# Do you believe true love exists?



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

I'm not talking about finding that one special soulmate that's 100% perfect for you or anything like that. I know relationships take work, especially those that last. But are there relationships that are both filled with love and last forever? A relationship where the sky is the limit...where even if you get mad at him/her you know deep down that person is the one...where the thought of that person fills you with joy. Forever.

A lot of people, especially young people, think they're in love. But a lot of times it's just infatuation, they're in it for the wrong reasons (like the relationship being fueled by insecurity), or it's doomed to fail for whatever reason. I admit the romantic notion of falling in love and having passionate and exciting experiences with that person for the rest of my life sounds quite amazing. But also unrealistic. Passion fades. Life gets in the way. Things change. What are the actual odds that that excitement and intense love could go the long haul with so many potential obstacles in the way?


----------



## elvin jones (Dec 12, 2011)

You have an odd definition of true love. I think there are dozens of people who could potentially be the right fit. It is just the matter of chance running into them and timing where you two are both looking for a relationship.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

elvin jones said:


> You have an odd definition of true love. I think there are dozens of people who could potentially be the right fit. It is just the matter of chance running into them and timing where you two are both looking for a relationship.


I agree. I never said anything about there only being 1 person. In fact _dozens_ sounds rather low considering there are billions of people on the planet.

My point wasn't about running into that person that's right for you. It was more about a sustainable relationship with that person that lasts forever and maintains a high level of passion.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Having a high level of passion forever sounds a bit unrealistic. That is really all I can say on this subject.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> Having a high level of passion forever sounds a bit unrealistic. That is really all I can say on this subject.


I agree...and it's depressing.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

rymo said:


> I agree...and it's depressing.


But what is "passion" exactly? Is it just an infatuation? Most infatuations are unrealistic to begin with.

I think there is an unhealthy view in society that thinks having someone or something is so "special" that it is a rarity. I guess you should ask yourself how and why you get this "passion" to be able to distinguish it's scarcity. For instance, if your passion is driven by lust, then lust is everywhere and it isn't a rare thing at all. A "passion" could be seeking constant validation in some form, and in that sense then it is also not a rare thing. If you mean "passion" as being controlled by lust and constant validation consistently then that is unrealistic and also not healthy a goal to shoot for. Lust comes and goes and validation is something we feel when we are insecure. If you are seeking passion in the form of lust and validation then I would say it is either unhealthy or unrealistic to have it forever.

It may also be how we approach relationships with certain expectations. When you expect a relationship to be "passionate" forever you are being unrealistic and you are essentially making yourself miserable by believing it. If we can learn and understand the realistic expectations of relationships then we won't be disappointed. It is almost like a drug addict who wants to feel "high" all the time and when he isn't high he thinks it is "depressing". Maybe a constant stream of passion is so unrealistic that is equivalent to a druggy seeking a constant high? Our expectations kill us when reality may not really be like that.

This is stuff I hardly understand myself. But even deeper, maybe humans aren't meant to be monogamous? Heck, maybe we get into relationships for the wrong reasons? Idk, just do w/e makes you happy and that you understand to be right.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> But what is "passion" exactly? Is it just an infatuation? Most infatuations are unrealistic to begin with.
> 
> I think there is an unhealthy view in society that thinks having someone or something is so "special" that it is a rarity. I guess you should ask yourself how and why you get this "passion" to be able to distinguish it's scarcity. For instance, if your passion is driven by lust, then lust is everywhere and it isn't a rare thing at all. A "passion" could be seeking constant validation in some form, and in that sense then it is also not a rare thing. If you mean "passion" as being controlled by lust and constant validation consistently then that is unrealistic and also not healthy a goal to shoot for. Lust comes and goes and validation is something we feel when we are insecure. If you are seeking passion in the form of lust and validation then I would say it is either unhealthy or unrealistic to have it forever.
> 
> ...


What if what makes me happy is constant passion? And by passion I don't mean lust and infatuation - I mean a consistent mutual excitement for life between two people, whether it involves sex, traveling, cuddling, intellectual discussion, whatever.

But you're right - this does beg the question: what is love? *cue the song* Seriously though, what the **** is it? Is it just a feeling you get? Is it a combination of that feeling and knowing that the relationship has long-term potential? Should you even be thinking about the future when it comes to love or should you just enjoy the moment? I think a lot of people get into relationships that are doomed from the start because they don't realize it has no long-term potential. But then again, thinking about the future too much will, as you said, make the relationship have to live up to impossible expectations.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

elvin jones said:


> You have an odd definition of true love.


He has a point. Is it love you are after or lust/validation? Two different things.

Love goes beyond lust and validation. It is giving not so much receiving. Love can last forever I think if both the party is on the same wavelength of respect, but not lust.


----------



## OutOfControlPanel (Jul 14, 2012)

N/A


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> He has a point. Is it love you are after or lust/validation? Two different things.
> 
> Love goes beyond lust and validation. It is giving not so much receiving. Love can last forever I think if both the party is on the same wavelength of respect, but not lust.


I never defined love in my original post, unless you are referring to the passion thing again. Which, as I said, I was never equating with lust.

But what you are saying is that a relationship can last forever if both parties respect each other, but to hell if you think there is going to be passion and excitement (for life in general, not just sex) between them in the late game. That sounds pretty boring, to be honest.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

PathologicalSigher said:


> When you say "forever," do you actually mean forever, or just until death? If the latter, then the answer to your question here is "it's possible." However, if you mean the former, then the answer to your question is "no." If human beings could actually live forever, or at least a really long time (say, 1000 years or more) then any relationships they may have will eventually collapse. Nothing in this world has the ability to last forever -- love is no exception.


Death.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

rymo said:


> But what you are saying is that a relationship can last forever if both parties respect each other, but to hell if you think there is going to be passion and excitement (for life in general, not just sex) between them in the late game. That sounds pretty boring, to be honest.


No, what I'm saying is to have lust and excitement 24/7 is unrealistic. If you expect to have it 24/7 then you are being unrealistic, and if you are getting depressed over this then your expectations are off the mark.


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

I do believe in true love. However, I separate true love from romance. 

Romance seems to be entirely conditional. True love once found is everlasting despite conditions.

Romance is exciting. Romance has a novelty appeal. It involves the feelings that do eventually fade. With true love you can reignite romance, without, it becomes lost forever.

True love as defined by me (which probably differs from yours OP) doesn't have to be fun and exciting. True love is the unconditional affection and attraction of a lover. It isn't hard for me to believe that I could be attracted, attached, & appreciative to a female forever, given she has the right personality.


I'd like to ponder on this topic a little more so I'd like for you (OP) to reinterate on what you are trying to define as "true love".


----------



## J C (Mar 22, 2011)

If you're asking if there is a objective aspect of what some might call true love, than I would say yes. No matter how the word "love" is defined, an important consistency in our experience with it is that it is obtained after the mushy beginnings (which are typically dishonest or over-exaggerated presentations of our positive sides); when the two people become comfortable enough with each other that their more negative aspects start to become more visible. This will basically present many tests on how much they really enjoy being around each other. 

In that time, the relationship will either eventually end as the two people get tired of each others bull****, or it will become stronger as they are of two personalities that fit each other in those negative moments. If it becomes stronger, the two people come to a understanding of each other that they didn't have before, giving them a sense of appreciation that they have one another. If it continues to get stronger, and they are continuously proving to each other that they are compatible even in working out their disagreements (which is subjective), eventually they get to a point of love. 

Basically, honesty becomes more of a factor in love than happiness. It takes a certain maturity to get there, a understanding that not every moment will be filled with a positive emotion, and that having a mutual understanding and balance of both emotion and reason (in varying degrees from individual to individual) will be needed for different circumstances in the relationship. The situations will be different depending on the couple, but the basic principle is always there. That's what I think, anyway.


----------



## Brad (Dec 27, 2011)

Yes


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> No, what I'm saying is to have lust and excitement 24/7 is unrealistic. If you expect to have it 24/7 then you are being unrealistic, and if you are getting depressed over this then your expectations are off the mark.


I don't mean 24/7. Come on man  One person gets sick one time and there goes the lust and excitement for a few days. I'm not quite that level of stupid. I'm also not literally depressed over this hahaha...I'm just pondering love is all. Discussing.

What I do mean is having that passion for each other over a long period of time. Not without a hitch, but assuming no major career or other life obstacles in the way, that two people would be able to maintain passion for each other and express that by doing what they love together. As opposed to..dull..trite...laying on opposite sides of the bed reading their own books and then going to sleep. Passion faded.

To Theologic - you may be right. Maybe my definition is more than just mutual respect, admiration, and attraction. Maybe I do have this hopeless romantic idealized version of true love in my head. I know that even though my ex wasn't right for me in the end, the best moments to me were those that were romantic. Those times where we would look into each other's eyes at dinner and everything just seemed so right. Or we would go out and do something awesome and fun and then come back and make love. It was that part of things that I had trouble giving up. But the reality was that those moments were so few and far between. Why couldn't it be more? It's not like we had any crazy life obstacles getting in the way. Part of what I'm looking for in a girl is someone who seems to have that romantic edge, as cheesy as it sounds. But once I found that person, how long before that romantic edge fades? I'm so afraid that I'll get bored if it does and I will feel trapped.


----------



## Strwbrry (Jun 28, 2012)

I hope so. The thought of finding true love is one of the things a young soul lives for. But I believe that someone needs to find his own definition of love first before attaching himself to someone else.

From what I experienced so far of my surroundings is that love has a basis in mutual understanding and patience to get to know eachothers worst side. The dark side of a partner is often the dealbreaker.
There also has to be a certain level of similarity as well as difference to keep it lively.

Hmm... Guess love is an unusual mixture of rare ingredients.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

I don't agree with you: I know differently... It seems rather crass to me hearing people quantify our relationship to others as: "lust" or "work at it"; all very abstract and dialectical to me, I'd already be taking orders at that point having no experience of the thing itself. What a servile position to already be giving up ultimate happiness because of Darwin or Schopenhauer or any other joyless idiot because they told you something about the universe from their perspective. When I am no longer me, nor is the universe or time for all I care to know; so that knocks off that scantily constructed obstruction to the eternal, my eyes are miraculous enough without being somebody else. I may well be in for the afterlife too before long, so that stretches things out some way as well. The idea of "dependence" or "validation", the idea that we are established in ourselves and should not do anything too drastic like pull on another's frills is all very bourgeoisie; people who say such things, who evaluate and break things down into philosophical crumbs, who reach the thing in itself in someone else's concepts under the guise of "realism" are contractors without consequence, not people in love. They have already become subsumed into too social an attitude to exist themselves. 

Love is "beyond Good and Evil" to me which includes vogue concepts of insanity: passion is who you are. Eternal as understood in my sense isn't something some people I've known lose; so I think there must be something inside them that gave birth to their poetry, unless I were mistaken and it were just abstract arithmetic and storytelling from a distance. As for the romantic notion, I think it depends which romantic you read, which myth you feel. Don Juan..behaved differently from Heathcliff or Dante, even if the last was a bit of an anaemic charlatan and authoritarian diplomat secretly. I hear something from each of them, rinse them for all they have at my leisure. I know that I myself am qualitatively different.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

hm.......


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

rymo said:


> To Theologic - you may be right. Maybe my definition is more than just mutual respect, admiration, and attraction. Maybe I do have this hopeless romantic idealized version of true love in my head. I know that even though my ex wasn't right for me in the end, the best moments to me were those that were romantic. Those times where we would look into each other's eyes at dinner and everything just seemed so right. Or we would go out and do something awesome and fun and then come back and make love. It was that part of things that I had trouble giving up. But the reality was that those moments were so few and far between. Why couldn't it be more? It's not like we had any crazy life obstacles getting in the way. Part of what I'm looking for in a girl is someone who seems to have that romantic edge, as cheesy as it sounds. But once I found that person, how long before that romantic edge fades? I'm so afraid that I'll get bored if it does and I will feel trapped.


Ahhh _*I think*_ I'm getting you! I'll have to finish my post later though. For now, I would say no. That feeling you are describing seems to be entirely contingent of life's circumstances. I believe that the feeling you described can happen inconsistently throughout a typically mundane and long relationship. I wouldn't say it will always be bound to fade but rather, it becomes less consistent .


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

I think the best chance a person has is to scrub up one's own outlook. If you develop a passion for yourself and your life and for the world in general, then it seems that one would naturally imbue one's relationships, be they familial, friendly, or romantic, with the same feeling. Which does not help those who cannot develop said passion, generally.

and that may be where the problem is. I *do* feel like I have this passion, this zest to give, in me somewhere. The conditions aren't right? ah, but wait - perhaps *I* have not made the conditions right, perhaps *I* did not allow the conditions because I did not believe I had a right to any of this? Therefore I did not allow myself to go after the right persons for me? 

something to ponder a bit.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

rymo said:


> I don't mean 24/7. Come on man  One person gets sick one time and there goes the lust and excitement for a few days. I'm not quite that level of stupid. I'm also not literally depressed over this hahaha...I'm just pondering love is all. Discussing.
> 
> What I do mean is having that passion for each other over a long period of time. Not without a hitch, but assuming no major career or other life obstacles in the way, that two people would be able to maintain passion for each other and express that by doing what they love together. As opposed to..dull..trite...laying on opposite sides of the bed reading their own books and then going to sleep. Passion faded.


I think it is possible if you don't expect it 24/7,which you obviously don't. I think passion in that sense can last forever


----------



## pineapplebun (Oct 25, 2011)

I do believe in true love, one that is suppose to last until death due us part. 

I think the passion in relationships come in bursts, it will naturally fade as the novelty of it wears off and the couple will have to keep working to instill passion and novelty into the relationship so it doesn't become a bore. With life obstacles getting in the way or priorities changing in the sense of family, I think the love dies down because people take their partner for granted and stop nurturing the relationship that is just between the two of them. Furthermore, as humans we're constantly changing and as a couple you have to work to grow together, otherwise you'll grow apart. I think that since passion fluctuates, it's fundamental to have a strong friendship basis in the relationship so regardless of the highs and lows, you will always love the person through commitment and respect.


----------



## theseventhkey (Jul 22, 2012)

rymo said:


> I'm not talking about finding that one special soulmate that's 100% perfect for you or anything like that. I know relationships take work, especially those that last. But are there relationships that are both filled with love and last forever? A relationship where the sky is the limit...where even if you get mad at him/her you know deep down that person is the one...where the thought of that person fills you with joy. Forever.
> 
> A lot of people, especially young people, think they're in love. But a lot of times it's just infatuation, they're in it for the wrong reasons (like the relationship being fueled by insecurity), or it's doomed to fail for whatever reason. I admit the romantic notion of falling in love and having passionate and exciting experiences with that person for the rest of my life sounds quite amazing. But also unrealistic. Passion fades. Life gets in the way. Things change. What are the actual odds that that excitement and intense love could go the long haul with so many potential obstacles in the way?


I don't believe in that kind of love, film and tv did a good job of making "lust" into unconditional love. I only believe in parents love for their children, that's the only love I think truly exists.


----------



## visualkeirockstar (Aug 5, 2012)

True love does exist.


----------



## NightScholar (May 4, 2012)

I believe this is your answer


----------



## caveman8 (Sep 3, 2012)

rymo said:


> What I do mean is having that passion for each other over a long period of time. Not without a hitch, but assuming no major career or other life obstacles in the way, that two people would be able to maintain passion for each other and express that by doing what they love together. As opposed to..dull..trite...laying on opposite sides of the bed reading their own books and then going to sleep. Passion faded.


Sometimes you want to read your own book. Do your own thing.

No matter how hot you are for each other, you're still individuals. It's not realistic to expect to do all the things both of you love together. Doesn't mean you've lost passion for life or each other.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

caveman8 said:


> Sometimes you want to read your own book. Do your own thing.
> 
> No matter how hot you are for each other, you're still individuals. It's not realistic to expect to do all the things both of you love together. Doesn't mean you've lost passion for life or each other.


Maybe passion is the wrong word. I don't want to give the impression that I believe true love involves constant 24/7 involvement in each other's interests and hobbies. When I say passion I mean that fire you get inside when you think about that person. Does that last for the long haul? Is it possible to always have those feelings for someone? And if not, what then is true love?


----------



## caveman8 (Sep 3, 2012)

rymo said:


> Maybe passion is the wrong word. I don't want to give the impression that I believe true love involves constant 24/7 involvement in each other's interests and hobbies. When I say passion I mean that fire you get inside when you think about that person. Does that last for the long haul? Is it possible to always have those feelings for someone? And if not, what then is true love?


See pineapplebun's last sentence. Spot on I think.


----------



## caveman8 (Sep 3, 2012)

pineapplebun said:


> I I think that since passion fluctuates, it's fundamental to have a strong friendship basis in the relationship so regardless of the highs and lows, you will always love the person through commitment and respect.


this


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

Whenever I have any type of relationship with someone the relationship evolves over time. I can look back at my past views of my brothers, parents, and friends and I realize that my feelings for them have seen changes. What hasn't changed is the fact that I still love them. To relate this to the topic at hand, do all relationships go through an evolution? Maybe "true love" is the feeling you have for someone in a romantic way that will never leave despite the many stages of your relationships evolution.

I agree with this quote that I read a while back after a tough breakup. The quote seemed so true. "Love is unconditional, relationships are not" - I forget lol but not me.
Could it be that you don't want the relationships you have to evolve? Do you want the euphoria of the new relationships but are uninterested in the later stages? 

What I'm saying is, every relationship, every connection we have seems conditional. You won't necessarily like someone no matter what they do but it is very possible to love them no matter what they do. I believe that people break up with each other although they still love each other because of the conditions. Judging by what you've already typed, I'm preaching to the choir, so let's move on....

I believe "true love" is when you love someone for the parts of them that never change and for those parts, you are always attracted. Granted, the excitement sees it's variety but is that necessary due to the forced nature of relationship evolution?

Through out our lives we've had many views of our father, of our mother, of our older brother. Once our parents were perfect, they were heroes. Once our older siblings seemed so cool, brave, and strong. Those views change as we grow old together, but those things don't matter because we will always love them. 

The fatal mistake I believe a lot of people make when viewing their partners is separating romantic partners from family. At first glance, and if taken out of context that might seem disgusting but what I mean is that your partner and the whole reason we are designed to crave partners is for families. Once you love your romantic partner like a member of your family, as a friend, and you are attracted, then you just might truly be in love. 


All in all...you probably won't get the answer you're looking for here on SAS. Why? Well because you'd probably have to ask a veteran happily married couple...find some old love birds..the sort of happy ones...and ask them


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

Could be in our genes. Some species mate for life - wolves, coyotes. And termites. Do termites love each other??!!??

Science may provide a solution sometime:



> Hasse Walum, a biologist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, studied 552 sets of twins to learn more about a gene related to the body's regulation of the brain chemical vasopressin, a bonding hormone.
> Over all, men who carried a variation in the gene were less likely to be married, and those who had wed were more likely to have had serious marital problems and unhappy wives. Among men who carried two copies of the gene variant, about a third had experienced a serious relationship crisis in the past year, double the number seen in the men who did not carry the variant.


Or perhaps you would like to me an anglerfish:



> One species is absolutely monogamous. In the black darkness of the deep sea, the tiny male anglerfish (perhaps one tenth the female's size) detects and follows the scent trail of a female of his own species. Once found, he bites his chosen one and hangs on. His skin fuses to hers, their bodies grow together (he gets his food through a common blood supply and becomes essentially a sperm producing organ). They mate for life - a short life for the male.


Soud like fun?


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I believe there are many women out there for me, who I could potentially fit with. It's finding them that's the problem...!


----------



## srschirm (Jun 25, 2006)

rymo said:


> But you're right - this does beg the question: what is love? *cue the song*


Thanks man...now I have to go on YouTube and crank up that song.


----------



## srschirm (Jun 25, 2006)

rymo said:


> I never defined love in my original post, unless you are referring to the passion thing again. Which, as I said, I was never equating with lust.
> 
> But what you are saying is that a relationship can last forever if both parties respect each other, but to hell if you think there is going to be passion and excitement (for life in general, not just sex) between them in the late game. That sounds pretty boring, to be honest.


I don't know, I've been in a 6-year relationship where the passion was pretty strong still. I definitely think it's possible, and sounds far from boring to me.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

This is an amazing post and quoted here for its wonderful truth -



Theologic said:


> Whenever I have any type of relationship with someone the relationship evolves over time. I can look back at my past views of my brothers, parents, and friends and I realize that my feelings for them have seen changes. What hasn't changed is the fact that I still love them. To relate this to the topic at hand, do all relationships go through an evolution? Maybe "true love" is the feeling you have for someone in a romantic way that will never leave despite the many stages of your relationships evolution.
> 
> I agree with this quote that I read a while back after a tough breakup. The quote seemed so true. "Love is unconditional, relationships are not" - I forget lol but not me.
> Could it be that you don't want the relationships you have to evolve? Do you want the euphoria of the new relationships but are uninterested in the later stages?
> ...


It still surprises me that people who obviously cared about each other would split up because of conditions that seemed to me controllable, so are you talking a matter of degree of love?

the need for a similarity to familial love that you talk about here makes sense to me. I think back on some friendships I've had, and how I feel about my parentals, and that makes sense. There have been times when I didn't like certain traits they had, or certain behaviors they displayed, or choices they made, but I always knew I loved them. I suppose that part could be called unconditional, but the relationship? yes, that changes, you adjust to a new ....era in the relationship, but the relationship itself and the basic underlying feelings endure.

So, that makes perfect sense. Looked at that way, I can say I know I have never been in love, and that's as good a definition as I have ever seen - very good, in fact. I have met a handful of people that I have felt great affection for and held in high esteem, but I have never been attracted to them. I'm not sure what that means. does it mean that in all my 48 years I have never met the right person? does it mean that in my mind, somehow the two conditions are incompatible? does it mean that the normal attachment experience I missed out on as an infant and subsequently as a child has hobbled my ability to experience such feelings for another? I don't know.

Despite these questions, I feel I now have a definition I can work with.

something else I just remembered: there was a guy in my old office where I used to work. he was a little thing, probably a little shorter than me, skinny, but cute in his own way. he had a great personality, but not in a shallow way. I was quiet, did my job and did it well, was friendly, all those things I try to be, but this guy made a special effort to get me to open up and even though we rarely socialized outside of work, we clicked and were friends. I was attracted to him, not just his appearance but for many traits he had, to his "himselfness". I knew I'd always like him and I still do. He eventually left for another job - his sweet little wife developed post partum depression and wanted to be closer to her parents, so off they went to Devon. I knew / have known this guy for 9+ years, and we helped each other through some difficult work related times, and he's got his faults and I've seen them in action and I've gotten frustrated with him, but I always liked him very much.

One day, well after he'd left, we finally admitted to each other that had I been single at the time we'd met, and had he been single at the time we met, we would probably have gotten together and it probably would have been amazing. It's funny though, I don't regret it not happening and I've only felt great satisfaction as I've watched him go through the various stages of his life, as a good caring husband, as a dad, etc. I've never felt any resentment, or anger, or that I "missed out", and I don't pine over it. I can't even say I felt a "passion" for him - I just really, really liked him so very much and still do. There were times I thought of him as a little brother, and there were times I was very physically attracted to him as well - that came and went. he had a chicken butt. and now, after reading this thread and your definition above, I wonder, could that have been "true love", or very close to it?


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

rymo said:


> My point wasn't about running into that person that's right for you. It was more about a sustainable relationship with that person that lasts forever and maintains a high level of passion.


no, I don't think this is possible. certainly not the "high level of passion" thing. our brains just aren't programmed that way.


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

The question is redundant since everyone's idea of true love is a subjective one.


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

Yes, but I think its pretty rare..


----------



## gomenne (Oct 3, 2009)

It's a myth. Love doesnt exist, people are together just because they tolerate each other that's it.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

So,you feel that if all the elements you mention are present, then love naturally develops on its own and it should feel relatively easy?



Rola said:


> Everyone has their own definition of what true love is - for that reason I don't believe that true love exist. It's simply what you make of it. It's better not to dwell into it and just go with the flow.
> 
> The relationships that last forever are those based on friendship, mutual respect, similar values and beliefs. Passion comes and goes, the same way you get bored of your favourite video game, but you don't throw it away, instead you save it and go back to play it one day.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shauna The Dead (Jun 16, 2005)

gomenne said:


> It's a myth. Love doesnt exist, people are together just because they tolerate each other that's it.


I agree with this... People divorce, people die.....and usually at leas one partner finds someone new very soon afterward. Its all a load of bull****.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

Shauna The Dead said:


> I agree with this... People divorce, people die.....and usually at leas one partner finds someone new very soon afterward. Its all a load of bull****.


People die, that is true. It's only natural they try to find someone else eventually and move on with their life. That doesn't mean they don't still love the person who died.

With divorce, yes, that usually means one or both parties have fallen out of love. But just because a lot of couples divorce doesn't mean that the loss of love happens to everyone. I don't claim to know the answer to the question (hence why I asked it ), but I don't believe high divorce rates is any evidence against it. If you want to use that argument, then you have to take into account all of the couples who DO stay together. What do you say about them?


----------



## Freiheit (Dec 8, 2008)

No.


----------



## Still Waters (Sep 18, 2008)

I think it certainly does exist - But finding it is akin to finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.


----------



## Shauna The Dead (Jun 16, 2005)

rymo said:


> People die, that is true. It's only natural they try to find someone else eventually and move on with their life. That doesn't mean they don't still love the person who died.
> 
> With divorce, yes, that usually means one or both parties have fallen out of love. But just because a lot of couples divorce doesn't mean that the loss of love happens to everyone. I don't claim to know the answer to the question (hence why I asked it ), but I don't believe high divorce rates is any evidence against it. If you want to use that argument, then you have to take into account all of the couples who DO stay together. What do you say about them?


I don't give a ****. They're either lucky or they found someone to tolerate


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

No, it definitely exists. It only happens when people can get their egos entirely out of the way of the relationship.

When we say "the passion wont last forever" its really because WE aren't spontaneous and we always put things on a timeline, so of course we are going to get tired of the relationship

the same way we get tired of everything else. we over think it and conceptualize it and it blocks the natural flow of living and loving.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

I hope you don't mind my asking a few more, possibly personal, questions about the relationship you are in now.

How long have you been together? How did you meet? how would you characterize it, yourself, and the person you are with, in the context of the relationship?

the easy part surprises me, because a lot of people will say that a good relationship takes work, but it could be that as time goes on, it becomes more work. what would you say to that?

I'm earnest about my questions. If you'd rather not go into it publicly, I hope that you consider PM'ing me.

thank you for your time.



Rola said:


> Yes. I've heard so many relationships (including my own pasts ones) where we had to put in so much effort to make it work. I was unhappy but I was in denial of that because I thought that was love was. It wasn't worth all the stress and hassle at the end, I realise that perfectly well with the person I'm with now.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Of course love exists and is possible with a great many people.
But "true love" is a bit iffy, because it depends on what is meant.
You won't be madly in love forever and ever, but you can be happy all the same.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

Shauna The Dead said:


> I don't give a ****. They're either lucky or they found someone to tolerate


For some reason I thought you could handle an intelligent discussion about this subject. Thank you for your valuable input.


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

leonardess said:


> This is an amazing post and quoted here for its wonderful truth -
> 
> It still surprises me that people who obviously cared about each other would split up because of conditions that seemed to me controllable, so are you talking a matter of degree of love?


Thank you and yes I believe that love does have degrees. Love is weighed and measured by capacity for selflessness. If one isn't willing to do something for one they love, I guess it's a way of saying "You aren't worth it". But who's to judge whether or not the seemingly easy task are actually easy for someone else?



leonardess said:


> the need for a similarity to familial love that you talk about here makes sense to me. I think back on some friendships I've had, and how I feel about my parentals, and that makes sense. There have been times when I didn't like certain traits they had, or certain behaviors they displayed, or choices they made, but I always knew I loved them. I suppose that part could be called unconditional, but the relationship? yes, that changes, you adjust to a new ....era in the relationship, but the relationship itself and the basic underlying feelings endure.


Exactly.



leonardess said:


> something else I just remembered: there was a guy in my old office where I used to work. he was a little thing, probably a little shorter than me, skinny, but cute in his own way. he had a great personality, but not in a shallow way. I was quiet, did my job and did it well, was friendly, all those things I try to be, but this guy made a special effort to get me to open up and even though we rarely socialized outside of work, we clicked and were friends. I was attracted to him, not just his appearance but for many traits he had, to his "himselfness". I knew I'd always like him and I still do. He eventually left for another job - his sweet little wife developed post partum depression and wanted to be closer to her parents, so off they went to Devon. I knew / have known this guy for 9+ years, and we helped each other through some difficult work related times, and he's got his faults and I've seen them in action and I've gotten frustrated with him, but I always liked him very much.
> 
> One day, well after he'd left, we finally admitted to each other that had I been single at the time we'd met, and had he been single at the time we met, we would probably have gotten together and it probably would have been amazing. It's funny though, I don't regret it not happening and I've only felt great satisfaction as I've watched him go through the various stages of his life, as a good caring husband, as a dad, etc. I've never felt any resentment, or anger, or that I "missed out", and I don't pine over it. I can't even say I felt a "passion" for him - I just really, really liked him so very much and still do. There were times I thought of him as a little brother, and there were times I was very physically attracted to him as well - that came and went. he had a chicken butt. and now, after reading this thread and your definition above, I wonder, could that have been "true love", or very close to it?


What you've experienced with this man seems very close to "true love". As you experienced his phases, you remained liking him. This seems to indicate that you genuinely like who he was. It's great that you don't feel too bad for your situation. it's great that you met someone that you genuinely liked even if your attraction to him came and gone time to time. I believe that you know the answer to your question. Only you do. Love, as defined by me, is an amount of selfless affection for someone. The question is, do you think that if given enough time to truly know one another he would be treated as a beloved member of your family? Would you do things for this person that you wouldn't anyone else? If the answer is Yes, you definitely loved this guy. Now "true love" in a romantic sense seems to require a level of sexual attraction. What level? I don't really know. Maybe just enough to have some romance from time to time. Romance and sexual attraction will see it's many phases as it is partly conditional. One may ultimately remain attracted for who the person really is but many other conditional factors play a role too e..g health, libido..etc


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

Theologic said:


> Thank you and yes I believe that love does have degrees. Love is weighed and measured by capacity for selflessness. If one isn't willing to do something for one they love, I guess it's a way of saying "You aren't worth it". But who's to judge whether or not the seemingly easy task are actually easy for someone else?


this is the variable that each person must decide, or it may happen naturally. Let's say one person in the relationship is really into gaming, WoW, let's say. and the other person is really into.....Victorian literature. or let's say one person is really into boating, or going to cocktail parties - the other person really doesn't mind doing those things with the other person and for the other person, they just do it, whereas someone else finds they must make a concerted effort to do those things. I don't know. This is something that kind of has to be felt out, I guess.



Theologic said:


> What you've experienced with this man seems very close to "true love". As you experienced his phases, you remained liking him. This seems to indicate that you genuinely like who he was. It's great that you don't feel too bad for your situation. it's great that you met someone that you genuinely liked even if your attraction to him came and gone time to time. I believe that you know the answer to your question. Only you do. Love, as defined by me, is an amount of selfless affection for someone. The question is, do you think that if given enough time to truly know one another he would be treated as a beloved member of your family? Would you do things for this person that you wouldn't anyone else? If the answer is Yes, you definitely loved this guy. Now "true love" in a romantic sense seems to require a level of sexual attraction. What level? I don't really know. Maybe just enough to have some romance from time to time. Romance and sexual attraction will see it's many phases as it is partly conditional. One may ultimately remain attracted for who the person really is but many other conditional factors play a role too e..g health, libido..etc


oh, without a doubt my family would have loved him. He had his faults, believe me, and I saw them in action, but none of that ever changed my affection for him and who he was. I did feel sad knowing that he was not going to be a part of my daily life anymore, and still do miss his presence, his company, very much. But, with that does not come any sort of clinging feeling, any....I'm struggling to find a right word. I just want him to be happy. I've said that before about other people, but this feels "normal", if you know what I mean. There is no clinging-to-the-bumper-as-he-drives-away sort of emotional mania about it for me.

He was sociable and had plenty of friends and all of that, but I can honestly say I would have put myself out there and made a real effort to get to know his friends and particularly his family, and I would have been happy to do it. I have no idea if things would have worked out had we both been available when we met. Probably not, but even breaking up would not have changed my feelings for him. I genuinely liked and appreciated him for who he was. I feel lucky to have connected with him and had him around on a daily basis as much as I did. I even talked him out of quitting his job with our firm once. it was for his own good though - it was not manipulative, and that's another thing. I never once had "designs" on him, it never occurred to me to try to split him and his girl up. I had too much respect for him, and she was / is a very sweet young lady. They are perfect for each other. and I don't feel sad about that. Like I say, I want to see him happy and successful in life, which he is. He makes friends wherever he goes because he takes the _time_.

I like what you say about the romance and sexual attraction being conditional - I think that's true, and is simply in the nature of those things and in our natures to feel that way about it. it waxes and wanes inevitably, so what you must have is that foundation.

I feel frustrated though, because I so rarely connect with anyone in the ways you describe and that I know to be true. So, so very rarely. _That_ is what I feel desperate about, it makes me clingy and angry and extremely depressed, not just sad. Jesus, if I let myself dwell on it, I get downright angry. I don't feel a "I missed out on the greatest thing ever" feeling at all, it's not like that. I'm just angry that nothing even remotely like this will ever happen for me again, see? If I let myself dwell on it, that is. It's highly unlikely, anyway. I was 37 when I met that guy, and I'm 48 now. the person I'm with now, I don't feel like that about at all. I mean, he's nice, and it's nice and all.

oh, **** it. I'm going to eat.


----------



## ThrashtilDeath (Mar 21, 2009)

I believe it's nothing more than a chemical reaction. Albeit, a very strong one, but still...

I don't believe in "soul mates" (or even the concept of a soul) And I think you can "love" multiple people at the same time.

This is all coming from someone who's never been in love, mind you, but i'm still pretty confident in my stance. All the evidence seems to support it.


----------



## Zeeshan (Sep 4, 2011)

ThrashtilDeath said:


> I believe it's nothing more than a chemical reaction. Albeit, a very strong one, but still...
> 
> I don't believe in "soul mates" (or even the concept of a soul) And I think you can "love" multiple people at the same time.
> 
> This is all coming from someone who's never been in love, mind you, but i'm still pretty confident in my stance. All the evidence seems to support it.


just because its a chemical reaction, doesnt make it any less. In fact the reaction itself gives more meaning to the experience of love. Those chemical reactions are unique and are the result of a beautiful act of nature.


----------



## ThrashtilDeath (Mar 21, 2009)

Zeeshan said:


> just because its a chemical reaction, doesnt make it any less. In fact the reaction itself gives more meaning to the experience of love. Those chemical reactions are unique and are the result of a beautiful act of nature.


I think many people believe in love in the spiritual sense, that it goes beyond what science may be able to explain and even follows you into the afterlife. You don't think these people would be incredibly disappointed if they were somehow able to know for sure that this wasn't the case? I think it would absolutely be less meaningful for them, and probably for the majority of the world's population as well.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

Yes.

Yes, lust probably fades over time the same way you don't get excited with certain things after a while, but when you love someone your relationship evolves into something else with time. Plus, let's face it, at 50 you're not going to have the same sex drive you did in your 20s and 30s, so even biology fails you. There's no point in fearing you'll lose that passion when you probably won't desire it after a while. 
I believe love becomes much stronger and complicated through time, to the extent where you don't feel that passion, you may not even acknowledge the "love," but you become so in tune with this person, such strong partners that the connection is impenetrable. You know everything about this person and they know everything about you; it's a routine that brings comfort, and no matter where you are, being with this person makes you feel at home.


----------



## spammer1234141 (May 22, 2012)

There are 4 forms of love, eros, philia, storge and agape.

Eros - receive. You want love and don't give any back. Platonic theory construes that it is ideal to love the beauty in a partner rather than the partner. Love at first sight.

Philia - give and receive. This is more of a friendship type of love. You put pressure and they put pressure on you. You want love. They want love back. Reciprocity or the golden rule, a moral rule which applies universally needs to be adhered to for philia to work. 

Storge - family love. For example, a fathers love for his son. This can't be considered true love because the father only loves his son because a certain premise is true.

Agape - give. This is unconditional love. You don't have a reason to love someone. You might even hate them, but you love them anyway. You don't need love in return. Some consider this form of love true love because no condition needs to be met. Immanuel Kants categorical imperative is not enough to meet the needs for this type of love. There are greater ethical prerequisites that need to be met. One of these prerequisites is to love enemies more than you love yourself. In a nutshell, true love does exist, but the presence of unconditional love in partners is uncommon, especially in modern society.


----------

