFIC TRUTH OR HISTORICAL TRUTH OR PERSONAL TRUTH! IT IS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE ON WHICH THOSE FORUMS ARE BASED! IF YOU HAVEN'T GOT IT WITHIN YOURSELF TO STAND UP AND TROLL ABOUT YOUR OPINION LIKE IT'S THE FUCKING SECOND COMING...

(how was it going again? Oh right.)

...FUCK OFF AND DIE!

(there was something about the uniform?)

...AND CUM ON YOUR UNIFORM.

AD HOMINEM TRULY IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE ARGUING METHOD :thatface:

[OverMind]

I was going to bring these points up too, after the whole definition business was to be sorted out. In particular, I'm interested in the scenario of a widow and her second husband.

For argument's sake, let's assume that her first husband was her 'true love'. Now, he's dead. What does that make her second husband? If the first husband was her 'true love', does that not demean the value of her second marriage? If her second husband is her 'true love', does that not demean the value of the first marriage?

I don't buy the argument that both men can be her 'true love'; the very nature of 'true love' is a relationship between two people. It's not a ménage à trois.

Thoughts?

No one has even tried to approach my think experiment.

So, now, I'm going to add a twist. Yes, I'm going to have a bit of fun with this. Sit back, spread your legs, and enjoy the ride*.

Suppose a woman has a 'true love', her husband/boyfriend/whatever. Let's say that said husband gets drafted into the future War in Iran (scheduled for 2017, probably). For whatever horrible circumstance, her husband ends up listed as Missing-in-Action (MIA). She's crushed obviously, and there's very little hope he'd ever be found, it's likely he's dead. The war rages on, and after a few years, she gets over it and pursues a relationship with someone else. They get married.

Anyways, the war ends a year later. As a gesture of good faith, the Iranian government releases their captured POWs and, what do you know, the husband/boyfriend/whatever is among the pack.

He returns home only to find out that she's moved on.

In this convoluted and overly drawn-out circumstance, what's the right thing to do? If her husband/boyfriend/whatever was her 'true love' then 'destiny' has kept him alive to bring them together. However, what of her current partner? Does he get jilted? If not, then what of the boyfriend/husband?

How does 'true love' factor in here?

*That's what she said

[AllisonWalker]

No one believes in your definition of "true love". So, no matter what any of us say, you'll get mad and lash out at us. There's no point in answering that "what if".

[Aninamar]

Hey, why not? Overmind does bring a valid point and is actually somewhat contributing.

Of course, we could also spam...

[AllisonWalker]

Well, as he worded it, if she's "gotten over it", I assume she's fallen out of love and would stay with however she truely felt connected with.

Same thing happens with soldiers. While on tour, they met someone and fall in love, and end up seperating with their partner at home.

Happens.

[Aninamar]

Same thing happens with soldiers. While on tour, they met someone and fall in love, and end up seperating with their partner at home.

If loving someone results in getting some, then you must LOVE! Sun Tzu said that, and I think he knows a little more about fucking than you do, pal, because he invented it! And then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in a bedroom.

He used his gigolo money to buy two girls of every nationality on earth, took them on a boat, and then fucked the crap out of every single one.

Mwahehehe... And from that they forward every time you want to insult someone, you call him "Sun of a bitch!"

(Unless you talked to a woman!)

[OverMind]

No one believes in your definition of "true love". So, no matter what any of us say, you'll get mad and lash out at us. There's no point in answering that "what if".

I think all of you read too much into my posts. I'm not going to get "mad" at anyone for disagreeing with me.

I also think many of you have fallen prey to some the false notion that everything you say is immune from criticism and when criticism is given, it's called "lashing out". We'd might as well hold hands and share feelings and tie ribbons in each other's hair.

And, finally, the "what if" situation was posed to get everyone to think critically. I posed questions here so you can take your own understanding of 'true love' and apply it to the case and see how it holds out.

If no one wants to do it, then fine. Ignore it. Continue posting sappy romances from your own personal life.

[Aninamar]

sappy romances from your own personal life.
Spy sappin' mah romance!

[MrsSallyBakura]

I didn't read the post until now, though, so I suppose I'll share my thoughts.

I posed the question in the first place because I know a woman whose husband died of cancer. About 5 years later, she remarried a man whose first wife had left him. She still loves her first husband, but not in a way that makes her want him to come back to life or anything. Yet she loves her second husband as well. To me, that's an interesting concept because it's a unique situation in my own life; I honestly don't know very many people who were widowed, remarried, and in a healthy second marriage. I think I'd like to know her opinion on 'true love.'

From my own experiences, when I first started dating my exboyfriend, I thought that he was the love of my life and that I was gonna marry him. However, due to many situations and circumstances, we broke up after 3 and a half years of being in a relationship. I had dreamed of getting married young - right after college. We were told by our peers that we were perfect for each other. We broke up because we could no longer see a marriage between us lasting until death. There are better people out there for the both of us.

I'm not looking for an overly-idealized 'true love.' All I fundamentally ask for in a man is someone who can own up to his mistakes and learn to become a better person through them, and someone who can forgive me for mine. Along with the compatibility details and blah blah blah.

[OverMind]

From my own experiences, when I first started dating my exboyfriend, I thought that he was the love of my life and that I was gonna marry him. However, due to many situations and circumstances, we broke up after 3 and a half years of being in a relationship. I had dreamed of getting married young - right after college. We were told by our peers that we were perfect for each other. We broke up because we could no longer see a marriage between us lasting until death. There are better people out there for the both of us.

I'm not looking for an overly-idealized 'true love.' All I fundamentally ask for in a man is someone who can own up to his mistakes and learn to become a better person through them, and someone who can forgive me for mine. Along with the compatibility details and blah blah blah.

Would you say you believed in an idealized version of 'true love', such as the one I've been getting at, while you were in a relationship with your ex-boyfriend?

Did it change after the break-up?

[OverMind]

If loving someone results in getting some, then you must LOVE! Sun Tzu said that, and I think he knows a little more about fucking than you do, pal, because he invented it! And then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in a bedroom.

He used his gigolo money to buy two girls of every nationality on earth, took them on a boat, and then fucked the crap out of every single one.

Mwahehehe... And from that they forward every time you want to insult someone, you call him "Sun of a bitch!"

(Unless you talked to a woman!)

I know it's kind of late, but I'd also like to mention that this is genius.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Would you say you believed in an idealized version of 'true love', such as the one I've been getting at, while you were in a relationship with your ex-boyfriend?

Did it change after the break-up?

I don't really remember if I believed in an 'idealized version of true love,' at least not to the same extent that some people do. While I'm girly and emotional and I fantasize about things sometimes, a lot of the time I can be down-to-earth about issues like love. Back then, I was well-aware that love, marriage, and relationships took actual work and that love wasn't magical - that I definitely knew. I think that during the time when I had a crush on him, I thought that the reason why I couldn't get over him was because he was the one that I was gonna marry. I suppose what I believed was that my emotions were right.

I'm not trying to discredit emotions as a whole, but one thing that I've come to understand is that just because you feel a certain way, it doesn't mean that it's true. Before you believe that it's true, think it through logically, and if that doesn't work, then live through life a bit longer and see where things take you.

Did it change after we broke up? No, it changed during the relationship. The thing about our breakup was that it was a mutual process that lasted about 8 months. The beginning of those 8 months was when my dream of getting married early was shattered (for lack of a less dramatic word) and it was something that I had to accept because... well, I just had to. After all, it wasn't gonna happen, so why hope for it?
Now I don't even want to get married early anymore. lol

[Fat1Fared]

I'm not looking for an overly-idealized 'true love.' All I fundamentally ask for in a man is someone who can own up to his mistakes and learn to become a better person through them, and someone who can forgive me for mine. Along with the compatibility details and blah blah blah.

while I won't disagree with most of what you said, because think makes sense or not in position to comment on it, I think this line needs cursion, not just in relationships of love, but in every relationship, I think poeple are all too willing to tell others to become better people without knowing what being better person is, I am human and having failings, yes, but those failings make as much of me as my strenghts and so I would never get rid of them, because without them, I'm no longer me, I'm what world wants me to be and I do not wish to be that, because that is false version of me.

=I'm not saying poeple should not be willing to change themselves, but I will never change myself for another person ever again, because what makes their wants for me, anymore important than my own, any change that is made to me, will be for me and by me, in way I want and in return for poeple letting me, be me, I will never try to change other people, IE if I ever got a girlfriend and she wanted to do something I strongly disagreed with, I would not stop her or get angry with her, as its her choice and so who am I too change that

gives Overmind a quick slap

No one has even tried to approach my think experiment.

So, now, I'm going to add a twist. Yes, I'm going to have a bit of fun with this. Sit back, spread your legs, and enjoy the ride*.

Suppose a woman has a 'true love', her husband/boyfriend/whatever. Let's say that said husband gets drafted into the future War in Iran (scheduled for 2017, probably). For whatever horrible circumstance, her husband ends up listed as Missing-in-Action (MIA). She's crushed obviously, and there's very little hope he'd ever be found, it's likely he's dead. The war rages on, and after a few years, she gets over it and pursues a relationship with someone else. They get married.

Anyways, the war ends a year later. As a gesture of good faith, the Iranian government releases their captured POWs and, what do you know, the husband/boyfriend/whatever is among the pack.

He returns home only to find out that she's moved on.

In this convoluted and overly drawn-out circumstance, what's the right thing to do? If her husband/boyfriend/whatever was her 'true love' then 'destiny' has kept him alive to bring them together. However, what of her current partner? Does he get jilted? If not, then what of the boyfriend/husband?

How does 'true love' factor in here?

*That's what she said

well, I agree with you again (hmmmm) and using an example from my own life, my father is currently with his second partner (who he does not plan to marry as now "believes" (or realises in my view lol) that is silly waste of time) and he is happier than he has ever been, however does that mean, he never loved my mother?
=Well on the face of it, would be easier to say, probably not, as they were woeful couple, but he did love her (and several actions he did for her prove that, these were not over blown romantic gestures, these were far more deep and real things than that, these were things that in my opinion show far more love than any white dress, fancy necklass or....etc, however they are not my things to go into, so move on)
=now can we really compare the two loves?
-No as both very different things, and though he is happier with his new partner than probably ever was with my mother, he has not done the same things for his new partner than ever did for my mother, but does that devalue his second love?
-Well not in my opinion, but who knows

[AllisonWalker]

Fared, that's all plain immaturity. Your partner should never force you to become someone you aren't, but changing yourself by choice for the good of the relationship is a sign of maturity.

For example: A man who decides to quit smoking because he knows it irritates his partner.

[Fat1Fared]

Fared, that's all plain immaturity. Your partner should never force you to become someone you aren't, but changing yourself by choice for the good of the relationship is a sign of maturity.

For example: A man who decides to quit smoking because he knows it irritates his partner.

once again Allison, you read but you do not see, as you take everything at face value, my comment was not so black and white as you make it, which is why I was careful to use words which did not completely commit me to one stance:-
IE=I never said sally was wrong in that comment, but that she needed to take that comment carefully, and I did say that being willing to change is not a bad thing, so long as its what YOU want, not what OTHERS want from you, I spent much of my early life being told who and what I should be, even when I couldn't be what poeple wanted me to be, so in the end I realised that what I want is more important for my life, than what they want for it, so that is what I went for and if others did not like it, well they had own life to be what they wanted instead and I would let them be it.

-Lets take your smoking Point, now I do not smoke and I never will smoke, but if I had a partner who smoked, I would want her to respect my lack of smoking and in return I would respect her right to smoke, even if I disagreed with it personally, however if she then came to me and said she wanted to quit, I would support in that because it is what she wants, not what I want for her, as its not right for me to make her live her life, just in a way that pleases me, and so on the flip side, if she loved smoking and never wanted to give it up, I would not understand that personally, but I would accept it, because I respect her right to choice that path

PS before someone goes off about what about effecting other peoples lives....etc, that is different area, IE if again use Allison's smoking, if I had girlfriend who like to blow smoke in my face, I would ask her to stop that, because it directly effects my life negatively

[AllisonWalker]

You didn't read my post well at all. I said you should never force your partner into changing.

If you weren't willing to change for another person, there's no way on Earth you could ever be in a working, lasting relationship with someone.

I see everything as black and white, Fared. You can't change the way I perceive things.

And just about every teen in the world has experienced the "they tried to turn me into something I wasn't" situation.

[Fat1Fared]

You didn't read my post well at all. I said you should never force your partner into changing.

If you weren't willing to change for another person, there's no way on Earth you could ever be in a working, lasting relationship with someone.

I see everything as black and white, Fared. You can't change the way I perceive things.

And just about every teen in the world has experienced the "they tried to turn me into something I wasn't" situation.

is this post meant to be ironic?

PS also you speak as if I ever said anything about forcing...... and you act as if I said I said all relationships last forever

PSS also seriously don't try to downgrade my past and I won't over grade it, as you do not know what happened to me (if did, know lot of it happened long before I was a teen,) and so making that comment is foolish one to make, notice I don't go into your past, why because I know nothing about it.
=My childhood was not the worse it could have been by a long shot and that is one of the reasons why I will not complain that I was unlucky in where I was born or who my parents were (because for all their mistakes, they were not bad poeple) ...etc or ask to change my past, because that would be wrong, aspecially if I compared myself to someone from far worse position, (including some of users of this site) but there is lot that happened in it, which was far from nice and it took me lot of effort and personal hard work and change to become a better person than who it wanted to make me be.
=PS for others reading, do not get me wrong as not self-pitying kind and I can now say I am a happy person in my life and well on my way, to becoming who I want to be and going where I want to go and in that respect I am very lucky and happy

[AllisonWalker]

Yes it was.

so long as its what YOU want, not what OTHERS want from you
aka Forcing. I already addressed that in my first post. Reading comprehension. :P Why you needed to say that as if I had never said the exact same thing in the first place is beyond me.

If you don't like it, keep your teenage angst to yourself.

[Fat1Fared]

Yes it was.

so long as its what YOU want, not what OTHERS want from you

aka Forcing. I already addressed that in my first post. Reading comprehension. :P Why you needed to say that as if I had never said the exact same thing in the first place is beyond me.

If you don't like it, keep your teenage angst to yourself.

-Ok, seriously, I could go into a long thing about how you really need to learn the difference between words FORCE and words WANT/TRY/TELL...etc but something tells me, it would never be worth the effort and with second part, I didn't, I merely said people tried to tell me who to be, (which was me trying not to go into detail in something) and you made stupid and sarcastic comment about it, which was unneeded, so I decided to make you understand the folly of comments made without consideration for their outer laying consequences

[AllisonWalker]

To make someone do something against their will is force. Force, tell, urge; same difference.

It's the internet. Grow a thicker skin.

[MrsSallyBakura]

My point was that sometimes people make choices that hurt their partners. As a sign of maturity, you will do what you can in order to make it so that you don't hurt your partner again. Of course you will fail at this, but better to fail as little as possible than to fail as often as you can.

Say that I had a husband who liked to hang out at the bar every Friday evening with his friends. This is all fine and dandy by me, until one night he takes it too far. He comes home drunk as hell and starts becoming violent towards me and the kids.

The next morning, he has the choice to apologize to me and the kids for his behavior and his irresponsible drinking, or he doesn't apologize and says (either through his own words or through silence) that he thinks that it's perfectly OK to get sloshed every Friday and come home and try to beat me. If the latter were the case, then I'd make him go see a counselor (or go to rehab if it's bad enough) and if he refused, then that would be detrimental towards our marriage.

Why?

Because instead of considering the well-being of his wife and kids, he puts himself over the (ideal) most important people in his life for the sake of having a good time.

If he were to save the marriage and his family's respect, then he would be careful about how much he drinks from now on. He might come home drunk again, but as long as he again realizes that he made a mistake and then tries even harder to improve his behavior, the marriage might not be in danger.

Do you understand what I mean now? I'm not saying that we should be perfect, but if you really love someone, you'll try to do what is best for the other.

[Fat1Fared]

To make someone do something against their will is force. Force, tell, urge; same difference.

It's the internet. Grow a thicker skin.

Allison you are clearly still very young and you should be pleased that it is me who are saying these things to, because I can remain very calm and I was merely explaining to you, that the way in which you conducted your demeanor was not appreciated, most would insult you and be done with it

-Sally I knew what you meant from the start and here is the point where you go off in a way I disagree with personally:-

then I'd make him go see a counselor

-I think you should not try to make him do anything, I am not saying he would be right not too change (though in your case of one bad drinking night, that can be disputed, that is whole other area), but he should want to change because he thinks it is right thing to do, not becayse he thinks its what others think is the right thing to do

[MrsSallyBakura]

I think you should not try to make him do anything, I am not saying he would be right not too change (though in your case of one bad drinking night, that can be disputed, that is whole other area), but he should want to change because he thinks it is right thing to do, not becayse he thinks its what others think is the right thing to do

I did realize that after I posted that I shouldn't have said, "make." Besides, you can't make someone see a counselor; that wouldn't be very effective counseling anyways.

As for only one bad night of drinking, my point was that he has the choice to either keep doing it or be more careful next time. In the grand scheme of things, if it only ended up being that one bad night of drinking, then it would do little damage to the marriage overall.

[Fat1Fared]

I did realize that after I posted that I shouldn't have said, "make." Besides, you can't make someone see a counselor; that wouldn't be very effective counseling anyways.


Sally, that is why I used the word TRY from the start (you may not like my writing style sally, but when reading anything I put, you need to read very word because I never put a needless word in there. Everyone of them is important to my points, because my points always have level of grayness to them, which means have to accept the adding of attenuation words, so as to lessen and balance out, the literalness of their meanings)

=And this does not change my point, lets for arguments sake, make your scineico easier and say your partner is addicted to cocaine, now I believe (though maybe wrong) that you sally would be against that personally, and I know I would be against my partner using cocaine, however I would not try to make my partner stop, now I would not encourage her use of it or help with it in anyway, because I do not agree with it, but I would not stand in her way, because I believe it is up to my partner to make that choice and until she says off her own back she wishes to stop, it is her choice to do it, not mine to make her stop

=but anyway I think that is all I can say on it, as if do not understand this now, probably never will

[AllisonWalker]

I'm as old as you are, Fared. Your patronizing behavior is childish in its self.

I'm just tired of walking on eggshells for all of you. I don't care if you don't like the way I carry myself. Really, I'm sick of people not comprehending people's posts. Don't try to correct me when there's nothing to correct. I said it's wrong to force, make, urge, annoy, irritate, etc etc your partner into doing things they don't want to do or becoming someone they aren't. You wanted to turn around and start talking about your personal problems that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[MrsSallyBakura]

And this does not change my point, lets for arguments sake, make your scineico easier and say your partner is addicted to cocaine, now I believe (though maybe wrong) that you sally would be against that personally, and I know I would be against my partner using cocaine, however I would not try to make my partner stop, now I would not encourage her use of it or help with it in anyway, because I do not agree with it, but I would not stand in her way, because I believe it is up to my partner to make that choice and until she says off her own back she wishes to stop, it is her choice to do it, not mine to make her stop

There are a few things to consider:

1. If it hurts you that your wife is addicted to cocaine, then it will hurt the marriage. I believe that if you love your spouse, you wouldn't want them to hurt themselves - and being addicted to cocaine is very hurtful in many ways, and it may hurt yourself (and your kids if there are any).

If you were indifferent to her actions, then I can safely assume that you are indifferent to the marriage - and that probably means that you don't love her.

OR

It means that you're willing to be stepped on, taken advantage of, etc. for the sake of being non-confrontational. For the sake of "keeping the peace," even though your heart may be fighting an internal battle.

If neither of those assumptions is true, then what is true?

2. Because marriage is more significant than a regular friendship, it is more fragile in a few ways. While you can still remain friends with a cocaine addict even if you disagree with their actions, it is very, very difficult to remain married to someone who is making horrible choices, especially if they refuse to change their ways.

I say: either change or we're signing divorce papers. I wouldn't say that directly, and it would take me months and months to go to that conclusion, especially if there was a chance for change to come in the first place, but that's pretty much the jist of it. Due to circumstances beyond another party's control, some relationships are better ended.

I realized this as my ex and I were breaking up. We both actually needed to change a few things about ourselves in order to keep the relationship going, but... well, part of it was that we couldn't change parts of ourselves, but there was probably another part of us that didn't want to change certain things either. This probably sounds vague because I don't want to reveal too many of the secret downfalls of our relationship, and drugs weren't involved in our case either, but I think my personal experience still holds as an example.

We love each other as friends, but we couldn't last as a romantic couple.

[Fat1Fared]

-Sally, maybe my point is one that someone like you (I do not mean that in a condescending way) could never understand, because you have high and personal sense of properity, but if you really want to read what I put, not what you see, you need to take a step back and stop fighting my words, just read them and try to look at them from less personal level, because right now your not even fighting a point I am saying.
:-Sally you can have all the above, because I'm not saying:-
=It is right to take drugs
=It is right to put yourself before your partner
=It is right to never change.....etc and all other things you disagree with....

They are all inconsequential examples to my point, not the point itself, because my point can apply to far smaller and bigger examples than those and this is because the point itself, is far more instringistic thing than the examples portraying it. My point is that it is not the job of the partner, but the job of the person to make a person change, and if he/she does not change, i am not saying that is right ether but that it is their choice, not ours (and you can choice to react to that by leaving them) I'm just saying it is job of the individual to change and other poeple should not pressure them into it
=(I mean even if we go back to these more inconsequential examples, poeple do not always make others change for the better, I mean it is far easier to try and make someone take crack, than is, to make them stop, but in end I do not think we should try and make them do ether, it is their choice)

PS Allison, I'm not being patronizing (which is ironic term, coming from you) I merely making an observation as I see it and Allison it is your right to make those comments, however you then need to respect my right to show a lack of appreciation for them.

[MrsSallyBakura]

:-Sally you can have all the above, because I'm not saying:-
=It is right to take drugs
=It is right to put yourself before your partner
=It is right to never change.....etc and all other things you disagree with....

Please believe me. I know that you're not saying that at all. I know that you aren't saying it's right to do any of those things because you said it yourself that you didn't think that those things were right. I never said that I thought that you thought that it was right to do any of those things.

Please believe me when I say it.

I would appreciate it if you reread my post and made a response to the things that I actually said, and not the things that you thought I said.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I was not being very personal with my post, at least, not until I started saying my own opinion about what I would do if my spouse were addicted to cocaine.

[Arkanoodles]

THE FIRST DUTY OF EVERY YGOTAS MEMBER IS TO THE TRUTH, WHETHER IS IT SCIENTIFIC TRUTH OR HISTORICAL TRUTH OR PERSONAL TRUTH! IT IS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE ON WHICH THOSE FORUMS ARE BASED! IF YOU HAVEN'T GOT IT WITHIN YOURSELF TO STAND UP AND TROLL ABOUT YOUR OPINION LIKE IT'S THE FUCKING SECOND COMING...

(how was it going again? Oh right.)

...FUCK OFF AND DIE!

(there was something about the uniform?)

...AND CUM ON YOUR UNIFORM.

SCREW YOU MAN, I AM RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!


And seriously though, no one can prove love exists, but no one can prove it doesn't. 'nuff said. Now go make me a sandwich.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Ha ha, I don't think that this thread is meant to try and "prove" the existence of love as a whole, but rather whether or not you can consider a romantic relationship to be true love.

[Fat1Fared]

Please believe me. I know that you're not saying that at all. I know that you aren't saying it's right to do any of those things because you said it yourself that you didn't think that those things were right. I never said that I thought that you thought that it was right to do any of those things.

Please believe me when I say it.

I would appreciate it if you reread my post and made a response to the things that I actually said, and not the things that you thought I said.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I was not being very personal with my post, at least, not until I started saying my own opinion about what I would do if my spouse were addicted to cocaine.

sally, I cannot fully address your point if you not answering mine, like I said you can have all you said on what believe is right and wrong in personal reasoning level, I just do not believe your reactions to their actions are the right ones (personally), even if I do not think the other person is in right ether in their actions, they should have freedom to be wrong for themselves and I think it is sort of failure on your part to tell what my own point is, and then try to address it with constructively generic and Subsidiary "personal" (not to you) problems, which basically say if one side is wrong to act like that (in your opinion, (which would personally agree with)) should be stopped from doing it on "personal level" (note use of word personal level,) I have now told you 5 different ways what I mean, "that does not matter if they are wrong in our opinion, it is there right to be wrong" however you still do not seem to understand this logic (which is fair enough to how you personally think, as suspect lot of your logic I also cannot understand) but personally do think that you will not ever understand it, if do not already, so best thing to do is just accept that on both sides and move on

-Ok, I have another question then, that came from this amazingly interesting weekend I just had, what about Love Or Lust at first sight

[musigal]

I do not believe that you can fall in love at first sight. you can be interested at first sight, but that's not the same thing at all.

obviously you can have lust at first sight. that's what one-night stands are caused by, unfortunately.

[redpheonix]

true that musigal

[Sounnga]

I still love playing this game.

[Rika Furude]

The only time love is true, is when you love someone who doesn't love you back. This is because, the love for that person is not a feeling that you can turn on and off it's always there. It's a cruel fate and it's painful - nobody chooses to love someone like that, therefore it must be true love? Because it's something that you can't control, and your love must be strong to endure the pain, right?

(Some how I don't know if this makes any sense...)

[niknnik]

what a load

[MrsSallyBakura]

sally, I cannot fully address your point if you not answering mine, like I said you can have all you said on what believe is right and wrong in personal reasoning level, I just do not believe your reactions to their actions are the right ones (personally), even if I do not think the other person is in right ether in their actions,

Fair enough.

they should have freedom to be wrong for themselves

I agree, basically.

and I think it is sort of failure on your part to tell what my own point is, and then try to address it with constructively generic and Subsidiary "personal" (not to you) problems, which basically say if one side is wrong to act like that (in your opinion, (which would personally agree with)) should be stopped from doing it on "personal level" (note use of word personal level,) I have now told you 5 different ways what I mean, "that does not matter if they are wrong in our opinion, it is there right to be wrong" however you still do not seem to understand this logic (which is fair enough to how you personally think, as suspect lot of your logic I also cannot understand) but personally do think that you will not ever understand it, if do not already, so best thing to do is just accept that on both sides and move on

But do you know why I believe that they should try and stop making their mistakes?

Let me put it this way: If the lover is making mistakes and those mistakes are only affecting themselves, then they shouldn't have to worry about becoming a better person.

However, if the lover is making mistakes and is being held responsible for other people (ie spouse and kids), then the lover should become a better person for the sake of those other people.

That is all I'm saying. People have the right to make mistakes, and mistakes in a marital relationship are forgivable certainly. But marriage is incredibly fragile and in order to stay married, there has to be abundant forgiveness and an abundant desire to be a better person for the sake of your spouse and kids.

If you still don't agree with this, I would appreciate it if you responded to these points individually instead of telling me once again that I don't get the point. We can't have a proper discussion if you're just telling me that I don't understand when I don't know what it is that I don't understand. This is what I'm saying. I still feel like you don't understand me.

Prove me wrong and respond to my points as they are.

-Ok, I have another question then, that came from this amazingly interesting weekend I just had, what about Love Or Lust at first sight

I agree with musigal's post. Love at first sight doesn't exist, but lust and attraction at first sight does.

Most of the crushes I've had in my life have been on guys I've known for at least a few months.

The only time love is true, is when you love someone who doesn't love you back. This is because, the love for that person is not a feeling that you can turn on and off it's always there. It's a cruel fate and it's painful - nobody chooses to love someone like that, therefore it must be true love? Because it's something that you can't control, and your love must be strong to endure the pain, right?

(Some how I don't know if this makes any sense...)

No, I get what you're saying. It's a very interesting take on the whole thing.

I just have a couple of qualms with it.

1. What if you get over the person and fall in love with someone else later?

2. What if the person you're in love with decides that they love you back after all? Does it no longer become true after that?

[OverMind]

The only time love is true, is when you love someone who doesn't love you back. This is because, the love for that person is not a feeling that you can turn on and off it's always there. It's a cruel fate and it's painful - nobody chooses to love someone like that, therefore it must be true love? Because it's something that you can't control, and your love must be strong to endure the pain, right?

(Some how I don't know if this makes any sense...)

Sorry, kido. That's not true love.

Looks like you've got a classic case of unrequited love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrequited_love).

[AllisonWalker]

<//3

[HolyShadow]

Sally talked me into posting again.

Love is the worst thing in the universe and I wish it didn't exist. It causes insane amounts of pain if you allow yourself to get close and it fails, and the chance it will fail is so unbelievably high that no one should even bother with it. If you think you can handle it, go ahead and subject yourself to sadness. I've tried to kill myself several times. It's a terrible feeling.

[musigal]

I'm really sorry to hear that sr *hugs*
=/ there's living in a broken world for you: life's not fair. =(
but I must say, love can also cause insane amounts of joy.

[OverMind]

but I must say, love can also cause insane amounts of joy.

Like, sexually.

[musigal]

yes, actually. sex is something that bonds two people together inseparably. that's why it hurts so much if you break up with someone you've slept with. but in the right circumstances, i.e. a marriage relationship that isn't supposed to end, sex is a major part of keeping your relationship healthy. We're even warned about the dangers of refraining from it

I cannot wait to have sex. no question. it is something of great beauty that I intend to enjoy thoroughly because BONUS! it feels fantastic too (so I've heard)

BY THE WAY, IN CASE ANYONE DIDN'T GET THE HINTS, I'M A VIRGIN =)

[Rika Furude]

Sorry, kido. That's not true love.

Looks like you've got a classic case of unrequited love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrequited_love).

I know what unrequited love is, but what I am saying is that it is easier to tell someone who loves you 'I love you' than telling somebody who doesn't love you.

[Rika Furude]

No, I get what you're saying. It's a very interesting take on the whole thing.

I just have a couple of qualms with it.

1. What if you get over the person and fall in love with someone else later?

2. What if the person you're in love with decides that they love you back after all? Does it no longer become true after that?[/QUOTE]


1. Well, then you will still have some sort of feeling for the person, even if you do love somebody else.

2. Then, it will still be true love because, you loved them through bad times and proven that despite the person not loving you at first you loved them. And now if they love you, you have always loved them and your feelings won't change.

(It's really confusing concept to be honest ^^;)

[musigal]

so you're saying that love isn't love until it's been proven to be more than just a whim of feeling.

[Rika Furude]

so you're saying that love isn't love until it's been proven to be more than just a whim of feeling.

Yes, that is what I am saying ^^

[OverMind]

I know what unrequited love is, but what I am saying is that it is easier to tell someone who loves you 'I love you' than telling somebody who doesn't love you.

I would have at least thought that true love had to be more than a one-way street.

Going back to this:

The only time love is true, is when you love someone who doesn't love you back.

I just see a lot of pitfalls with this.

What of the circumstance where you've got a homosexual who is in 'love' with a non-homosexual (i.e. a relationship that can never be reciprocated)?

[musigal]

did you not read all of the subsequent explanation?

[OverMind]

did you not read all of the subsequent explanation?

I did and even that is sort of misguided.

I disagree with the idea that you can't choose who you love. I'd argue that everyone chooses who they love indirectly, at least.

Love is not random. It explains why, out of the blue, you don't suddenly start having a romantic attraction to someone on the other side of the planet; someone you've never even seen before. It's an attraction that happens with the people you associate yourself with, based on characteristics of an individual you deem appealing. Such qualities are based on your own context and biases. You're the master of your own environment and you, at least subconciously, determine what is desirable and what is not. As such, when someone fits the criteria, 'love' happens.

[musigal]

I agree that you choose whom you love; love is not random. I'm just saying that what you're saying doesn't fit with what it is that she explained was what she was trying to say. cause she amended to say that if the person then does love you back it's still love (now a two way street) and we already covered most of the pitfalls of the second bit.

[OverMind]

I agree that you choose whom you love; love is not random. I'm just saying that what you're saying doesn't fit with what it is that she explained was what she was trying to say. cause she amended to say that if the person then does love you back it's still love (now a two way street) and we already covered most of the pitfalls of the second bit.

And, so it's still applicable, even when it remains a one-way street forever (i.e. the person never returns the love)?

I can understand when it's reciprocated, but the way she originally defined it was very general to the point that it invaded 'unreciprocated love' territory.

[musigal]

which I do disagree with.

[AllisonWalker]

I did and even that is sort of misguided.

I disagree with the idea that you can't choose who you love. I'd argue that everyone chooses who they love indirectly, at least.

Love is not random. It explains why, out of the blue, you don't suddenly start having a romantic attraction to someone on the other side of the planet; someone you've never even seen before. It's an attraction that happens with the people you associate yourself with, based on characteristics of an individual you deem appealing. Such qualities are based on your own context and biases. You're the master of your own environment and you, at least subconciously, determine what is desirable and what is not. As such, when someone fits the criteria, 'love' happens.

That's why I don't think love is just "chemical reactions in the brain".

[Rika Furude]

I would have at least thought that true love had to be more than a one-way street.

Going back to this:



I just see a lot of pitfalls with this.

What of the circumstance where you've got a homosexual who is in 'love' with a non-homosexual (i.e. a relationship that can never be reciprocated)?

Ok, thinking about this in more depth I think I was wrong to say that love can only be true if you love someone who doesn't love you back. But, what I do believe is that true love cannot just be two people who claim to be in love. It must be proven in some way that your love for that person means alot to them.

[Aninamar]

What of the circumstance where you've got a homosexual who is in 'love' with a non-homosexual (i.e. a relationship that can never be reciprocated)?

Yes it can. You never attended a public shower?

[Rika Furude]

I did and even that is sort of misguided.

I disagree with the idea that you can't choose who you love. I'd argue that everyone chooses who they love indirectly, at least.

Love is not random. It explains why, out of the blue, you don't suddenly start having a romantic attraction to someone on the other side of the planet; someone you've never even seen before. It's an attraction that happens with the people you associate yourself with, based on characteristics of an individual you deem appealing. Such qualities are based on your own context and biases. You're the master of your own environment and you, at least subconciously, determine what is desirable and what is not. As such, when someone fits the criteria, 'love' happens.

I agree that love is not completely random because obviously you cannot love someone you've never seen before. But, why would somebody choose to love someone who is already taken? Or, someone who does'nt like them back? You wouldn't choose to do that, you can't control your feelings. And sometimes (from personal experience) I wonder why I even liked the person in the start and still do wonder. Love isn't something you can choose. You can look at someone and just love them ^^

[Arkanoodles]

Ha ha, I don't think that this thread is meant to try and "prove" the existence of love as a whole, but rather whether or not you can consider a romantic relationship to be true love.

that will turn my post in an epic fail... Let's pretend you never said that.


So by the way, yes lust at the first sight is indeed possible. Love at the first sight is kinda impossible.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I agree that love is not completely random because obviously you cannot love someone you've never seen before. But, why would somebody choose to love someone who is already taken? Or, someone who does'nt like them back? You wouldn't choose to do that, you can't control your feelings. And sometimes (from personal experience) I wonder why I even liked the person in the start and still do wonder. Love isn't something you can choose. You can look at someone and just love them ^^

I agree and disagree. I think that "love" is becoming too broad of a word.

On the one hand, love is a choice. It's not always the feeling that you get when your sweety approaches you and gives you flowers (or the less tacky version of that). Sometimes you get really angry at your significant other, and sometimes you just wanna smack them across the face. Oh, but where did those warm fuzzy feelings do? Does that mean that I don't love him anymore?
In this regard, love is a choice. You choose not to hit your partner out of frustration because you don't want to hurt him. After you make a mistake, you choose to apologize for the harm you caused.

However, there is something about unrequited love that doesn't quite make sense with this notion that love is a choice. After all, why would you keep loving someone if they didn't love you in return?

Well, I'm not going to claim to know all the answers (because I definitely don't - the whole unrequited love thing is still something that I'm trying to figure out, if that's even possible).

But I think that OverMind has a point... in that there's still some choice in this matter.

For example, say that you see this person once a week. Why do you see that person once a week? Are you friends, coworkers, acquaintances, what? Either way, if you see this person often enough, it's much, much harder to 'get over them.' As sad as it is to say this, but there's choice involved in seeing that person.

Also, what was the unrequited love like before you knew that it was unrequited? Were you dreaming about marrying this guy, or finding every way possible to talk to him? If you over-indulge yourself in a crush like that and then find yourself not being liked in return much later, it'll be harder to get over as well.

Love isn't an easy choice... but if I were in that kind of situation with a friend, I don't think that "seizing to love him" would be the best option, because to me that would be seizing to love him as a friend as well. I'd have to sever myself from him completely, and depending on the person, I'm not sure if I would be willing to do that. So by my own choice, I'd keep loving him even if it isn't mutual. Just how life works sometimes.

[Xanadu]

No, I get what you're saying. It's a very interesting take on the whole thing.

I just have a couple of qualms with it.

1. What if you get over the person and fall in love with someone else later?

2. What if the person you're in love with decides that they love you back after all? Does it no longer become true after that?


1. Well, then you will still have some sort of feeling for the person, even if you do love somebody else.

2. Then, it will still be true love because, you loved them through bad times and proven that despite the person not loving you at first you loved them. And now if they love you, you have always loved them and your feelings won't change.

(It's really confusing concept to be honest ^^;)[/QUOTE]

I'd tell that first person to eff off lol, putting me threw all of that, only to wait until i had someone else...and/or gotten over them
prick job there
I wouldn't love her anymore, if I gotten over her

[Cocyta]

... there's false love?

unfortunately, yes

What is true love?
-Simple: It's a set of different internal chemicals that are released when seeing someone that your body decides is perfect partner for you to make offspring with highest chance of survival. While releasing one chemical within your brain to cause a sense of supreme well being, another chemical is released from your body in order to cause a reaction in the other person, giving them a sense of lust and well-being. Thus love is made. ^_^

This is certainly part of it, however, the effects only last for so long, and the brain's chemistry only reacts to any specific "target" for a limited time.

Brain chemistry accounts for crushes, infatuation, and flings, and while it provides the spark that may lead to a lasting relationship, brain chemistry alone does not make love last.

=Love is not about spending your lives with one person, that is naive, this is about trying to make a relationship through the good and bad times, but not binding yourself to something which is no longer the right thing (IE simply no longer feel for them,) because people change, their wants change and their emotional minds change, so you cannot blame people if they love changes as well.

That is true. You should not stay in a relationship that doesn't work, nor should you force someone to "love" you when they do not love you. It's nearly impossible to force a feeling, and if you truly love someone, you would respect them enough not to try.

That being said, a person also should not just "cut and run" the moment a problem arises. People should try to resolve issues before they decide to dissolve the relationship. There are good reasons to break up, and there are bad reasons.

Good reasons would be that someone is being used or abused emotionally, psychologically, or physically; one or both of the partners is/are being unfaithful; or serious incompatibility.

Examples of bad reasons for breaking up with someone would be boredom or because he or she has become less sexually attractive.

I have been told that your spouse is gonna be the person who you "sin against" the most. Even if you stay together until death. I certainly believe that, lol.

So if people believe that true love is a love that never causes harm to another person, then it certainly doesn't exist in human relationships.

I think that depends on the sort of harm caused. Yes, there will be arguments and mistakes in any relationship. However, as long as a couple can successfully work together through the issues and problems that arise, and that one partner does not intentionally cause harm to the other, then that love is true.

The only time love is true, is when you love someone who doesn't love you back. This is because, the love for that person is not a feeling that you can turn on and off it's always there. It's a cruel fate and it's painful - nobody chooses to love someone like that, therefore it must be true love? Because it's something that you can't control, and your love must be strong to endure the pain, right?

That may be true love, but it is also unrequited love.

I don't believe love needs to be unrequited to be true. True love can also be reciprocated.

This does not mean a person cannot feel true love for someone who does not return the feelings. I believe a person can deeply love and care for someone who does not feel the same.

It is simply tragic for the person in love.

And here are the problems with "unconditional love," you give a lot and do not seem to get much back, plus seems to me your emotions are lot deeper than hers which is what somewhat creates/adds to the unbalances in the whole thing

That may be unconditional love, but it is also unrequited. It is tragic when a person loves someone so deeply and is not loved in return, because you cannot simply tell the person to "get over it."

I'm not really sure what one can say to help a person in such a situation.

However, there are some fortunate few who do have relationships with mutual unconditional love.

-but that there is always a selfish unbalance to love and this means in "some" relationships, it is about what you can take, rather than what you can give, for at least one of the partners, maybe both and that is a somber but real truth.

Yes, that does appear to be an unfortunate truth in many relationships.

Seven Reasons Why the 21st Century Is Making You Miserable (http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html)

Ok, I have another question then, that came from this amazingly interesting weekend I just had, what about Love Or Lust at first sight

I don't believe in love at first sight, but I do believe in lust at first sight.

I didn't used to believe in true love. I thought is was an exaggeration of emotion with no substance.

Now I believe that true love does exist, but only when both people honestly look at the other person and all of their flaws and accept each other anyway. It only exists if people are totally open and vulnerable with one another - when they put each other first in all ways and equally give of themselves. I have found my true love. =)

You're very fortunate, Musigal.

True Love is idealism; the love one would find in literature or mythology. The love in which 2 people are "made" for each other to the point that one cannot bear to live without the other. The kind of love that started the legendary Trojan War. The kind of love which caused Romeo to take his life when he falsely believed that Juliet had died. This is the kind of love we try to aspire to have but, ultimately, it'll never be this perfect.

Honestly, I've always considered those stories to be rather disturbing, but then I don't believe love should be considered less wonderful if it's not unrequited and depressing or "star-crossed" and tragic.

creepy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoWtY_h4xo)

disturbing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFLrN4FQkuc)

stalker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEnJDaqT3-0)

Love is real, malleable; the love that can be made to work, but it's not eternal and subject to change as people change. One can have many "loves" throughout life, starting from the high school sweetheart or even the ex-spouse.

That sort of love can change and be lost, however, it can also change and become stronger.

I'm interested in the scenario of a widow and her second husband.

For argument's sake, let's assume that her first husband was her 'true love'. Now, he's dead. What does that make her second husband? If the first husband was her 'true love', does that not demean the value of her second marriage? If her second husband is her 'true love', does that not demean the value of the first marriage?

I don't buy the argument that both men can be her 'true love'; the very nature of 'true love' is a relationship between two people. It's not a ménage à trois.

This is a very good point you bring up.

:: ponders ::

I can't really think of a counterargument to how saying one person is a "true love" would make another relationship sound less cherished.

It's like when a friend says both you and someone else are his or her best friends. Most people would immediately think or say, "You can't have two best friends, you have to choose."

Suppose a woman has a 'true love', her husband/boyfriend/whatever. Let's say that said husband gets drafted into the future War in Iran (scheduled for 2017, probably). For whatever horrible circumstance, her husband ends up listed as Missing-in-Action (MIA). She's crushed obviously, and there's very little hope he'd ever be found, it's likely he's dead. The war rages on, and after a few years, she gets over it and pursues a relationship with someone else. They get married.

Anyways, the war ends a year later. As a gesture of good faith, the Iranian government releases their captured POWs and, what do you know, the husband/boyfriend/whatever is among the pack.

He returns home only to find out that she's moved on.

In this convoluted and overly drawn-out circumstance, what's the right thing to do? If her husband/boyfriend/whatever was her 'true love' then 'destiny' has kept him alive to bring them together. However, what of her current partner? Does he get jilted? If not, then what of the boyfriend/husband?

How does 'true love' factor in here?

Well, that depends... in a cringe-worthy "romantic" drama, the woman would dump the current guy and fly into the arms of her old love, preferably in slow-motion.

:: gags ::

In reality, the woman would explain the situation to both men (and quite frankly, she should have told the new guy about the situation before they officially hooked up), and the three of them would try to work something out.

She would most likely stay with her current husband, since she has moved on.

If her old love snaps and kills the husband, I doubt she'd run into his arms in a realistic situation. He's probably just as likely to end up in jail as if he killed both the woman and her new love.

And in reality, if the old love committed suicide after learning the news, I doubt the woman would kill herself in grief. She would be sad, yes, and maybe even blame herself, but I don't belief she would commit suicide.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Cocyta, after reading through your post, it seems that you believe in 'true love' but in a more down-to-earth and realistic way.

Which is very similar to my belief in love as a whole. I just don't like calling it 'true love' because it has so many gag-worthy and fluffy fairy tale connotations.

[HolyShadow]

The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy has this to say on the subject of love:

"Avoid, if at all possible."

[Fat1Fared]

But do you know why I believe that they should try and stop making their mistakes?

Let me put it this way: If the lover is making mistakes and those mistakes are only affecting themselves, then they shouldn't have to worry about becoming a better person.


=you now, I think you have finally put your point in a way which actually addressing my point without me having to asumme things for it to do so and this actually a very good point, this why you have the choice to move away from that person if they do not realise their mistakes, now in life and even love there are siturations when this cannot apply and life has to be relative in way that is hard to portray when explaining these things, IE a volient parter who would who is so high that he causes his partner (male or female) BWS, but on the whole, these are exstemist examples where lives and society itself is in danger and person affected is in such situration as they cannot make their own choice to react to it, and even the law itself would step in (no not using law as judge,) but on other hand I did not make this point earlier, so......etc


However, if the lover is making mistakes and is being held responsible for other people (ie spouse and kids), then the lover should become a better person for the sake of those other people.


I agree, but "generally" it is there choice to make and you you have choice to react to it, however changig way I finish slightly, so as make move for your valid point, this only applies where both partners are in position to make own choices (now before go into drugs, it is still choice, just hard one)


I agree with musigal's post. Love at first sight doesn't exist, but lust and attraction at first sight does.

Most of the crushes I've had in my life have been on guys I've known for at least a few months.


well I gree with her on Love, but think she really does not understand poeple who have one night stands lol, just its not even lust there, talking from own life, lust would be an improvement 90% of time
[/QUOTE]


Ok, thinking about this in more depth I think I was wrong to say that love can only be true if you love someone who doesn't love you back. But, what I do believe is that true love cannot just be two people who claim to be in love. It must be proven in some way that your love for that person means alot to them.

I would say this only form of unselfish love as second becomes two way thing, you place condistions on it by omission of relationship of some idealogy and wants from each other whch make it part take thing, while if only one way, depending on how you act, this can the one way you give something to someone without wanting something in return (this is why I think this is tru uncondistional love, if not true-true love)


This is certainly part of it, however, the effects only last for so long, and the brain's chemistry only reacts to any specific "target" for a limited time.

Brain chemistry accounts for crushes, infatuation, and flings, and while it provides the spark that may lead to a lasting relationship, brain chemistry alone does not make love last.


I was being ironic (sort of have to place it within the context of all that was written there for it to work properly)


That is true. You should not stay in a relationship that doesn't work, nor should you force someone to "love" you when they do not love you. It's nearly impossible to force a feeling, and if you truly love someone, you would respect them enough not to try.

That being said, a person also should not just "cut and run" the moment a problem arises. People should try to resolve issues before they decide to dissolve the relationship. There are good reasons to break up, and there are bad reasons.

Good reasons would be that someone is being used or abused emotionally, psychologically, or physically; one or both of the partners is/are being unfaithful; or serious incompatibility.

Examples of bad reasons for breaking up with someone would be boredom or because he or she has become less sexually attractive.


=Now not saying all you have put here is wrong as generally would not disagree, however think need to be more subjective and relative with your list of good and bad, I mean you are saying if two poeple are no longer attracted to each other, they should stay together even if not happen with relationship (and do not bring up kids, as unhappy relationships are NOT good for kids) and yet on other hand, if one partner being unfaithful always reason to break up, that can often be got round if willing to work and still have some attraction to each other, I mean the 1 partner thing is only construct of society anyway, not saying bad one, but if poeple breach it, not the end of everything, depending on poeples reactions to it


That may be true love, but it is also unrequited love.

I don't believe love needs to be unrequited to be true. True love can also be reciprocated.

This does not mean a person cannot feel true love for someone who does not return the feelings. I believe a person can deeply love and care for someone who does not feel the same.

It is simply tragic for the person in love.


As said to Rukie, I still think unrequited love can be inadquate as term and that uncondistional is better one, as you sort of go into as well


:: ponders ::


In reality, the woman would explain the situation to both men (and quite frankly, she should have told the new guy about the situation before they officially hooked up), and the three of them would try to work something out.

She would most likely stay with her current husband, since she has moved on.

If her old love snaps and kills the husband, I doubt she'd run into his arms in a realistic situation. He's probably just as likely to end up in jail as if he killed both the woman and her new love.

And in reality, if the old love committed suicide after learning the news, I doubt the woman would kill herself in grief. She would be sad, yes, and maybe even blame herself, but I don't belief she would commit suicide.

think you give society too much credit in point 1 and too little in point 2 lol

[HolyShadow]

If I learned anything from love it's that dreams never come true. Ever.

[Fat1Fared]

I take your love for Tess has taken a turn for the less than better,

may I humbly say something, you seem to be very intense with her and girls generally don't like intense guys, it freaks them out <shrugs>

[MrsSallyBakura]

may I humbly say something, you seem to be very intense with her and girls generally don't like intense guys, it freaks them out <shrugs>

Smartest post in this entire thread.

[AllisonWalker]

I take your love for Tess has taken a turn for the less than better,

may I humbly say something, you seem to be very intense with her and girls generally don't like intense guys, it freaks them out <shrugs>

Trufax.

[MrsSallyBakura]

One of my favorite things about my ex-boyfriend was that when I started yelling at him for any reason, he wouldn't yell back. If what I was saying was true, he would calmly admit to it and then the arguing would stop. If what I was saying was an exaggeration, then he would calmly correct me.
There were only a couple of instances where he would actually snap back, and when he did, I would sink back because I didn't want to make him angrier.

It helped that I wasn't the nagging type, and that he was the logical genius type.

One thing I learned from that dating experience was that I want a guy like that. I have my own moments and levels of intensity, so under most circumstances, I cannot butt heads with someone more intense than I am. If I'm in a romantic relationship with someone like that, I can't expect it to last any longer than a month without it being emotionally abusive to me.

I'm certain there are other girls who feel the same way. Many of those girls are even more emotional than I am.

It's not wrong to be emotional, but learning how to deal with one's own intensity will do wonders.

[HolyShadow]

You all make a good point.

[Cocyta]

Now not saying all you have put here is wrong as generally would not disagree, however think need to be more subjective and relative with your list of good and bad. I mean you are saying if two people are no longer attracted to each other, they should stay together even if not happy with relationship (and do not bring up kids, as unhappy relationships are NOT good for kids) and yet on other hand, if one partner being unfaithful always reason to break up, that can often be got round if willing to work and still have some attraction to each other. I mean the 1 partner thing is only construct of society anyway, not saying bad one, but if people breach it, it's not the end of everything, depending on people's reactions to it.

I meant that people should try to work out their problems before breaking up their relationship. I don't think a couple should stay together if they're miserable; I just believe that they should to try to see whether or not the relationship can be saved before they part ways.

Also, what I meant by "becoming less sexually attractive" is the fact that as people become older, generally starting somewhere in their fifties or sixties, they tend to become less attractive. I was referring to the practice of some people, typically wealthier men, of "trading in their spouses for a younger model."

:: gags ::

My comment about boredom is in a similar vein. Once you've been in a relationship for some time, eventually the excitement will wear off and you'll need to find new ways of bringing excitement to the relationship - hopefully good ones.

As for cheating, trust is an important part of any relationship. Cheating on one's partner betrays that trust. If both partners work on restoring that trust, maybe the relationship can repaired. However, if the cheater refuses to change his or her ways, then it may be better for the couple to part.

[Fat1Fared]

One of my favorite things about my ex-boyfriend was that when I started yelling at him for any reason, he wouldn't yell back. If what I was saying was true, he would calmly admit to it and then the arguing would stop. If what I was saying was an exaggeration, then he would calmly correct me.
There were only a couple of instances where he would actually snap back, and when he did, I would sink back because I didn't want to make him angrier.

It helped that I wasn't the nagging type, and that he was the logical genius type.

One thing I learned from that dating experience was that I want a guy like that. I have my own moments and levels of intensity, so under most circumstances, I cannot butt heads with someone more intense than I am. If I'm in a romantic relationship with someone like that, I can't expect it to last any longer than a month without it being emotionally abusive to me.

I'm certain there are other girls who feel the same way. Many of those girls are even more emotional than I am.

It's not wrong to be emotional, but learning how to deal with one's own intensity will do wonders.

=I think this comes down to fact, girls are normally seen as the more expulsive with their emotions while boys are seen as more inverotive with their's and so when get two expulsive partners, never end well

PS My god 5 posts agreed with each other in a Row, I think I killed the thread o_0

I meant that people should try to work out their problems before breaking up their relationship. I don't think a couple should stay together if they're miserable; I just believe that they should to try to see whether or not the relationship can be saved before they part ways.


This is a point which can be concurred with, however you should not try to make a definitive a list out of its application to real life


Also, what I meant by "becoming less sexually attractive" is the fact that as people become older, generally starting somewhere in their fifties or sixties, they tend to become less attractive. I was referring to the practice of some people, typically wealthier men, of "trading in their spouses for a younger model."


=Well the statistic that woman are more likely to have a partners who 10 years or more, younger than them, somewhat proves your very insulting and stereotyped point wrong (PS if cannot tell, not fan of this popular self vindating beleifs society has about problems in relationships, so they do not have to face their own failings and failings of overly glamoised ideal of love)


As for cheating, trust is an important part of any relationship. Cheating on one's partner betrays that trust. If both partners work on restoring that trust, maybe the relationship can repaired. However, if the cheater refuses to change his or her ways, then it may be better for the couple to part.

My point here was just, that this is a rule made from social construct for reasons which no longer really apply, however on the other hand, it is not actually one I would personally rush to throw away, but I would also not see it as end of relationship, because to many variables involved in these matters and despite popular belief, normally when affairs happen, both partners are to blame

[Cocyta]

Well, the statistic that woman are more likely to have a partners who 10 years or more, younger than them, somewhat proves your very insulting and stereotyped point wrong.

Well, the "cougar" phenomenon is relatively new; my "very insulting and stereotyped" point is the more traditional pattern.

[Fat1Fared]

Well, the "cougar" phenomenon is relatively new; my "very insulting and stereotyped" point is the more traditional pattern.

you do know just because its a movie clichie, does not always make it true :smiley7:

[AllisonWalker]

There are cougars out there. It really depends on the demographics of where you live.

[Yellow]

There are cougars out there. It really depends on the demographics of where you live.
My town is pretty much Really Old Person/Teenager and nothing inbetween, so the Old People just go with other Old People and the Young People go with the other Young People, and there is zero crossover. Don't ask on how the demographics got that f'd up, I really have no idea.

[Xanadu]

do I believe in love...yes, sort of
I assume what I felt for, well this girl a friend introduced me to, was love...as I got to know her and stuff
It was very clear from the start she didn't seem to enjoy talking to me, least online-when we hung out in person she was completely different.
She was sweet and kind and funny-I had never met anyone like her. It was next to impossible to get her to hang out with me though, so I just stopped trying.
I do wish love worked how its portrayed in movies and books-eg its a lovely thing and there's a special someone for everyone, but in reality its a soulcrushing, depressing feeling. If I ever gotten anywhere with a girl it would be based on lies, well lies in the fact she wouldn't know the real me-she'd know the fake, false-social me.
That me is the only "me" to ever get any attention from the opposite sex in the past.

As ashamed as I am to admit it, what with all the banter and bitching I've done in the past-yes I have been in love, no I didn't enjoy it, and I will fall in love again and not enjoy it.
I could have had mindless sex in the past, but as lame as it sounds I wanted to save myself for my "true love" (I honestly believed in that) even save my first kiss...
And we see how that turned out, I am annoyed that I was so naive and stupid-everyone around me told me that, and I fought them like crazy.
You can't stop things like love-its like a train-you can run and try and hide from it or let it hit you and try and find your legs.
Its going to hit you, one way or another-and the sooner its over, the sooner you (or rather, I) can get on with my life and the things I enjoy doing in my own company (writing, painting, the ukulele).

[Fat1Fared]

do I believe in love...yes, sort of
I assume what I felt for, well this girl a friend introduced me to, was love...as I got to know her and stuff
It was very clear from the start she didn't seem to enjoy talking to me, least online-when we hung out in person she was completely different.
She was sweet and kind and funny-I had never met anyone like her. It was next to impossible to get her to hang out with me though, so I just stopped trying.


-This is not Me Trolling, this just a dude with experience, talking to another dude with experience's

=This is a common thing, it happens a lot, if I may, I would like to do with the three things which arraise in this, in my opinion:-

1=What did you heal for her? (feel free to answer that little or deeply as wish, to point of not answering to an essay answer, depending on your own feelings in the matter)

2=The internet to real life thing, is very strange one and generally depends on the girl, but some girls are very good at acting friendly in person with everyone, but because of the less personal and more direct nature of the internet, they ether feel can be or appear to feel colder online. Like I said it does depend on the girl, it could be that she simply writes in far less personal manor than she interacts socially in, however because of my next point (3), I would more inclined to say, it is that she simply feels she can act cold to you online because there is a less socially-direct and less personal nature to it, which she feels allows her to express her more real feelings on the matter, because does not feel pressure of social properity (PS I don't say this to be a jerk, honestly, and to attest to this, I can say I have had same thing happen to me twice, though ironically it other round with internet-to real life)

3=This is will be why she is so hard to meet in person, because she simply wasn't that into you as a person, and so when you both met in person she would have felt a pressure to someone else around you, like I said I don't do this to be a jerk, as it happens to lot of guys and that includes me


I do wish love worked how its portrayed in movies and books-eg its a lovely thing and there's a special someone for everyone, but in reality its a soulcrushing, depressing feeling. If I ever gotten anywhere with a girl it would be based on lies, well lies in the fact she wouldn't know the real me-she'd know the fake, false-social me.
That me is the only "me" to ever get any attention from the opposite sex in the past.


-Mate, do not do this one to yourself (not literally, as how feel is how feel) it one that 90% of guys (IE the % which so deluded as to think their gods gift to the planet) have had these feelings, I mean seriously I have it all the time myself, because I can never seem to get girls to correct with me in that way, sure they like me as a friend...etc and some even try to use me as there emotional punch bags, but none will ever see themselves with me, but in truth that is because girls are picky (not in bad way) and those guys you see with lots of girls, will have lots of girls, not because amazing with them, but because I try it on with so many girls, that eventually get one, there is guy is my flat who is so charming, he could probably make a paranoid-schopizanrtic like him, and even he has to hit on 10 girls or so, each time before he will get 1 one to fully, should we say correct with him, (that is not just on about 1 night stands, the raito is just lot more spread out when comes to relationships)

PS as for the movie thing, well think Overmind covered that quiet well


As ashamed as I am to admit it, what with all the banter and bitching I've done in the past-yes I have been in love, no I didn't enjoy it, and I will fall in love again and not enjoy it.
I could have had mindless sex in the past, but as lame as it sounds I wanted to save myself for my "true love" (I honestly believed in that) even save my first kiss...


-I cannot say if love hurts as never been in relationship and so if being truthful would say, I have only had pre-love, but I sure, even to us cynic's there are good times in it as well, if find someone who makes you happy most of time, as for sex well your choice completely, but I find a lot of poeple who wait for truth-love sex, end up disappointed when realise sex is far more.... I hesitate to use words overrated, because it is good thing, but its emotional sides I find are simply overrated.


And we see how that turned out, I am annoyed that I was so naive and stupid-everyone around me told me that, and I fought them like crazy.
You can't stop things like love-its like a train-you can run and try and hide from it or let it hit you and try and find your legs.
Its going to hit you, one way or another-and the sooner its over, the sooner you (or rather, I) can get on with my life and the things I enjoy doing in my own company (writing, painting, the ukulele).

you ever seen Welcome to NHK, I think you would love and hate it, but seriously if have not seen it, it has very interesting look on life and love especially (it is corny in places and just weird in others, but is really good anime for this area)

[Xanadu]

well this girl is...different I'll give her that
her actions hardly go by social pressures...lol
I donno why she doesn't want to hang out more she just doesn't she never says
as I said she's impossible to read

but I am not all really gung ho to openly discuss this-too many...ass holes on the site

[Fat1Fared]

well this girl is...different I'll give her that
her actions hardly go by social pressures...lol
I donno why she doesn't want to hang out more she just doesn't she never says
as I said she's impossible to read

but I am not all really gung ho to openly discuss this-too many...ass holes on the site


you would be amazed as to what really goes on inside poeples heads and what pressures they really feel,

PS however if you disreguard everything else I say, do not disreguard this, Girls will never openly reject you or say what they feel/mean, until your so close that it no longers matters whether they do or not anyway

IE if she is making it hard for you to meet, that is her way of rejecting you without coming out and saying it directly, I know I sound like jerk saying this and who knows, maybe i am wrong as I do not know her, but I do have experience when comes to girls and so have learned lot of these things, I think they feel it is easier way of letting the guy down, which is rather ironic, as normally hurts lot more this way, but <shrugs> if guys and girls actually did understand other, we wouldn't need this thread

[Xanadu]

i donno, this one has no problem with rejecting or insulting people
she freely speaks her mind and cares pretty much nothing of others' feelings or opinions
as I said, this one is very out of the ordinary
(any girls I like are and will always be)

[MrsSallyBakura]

but I am not all really gung ho to openly discuss this-too many...ass holes on the site

I'm not trying to pressure you into sharing or anything, because that is your free choice.

However, even the people who you dislike wouldn't make fun of you (at least not openly) for digging a bit deeper. And the people who do can get their posts deleted. :P

[Xanadu]

...ya they would! they have and will keep doing it, no matter how many times I complain more will pop up and they'll keep coming.
I'm not making a target of myself anymore
I don't want to talk about myself anymore-this forum isn't exactly the nicest place or most open minded

[Yellow]

...ya they would! they have and will keep doing it, no matter how many times I complain more will pop up and they'll keep coming.
I'm not making a target of myself anymore
I don't want to talk about myself anymore-this forum isn't exactly the nicest place or most open minded

*currently nice and open minded person comes in*
Hello, why do you think you'll be a target? Honestly, a lot of people on these forums don't care about you enough to target you. That may sound mean, but its true. So feel free to open up about your problems to the interwebz...

[Zairak]

...ya they would! they have and will keep doing it, no matter how many times I complain more will pop up and they'll keep coming.
I'm not making a target of myself anymore
I don't want to talk about myself anymore-this forum isn't exactly the nicest place or most open minded

Mm... message conveyance time, I suppose.

HolyShadow wanted you to know he was sorry.

/end message conveyance

[Xanadu]

*currently nice and open minded person comes in*
Hello, why do you think you'll be a target? Honestly, a lot of people on these forums don't care about you enough to target you. That may sound mean, but its true. So feel free to open up about your problems to the interwebz...

you were one of the dickweeds who started it!
I don't need to hear "toughen up its the internet"
under that logic people like you use it to be shitheads because you can't IRL because you'd get your ass kicked
I don't want to talk about it-and I don't need dicks like you to try and make me

[Fat1Fared]

Xanadu, you don't need to tell anyone anything and I respect that, and hell I understand if you have hurt feelings about something, then easy to get angry at condescending people who only talk through computer but I will say if you say something, I think there may not be many of them, but few there is, will ether try to help you (even if it isn't great help) or at least respect your stance

PS Zairak isn't against rules to bring forward messages from banned poeple -_- (sorry just it being you, meant had to be done lol ^_-)

[Xanadu]

Xanadu, you don't need to tell anyone anything and I respect that, and hell I understand if you have hurt feelings about something, then easy to get angry at condescending people who only talk through computer but I will say if you say something, I think there may not be many of them, but few there is, will ether try to help you (even if it isn't great help) or at least respect your stance

PS Zairak isn't against rules to bring forward messages from banned poeple -_- (sorry just it being you, meant had to be done lol ^_-)

I never asked for anyone's help in this matter
or I would have said; "may I have some advice"
I only shared my personal points on the matter, I don't feel like elaborating as there are a great many pricks on the site and the less they know about me the better

[Yellow]

you were one of the dickweeds who started it!
I don't need to hear "toughen up its the internet"
under that logic people like you use it to be shitheads because you can't IRL because you'd get your ass kicked
I don't want to talk about it-and I don't need dicks like you to try and make me

I didn't say "toughen up" I said "no one cares enough about what you say to do anything mean towards you", I'm not trying to make you say whatever it is, and I appreciate that you don't want to talk about it.
I don't remember carrying in vendetta against you, nor do I remember doing anything mean towards you, but I apologize if I did so.
I'm not sure why name calling is warranted, if I recall correctly I've never called you (or anybody for that manner) names, but that's not my problem.
Whatever it is I hope you get through it, sorry for the initial inquirement thereof. Best of luck~

[TitanAura]

"Love conquers all."

Yes, it's quite good at that. It's probably because it easily rips your still beating heart out of your chest and feeds it to wild dogs.

[OverMind]

"Love conquers all."

Yes, it's quite good at that. It's probably because it easily rips your still beating heart out of your chest and feeds it to wild dogs.

Askaninja Ninja: "Have I stolen the hearts of a few ladies? Guilty! Unfortunately I was not able to return them BEFORE THEY BLED TO DEATH!"

[TitanAura]

Askaninja Ninja: "Have I stolen the hearts of a few ladies? Guilty! Unfortunately I was not able to return them BEFORE THEY BLED TO DEATH!"
You missed the part about the wild dogs.

[Fat1Fared]

I never asked for anyone's help in this matter
or I would have said; "may I have some advice"
I only shared my personal points on the matter, I don't feel like elaborating as there are a great many pricks on the site and the less they know about me the better

He who walks alone will always be alone, he who walks with others, may not always be found, but at least he is never truly lost

[AllisonWalker]

If she's avoiding you, she's rejecting you. End of story.

[Xanadu]

yeah I got that much from all the vibes

[AllisonWalker]

Haven't seen her in more than a week, and POW! there you have it.

:/

[Xanadu]

well I deleted her from my MSN and am moving on from it

[MrsSallyBakura]

I just discovered today that an old friend's parents recently got divorced.

Her parents are really old and had been married for years. I think my friend's oldest sister is at least 30.

I just thought I'd share this because it made me think about marriage, and how just because it's lasted for a long time, it doesn't mean that it's going to last until death. Marriage is something that you have to work at all the time... it doesn't just become easy-street after a certain number of years.

[ThePRPD]

Divorce defeats the purpose of " 'till death do you part"

[MrsSallyBakura]

Divorce defeats the purpose of " 'till death do you part"

The problem is that people don't take that aspect very seriously.

Although some churches prohibit remarriage without an annulment. Just to say that even though you're separated by law, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can start dating again. Helps keep the 'til death' part more legit.

[Xanadu]

Divorce defeats the purpose of " 'till death do you part"

not all love lasts forever

[Yellow]

Divorce defeats the purpose of " 'till death do you part"

There was a purpose of that? Really? I never knew that.

[MrsSallyBakura]

There was a purpose of that? Really? I never knew that.

There's supposed to be, but people don't really understand the concept of staying together for the rest of your lives. Marriage is a bigger commitment than most people are willing to put themselves into.

[ThePRPD]

Marriage is a bigger commitment than most people are willing to put themselves into.

Agreed. They should know what they're getting into If a married couple gets divorced they shouldn't have been with each other to begin with.
It's sad.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Agreed. They should know what they're getting into If a married couple gets divorced they shouldn't have been with each other to begin with.
It's sad.

Well, yes and no.

I think it depends on how long they were initially married and the reasons for the divorce.

Under most circumstances, though, I agree with you.

The thing is that if my friend's parents were never married, then I would have one less friend. :(

[ThePRPD]

Under most circumstances, though, I agree with you.
Well yes, in most cases. In some cases it can be quite understandable.

[angel of darknezz]

I may sound mushy when I say this, but I do think true love exists.
Not the true love expression people overuse, but TRUE love.
In my opinion people will agree with me if they already found it.

[OverMind]

I may sound mushy when I say this, but I do think true love exists.
Not the true love expression people overuse, but TRUE love.
In my opinion people will agree with me if they already found it.

I may sound crazy when I say this, but I think invisible, pink unicorns exist.
Not the fake pink horses people just spray-paint pink, but TRUE invisible pink unicorns.
In my opinion people will agree with me if they've already seen one.

[Aninamar]

I may sound crazy when I say this, but I think invisible, pink unicorns exist.
Not the fake pink horses people just spray-paint pink, but TRUE invisible pink unicorns.
In my opinion people will agree with me if they've already seen one.

- not make fun of someone for posting something borderline-retarded

You hypocrite. And I actually respected you.

[kudos]

"Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident. Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two."
-St. Augustine from the movie Captain Corelli's Mandolin

the definition of 'true' love or 'real' love is a tricky one, but I am personally not a cynic... I believe that 'real' love does exist because I have witnessed it.

so overmind, I HAVE SEEN A UNICORN! therefore, your point is invalid.

[Aninamar]

so overmind, I HAVE SEEN A UNICORN! therefore, your point is invalid.

Before or after you were escorted to a room without any handles in doors?

[kudos]

Before or after you were escorted to a room without any handles in doors?

the love i was referring to is that between my Nana and Grand-Dad who have been married for over fifty years. they are the living definition of true love.