finding partners...

[Miss.K]

Thanks Miss K.

It was interesting hearing views from a female perspective.

Regarding the guy and girl I was talking about, he was mimicking the behaviour of the perfect guy a girl expects. He was confident, strong and responsive to her needs, from the get-go. To me, the inevitability of their encounter lie in 2 pieces of logic

- What made her think she was special so as to elicit the perfect response from a guy from the get-go, without them spending the time to know each other,

- Does she think she is responsible for making him so good at how he comes across i.e. clearly if a guy is perfect, says all the right things, acts in all the right ways... it is clear he got that way through practice i.e. she ain't special and she is 1 of many girls in his path.

The inevitability was that she had a one night stand which he told all his friends about like he had won some game. They then saw her as the girl he 'bagged'. She got angry and confronted him once she realized his game... I remember a question she asked him "You can't go around sleeping with all the girls around the city"... his response was "Uhmmm... yes I can!"... she was angry because she fell for his deception. In those moments of 'seduction' she thought she was unique, maybe she thought she had found the 'one' but what she had actually encountered was a really good 'player' of women.

He sounds pretty immature and a total idiot. (the guy you talk about)
I don't think that a woman should necessarily think that it's thinking she's special because she likes a guy that seems perfect. (you might be right in this case I don't know)
Everyone wants a perfect partner (clever people know that perfection is imperfect)
She seems to be a very poor judge of character. She would be wise to not sleep with guys until she knows them better.

That would be advisable for women (and men) in general, specially when they are young. (kissing is OK, so it doesn't have to go to the friend zone, I think)
The best sex is anyways rarely the first encounter, so though a one night stand can be pleasurable for a woman, it usually isn't so much. (and sex is much better for the man when the woman really likes it, so it will count for men as well)
-also one night stands are usually drunken, and drink can make one think sex is a good idea, but it pretty much numbs any pleasurable sensations, so it is not good for sex.

So far in my life, this is the type of girl I meet... the one who is torn between 2 things... the one who falls for the guy who mimics the perfect gentleman but also the one who longs for the perfect gentleman... in my mind, they are deluded... the guy they fall for is perfect for a reason... practice... i.e. the individual girl isn't special, unique... he only got good through practice... the perfect guy... the one who will cherish them... love them... only see them... be strong for them.. improve for them.. etc... this person won't start off perfect. It's logical. So to me they are caught between something they can't win unless they choose one or the other. To forego the image of perfection which is a male being sculpted in the image they have in their minds because for him to achieve this image in the instant they meet, she would not be unique in his eyes, rather, she would be 1 of a string of girls he has used to iron out his talent. Or to forego the image of something unique to her... the perfect being for her... the one who will only get better once he has met her but in the instant they meet, he will not have reached his peak, because it's only through her that he can achieve this. This type of girl is the only one I have met thus far. They are beautiful, they have no problem in terms of sex or relationships, but they have a problem in terms of finding that thing which is special, which is eternal, because they are torn between 2 opposing forces and in the majority of cases, it is the one who projects the image that wins, rather than the one who is actually capable of manifesting that which they crave.

I wonder Luke, are you a perfect gentleman?

If you had a partner wouldn't you cherish them... love them... see them... be strong for them.. improve for them.. etc.. Wouldn't you want her influence on you to help you reach your peak?

Any woman wants a perfect gentleman. (except lesbians who want a perfect gentlewoman) And any woman want's to have a beneficial influence on her partner.
It is not deluded IMO. To have a partner who is not a perfect gentleman will not work out. To have a partner who is not influenced positively by one (goes both ways) will not work out. I mean who wants a partner who has no positive influence on them?
Sure a lot of women spend energy trying to change their man, and should rather see what is, but in a good relationship, both the man and the woman will be changed for the better by the other. (love makes one grow better and stronger)

To not be able to see the difference between a psychopath and a perfect gentleman can be a problem. And I think here is where deluded comes in. One will see and feel the difference if one is willing to see what is, instead of being overwhelmed by getting attention, at least in many cases I think.

I also wonder if you are only interested in the very pretty girls? (anyone you love will become beautiful once you love them, so it might be that the perfect woman for you is not among the eye catchers, and you are blinded by flashy looks so you don't notice her)

(I'm still not through with reading this thread, so apologies if it has already been discussed)

But yeah, it was interesting hearing a females perspective. I still do think females are elusive in terms of how they function. As a guy, I can see how easily fooled a girl can be, but I also respect how easily she can fool a man if she so wanted. A strong gaze across a room is not really indicative of anything... all it is indicative of is a man who is confident... why they are confident can be because of anything that you can't really determine without seeing him from a non-sexual point of view which can only be obtained from that which she is not, not being the thing he desires.

Anyways for me personally, I think my worry of virginity is natural given the environment I live in. But I also think I won't die a virgin because life has a natural progression that is taking root. I don't think sex is that big... maybe on an individual level it is but I think ultimately we signed up for things bigger than our individual selves. That is not to say we sacrificed our individual selves. Basically saying that life is bigger than what we want personally and instead serves a purpose beyond ourselves. This however doesn't stop from the internal individual turmoil. 10 years from now, I can bet money I will be faced with entirely different problems and the problems of today won't be the problems of tomorrow. I think this problem with virginity is only a consequence of the times and not a consequence of who we actually are.

Virginity is both imposed and chosen. Imposed from a time beyond my conscious mind, and chosen through the choices I make. I feel a huge part of my life is fighting adversity, that of the personal individual form... i.e. stress, depression, seclusion etc. But I think this is chosen, as a lesson. But I don't think this is all it is, because we have a duty beyond ourselves... and if I have a duty beyond myself and unto another, then it is inevitable that our paths will cross and I will have to choose between a path of selfishness or choosing for the sake of another.

So yeah, that's that. I have seen and encountered enough to be confident and not-confident at the same time. Easily deluded and not-so easily deluded at the same time.

Yeah, a lot of women also still think men are elusive, but it is probably just people.

I can tell you that women (specially the young ones) think and talk to each other of little else than "why did he bla bla bla?...why don't he say directly that bla bla bla?...but if that means bla bla bla....then why don't he bla bla bla?" (I'm talking normal sleepy people here)
I did see a program once about differences of men and women, that said that women are better at discerning what facial expression really mean, as it is coded in them because they take care of the babies that don't talk yet, so they have to read the facial expression. But men are still pretty hard to figure out for many women.

And as to the strong gaze, that was not what I meant (they don't work on me, I find them stalker creepy, and not natural, and the list that is earlier in this thread on how to approach a woman wouldn't work on me, -the men who uses that tactic seem very unnatural to me in their coming on to me, and are usually not the type of men I'm interested in, though I might forgive a man for using such tactics if I'm already interested) I'm talking about a subtle "look of recognition" that is a little like when you meet a fox in the woods and for a moment you see who each other are, though you wouldn't be able to explain in words what you saw. (I love when that happens, both with foxes and humans) It can not be faked I think..and it by itself is not sexual at all, though sexual interest can be added to it.

When I was a kid, I noticed that the cats liked very much being petted by my mother, but not by me. So I asked my mother why that was. She explained something like that grown ups had calmer hands, and the cat liked that. And I had a big realization (though it wasn't formulated in words at the time)
I petted the cat because I wanted to pet the cat (for my sake) without putting myself in the cats shoes so to speak, and my mother understood to put herself in the cats shoes, thus understanding what felt pleasurable for a cat, and petted the cat because the cat wanted to, not because she wanted to. Which made the cat come to her, and shy away from me.

I've been reminded of that, while reading this thread. And I think that though it is true that confidence is a very good thing to have to be attractive to a partner. The most important is being able to put one self in the other ones shoes, and stop trying to pet them for ones own sake. (that is still possible even though one find them very soft, and attractive)
It seems to me that even though you spend a lot of energy trying to understand girls and what they want. You do it from the perspective of wanting to pet the cat for your sake, and that that is more the reason why you can't get the girls, than you being insecure. Someone really insecure who in a moment is brave and show their vulnerability can be absolutely adorable, and I think most women would agree. But no matter if it is with women, men, children or animals, to have a successful loving exchange, platonic or sexual, same rule applies:
You have to pet the cat for the cats sake, not because you want to pet it. (it is not always easy to do though, I still make the mistake at times even though I've understood this since I was a kid)

Does that make any sense?
(I'm not sure I explain it well)

-edit clarity-

 

[RedFox]

Just read this on sott, it seems to fit with everything else that's been discussed.

Why do we murder the beautiful friendships of boys?

What Niobe Way illuminates in her book is nothing less than the central source of our culture's epidemic of male loneliness. Driven by our collective assumption that the friendships of boys are both casual and interchangeable, along with our relentless privileging of romantic love over platonic love, we are driving boys into lives Professor Way describes as "autonomous, emotionally stoic, and isolated." What's more, the traumatic loss of connection for boys Way describes is directly linked to our struggles as men in every aspect of our lives.

Professor Way's research shows us that as boys in early adolescence, we express deeply fulfilling emotional connection and love for each other, but by the time we reach adulthood, that sense of connection evaporates. This is a catastrophic loss; a loss we somehow assume men will simply adjust to. They do not. Millions of men are experiencing a sense of deep loss that haunts them even though they are engaged in fully realized romantic relationships, marriages and families.

For men, the voices in Way's book open a deeply private door to our pasts. In the words of the boys themselves, we experience the heartfelt expression of male emotional intimacy that echoes the sunlit afternoons of our youth. This passionate and loving boy to boy connection occurs across class, race and cultures. It is exclusive to neither white nor black, rich nor poor. It is universal; beautifully evident in the hundreds of interviews that Way conducted. These boys declare freely the love they feel for their closest friends. They use the word love and they are proud to do so.

 

[BHelmet]

"Problem": the sexes are asleep as they dance.

WHY do you want to find a partner?

So many (most? ...almost all??) of the answers are STS.

But, of course, this is natural in a 3D STS world.

Fulfillment of the General Law. Even though I was unconscious of calling it that at the time, I can now see that's what it was (and still is) for me.

I think if we consciously enter into these arrangements, it helps.

Everyone carries SO much baggage and SO many assumptions, and SO many expectations.

And so, it once again comes back to "Know thyself".

As it is said: Assumption is the mother of all F-ups. And I would add Expectation is the father of all upsets.

So as far as relationship/finding partners goes; what are your expectations and assumptions about relationship?

I think we may be able to discover what drives us by looking at our own expectations and assumptions. Step outside of the machine, so to speak. If two people can do this together... well that is pretty awesome.

 

[mrelectric91]

I'm only 23 but from my observation when humans are young, the motivation in the whole romantic arena is STS. This is understandable hormones are raging and if we don't rgink we are satisfied with our experiences we carry neurosis, confusion, repressed shame into adulthood. Our instinct tell us we need to get ours, whatever the consequences. It seems the most sensitive men get left behind, rejected by others and themselves, they don't know how to play the game and express their needs, while the women are treated as prey by the guys who are less sensitive and can justify the means to their end.

Most of us are STS despite varying degrees of awareness and desire to develop and grow. However, I don't think we should develop complexes and shame around our desires.

Since going through this thread, the dynamic is males expressing their problems with romance and relationships. I am wondering whether there is a male on the forum who considers themselves happy with their romantic life and can provide an insight into positive experiences. Most of the advice while interesting, seems to be it's not that great, focus on yourself.

Just my thoughts.....

 

[RedFox]

I'm only 23 but from my observation when humans are young, the motivation in the whole romantic arena is STS. This is understandable hormones are raging and if we don't rgink we are satisfied with our experiences we carry neurosis, confusion, repressed shame into adulthood. Our instinct tell us we need to get ours, whatever the consequences. It seems the most sensitive men get left behind, rejected by others and themselves, they don't know how to play the game and express their needs, while the women are treated as prey by the guys who are less sensitive and can justify the means to their end.

That's what I saw at your age too. I tried being insensitive and domineering for a while (as they appeared to be the guys that got any kind of relationship) and failed miserably. I wasn't pleased with the failure at the time, but in hind site I am pleased I failed.

Most of us are STS despite varying degrees of awareness and desire to develop and grow. However, I don't think we should develop complexes and shame around our desires.

Since going through this thread, the dynamic is males expressing their problems with romance and relationships. I am wondering whether there is a male on the forum who considers themselves happy with their romantic life and can provide an insight into positive experiences. Most of the advice while interesting, seems to be it's not that great, focus on yourself.

fwiw I can't speak of romantic relationships. I can speak of 'focus on yourself' though.
To me it always seemed narcissistic to have Any needs, which turns out to be complete ignorance of what it is to be human, and ignoring/suppressing/rejecting those things was what ended up driving my behaviors and emotional angsting.
So 'focus on yourself' to means, learn to focus on yourself in the right way. Specifically, you need to build a relationship with yourself - your needs, desires, thoughts, emotions and body.
We can so easily indulge ourselves or beat ourselves with mental sticks, reject and shut out parts of ourselves we feel are wrong or are 'too painful to face'. This is not a healthy relationship! And of course the way we treat ourselves (even if we do it subconsciously) then gets projected onto our outside relationships.

We can be flippant and dismissive of others needs and emotions, especially so when we are fighting to shut out our own. We can be manipulative and cruel in 'getting our needs met' (narcissism) if we are stuck at thinking only others can fulfill them - which comes from not having a relationship (open communication and understanding) of our own needs and emotions. We demand that others rescue and sooth us from our own emotional pain, and we angst when there is no-one to do that for us.

In essence, part of us is still an infant. And it needs care, communication, understanding and guidance in order to grow. Dependent on learning style, it can be done with your own initiative or may need outside support.
The more the relationship with yourself grows, the less 'focus on yourself' is needed. The less harsh, demanding, rejecting and indulgent you are with yourself and others. The more you can be fully present for yourself and others.
I've found the more I grow this and acknowledge and listen to myself, the less need I have for a romantic relationship. Although that never goes away, the angsting, pressure and hapless mechanical insanity of it all does start to go away.

 

[Miss.K]

Since going through this thread, the dynamic is males expressing their problems with romance and relationships. I am wondering whether there is a male on the forum who considers themselves happy with their romantic life and can provide an insight into positive experiences. Most of the advice while interesting, seems to be it's not that great, focus on yourself.

I'm no male, but I just saw this article on SOTT
http://www.sott.net/article/295858-The-difference-between-a-mature-relationship-and-an-immature-relationship

Though it doesn't say anything about how to find that relationship, it talks about difference of good and bad relationship

fwiw I can't speak of romantic relationships. I can speak of 'focus on yourself' though.
To me it always seemed narcissistic to have Any needs, which turns out to be complete ignorance of what it is to be human, and ignoring/suppressing/rejecting those things was what ended up driving my behaviors and emotional angsting.

I think this is an important point. We can't skip the "being human step" in our hurry to better ourselves, it backfires.
I would guess that it is normal to go though an introverted period (can last many years) when doing the kind of work done here, which is good and necessary in many cases for internal and external consideration. But it is a monastery existence, and I think it might be that one can gather a huge amount of knowledge that way, but one can remain having very poor social skills, and very poor skills at applying that knowledge in real life.

The contrast of imagining what one can do/ thinking one has understood to actually trying it out in real life is usually huge. Don't matter if it is making a drawing, participating in the forum, or being in a love relationship.
In my experience not all things can be learned by theory, some have to be learned by practice, I'm not sure that one can learn to be STO by sitting by one self reading the words of really clever people, thinking that one is too knowledgeable and evolved to interact with the common mob of superficial idiots.

Even OP's can be lovely to interact with at times, just like animals can be, I think that the key is not expecting them to be what they are not, just like it wouldn't work to have a cow, if you expect it to be a horse, and spend time judging it's behavior as bad. You'll miss some lovely moments of scratching the cows forehead that way, and though you are infinitely smarter than the cow, it will be ahead of you in some ways, as it is not expecting you to be a horse.
OSIT

 

[lainey]

Thank you RedFox and Miss.K, you have made me realise how ridiculous it is to feel guilty about being human and having human needs and making human mistakes and for judging others for being human too. Your posts were beautifully written and have given me much to think about.
I get on ok with myself but there is so much yet to learn.
Thanks again

 

[luke wilson]

Since going through this thread, the dynamic is males expressing their problems with romance and relationships. I am wondering whether there is a male on the forum who considers themselves happy with their romantic life and can provide an insight into positive experiences. Most of the advice while interesting, seems to be it's not that great, focus on yourself.

I'm no male, but I just saw this article on SOTT
http://www.sott.net/article/295858-The-difference-between-a-mature-relationship-and-an-immature-relationship

I read it yesterday.... I thought it was somewhat idealistic and maybe even portrayed mature relationships as somewhat boring. On reflection I think it was really solid and very very mature article. A mature relationship is stable.

I happen to find this other article which is somewhat along the same lines:

_http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-romantic-love-is-overrated/article4171424/

The part that caught my eye:

True love isn’t lightning bolts. It isn’t something that just happens to you. It’s something that you build together, over time. True love isn’t what I used to think it was at all. It’s infinitely better.

This blog entry is also interesting but dear God, the ending...

_http://a-bev-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/psychological-triggers-in-romantic.html

There are many factors that affect the likelihood of someone becoming obsessed with another in a romantic relationship. Lack of self-worth is one of these factors; those who do not have any self-love have a void to fill, and often as soon as someone shows interest in that person, they are drawn to them like a moth to flame. Peele (1975) explores this phenomenon by stating that those with a void can only subside it “by subsuming someone else's being inside [themselves], or by allowing someone else to subsume [them]. Often, two people simultaneously engulf and are engulfed by each other. The result is a full-fledged addiction.” Another factor is socioeconomic status. In his book, Peele (1975) explores a study conducted by Lee Rainwater, an expert on differences in human interactions depending on class. In Rainwater’s study he found that “Two-thirds of the middle-class children (compared to only one-fifth of the children from lower-class families) showed evidence of a ‘social dependency constellation.’ The latter can be defined as the need to cling to one human object for love and support.” Although these are just two of the many potential factors, the greatest of these can be defined using attachment theory (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).


Attachment theory demonstrates that one’s level of dependency in a romantic relationship can be predicted by one’s behaviour by their primary caregiver to them as an infant (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Stephan and Bachman (1999) discuss attachment theory in their article on attachment and sexuality:

Mothers who are consistently available emotionally to respond to their infant’s attachment needs produce infants who form secure attachments, as manifested in exploratory and affiliative behaviors. Mothers who treat their infants in an inconsistent manner, sometimes being overprotective and sometimes being non-attentive, produce anxious/ambivalent infants who are preoccupied with their mothers, and exhibit fewer exploratory behaviors. Mothers who are unresponsive to their infants’ attachment needs produce avoidant infants who actively avoid their mothers when distressed. (p. 111)

According to attachment theory, the attachment style one has as an infant is most likely the one they will have throughout their entire life (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) and can predict the obsessive behaviour of those caught in the throes of a love obsession. Those who receive little care from their mothers (or primary caregiver) find attachment in other areas of their lives, often in another person in a romantic setting. This attachment is harmful both to the attached and the person the obsessed is attached to, and can lead to a harmful love obsession. By using our knowledge of attachment theory, we clearly see that the care we give to our children as infants is pertinent to their adult lives. By being attentive, loving parents, we can reduce the chances of our children suffering from romantic obsession and therefore the potential dangers that accompany the mental illness.


Which main psychological trigger can cause a person to become romantically obsessed with another? By researching this topic and considering the truth behind psychological theories such as attachment theory, we see that romantic obsession is a mental illness that could and should be treated as a psychological addiction. Diagnosis of this mental illness as a genuine disorder would benefit every member of society who either suffers from or is affected by romantic obsession and its potentially dangerous consequences. It is clear that through further research and active discussion by the medical community, we could prevent obsessive love behaviour and promote healthy, loving relationships for all.

It appears some obsessive aspects of romantic love as experienced by many are somewhat similar to the mechanisms of addiction..

This is also another interesting one:

_http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/02/the-myth-of-romantic-love

In that dazzling history Lewis (CS Lewis) traces the invention of the story of romantic love”now the most standard of all loves recognized in the Western world. Romantic love is a Western invention, a near-obsession, supposedly the key to all happiness. For Lewis, the invention of romantic love in the age of the troubadours (the age of the Crusades) was far more momentous for the development of the West, and far more broadly influential than, say, the Protestant Reformation. Lewis compares the Reformation to a ripple on the vast ocean of romantic love.

As a result of this invention, we Westerners have come to think that the central fire of human happiness is romantic love, love forever and ever (love “happily ever after”). Imagination ends with the romantic couple walking hand in hand across the fields toward the sunlight. Many people spend their entire lives looking for such love, wanting to feel such love, wondering, when they are first attracted to another, if that’s what they’re now feeling. Above all, most people love being in love , love the feeling of loving, love even the mad passion of being in love.

Denis de Rougemont’s Love in the Western World (1940) first opened my eyes to the phenomenon of romantic love. In pointing out several features of romantic love he offered a useful vocabulary for analyzing the meaning most often attached to the term “love” in literature, theatre, and cinema today. Central among these is the fact that it consists in falling in love with love , not with a concrete person. In its pure form it scorns mere bodily, erotic, sexual love. It prides itself on being “above” the biological love that is satisfied by pornography or by groping interaction with another human being. This ill-starred higher love entails

a factor having the power to make instinct turn away from its natural goal and to transform desire into limitless aspiration, into something, that is to say, which does not serve, and indeed operates against, biological ends.

Romantic love loves the higher passion , the spiritual ecstasy of love, not the body. A woman in romantic love loves being swept off her feet, longing for more, to the point of death. “I would rather die” than lose the feeling of loving him and being loved by him.

Passion means suffering, something undergone, the mastery of fate over a free and responsible person. To love love more than the object of love, to love passion for its own sake, has been to love to suffer and to court suffering, all the way from Augustine’s amabam amare down to modern romanticism.

To feel the ecstasy of passion, romantic love entails a boundless desire, a longing for the infinite, a longing to “slip the surly bonds of Time,” to escape from bodily limitations into the realm of the forever and the infinite. De Rougemont describes it as “complete Desire, luminous Aspiration, the primitive religious soaring carried to its loftiest perch . . . . a desire that never relapses, that nothing can satisfy, that even rejects and flees the temptation to obtain its fulfillment in the world.” It is a revolt against mere flesh, against the limits of the human condition. The body , it finds gross. What it loves is the rarefied spiritual passion that only romantic lovers know. It loves feeling lifted “above the herd,” into a higher sphere. Romantic love is “a transfiguring force, something beyond delight and pain, an ardent beatitude,” purer, more spiritual, more uplifting than physical “hooking up.” It is not a sated appetite, but in fact quite the opposite. It loves the feeling of never being satisfied, of being always caught up in the longing, of dwelling in the sweetness of desire. It feels a kind of murderous hostility toward rude awakenings.

This is why romantic love desperately needs obstacles. If romantic love were to lead too quickly to physical consummation, it would cease being romantic. For then it would require dealing with clothing in disarray, a mess to clean up, bad breath, and hair all disheveled. Then there would be a meal to fix, and” bump! ”romance has fallen back to the lumpen earth. No, for the sake of romantic love, it is much better for fulfillment to be delayed, for obstacles to be put up, for a sword to be laid down between the longing couple, or a curtain drawn between them. For their romantic passion to persist, lovers must be kept away from one another. De Rougemont comments on romantic lovers: “Their need of one another is in order to be aflame, and they do not need one another as they are. What they need is not one another’s presence, but one another’s absence.” This is the story of love perennially facing obstacles, never having to get down to the nitty-gritty of daily life.

If and when eros does vanquish all obstacles, it ceases to be romantic love. It now must choose between commitment to a concrete other with all the limitations of that other, or a once-and-for-all break-up. For with consummation, illusion is shattered. Flesh meets flesh. The reality of the human condition sets in. As a result, the most satisfactory ending for the tale of romantic love is not , as one would think, physical consummation or even “growing old together.” It is, actually, death, while longing still pierces the heart. For then the living member of the couple can go on loving infinitely, forever, above the ordinariness of mere earth. Or else, if that empty fate is simply unbearable, the remaining beloved can also meet a tragic death. Now that is really satisfying: when a man and a woman continue in romantic love eternally, by means of the untimely death of both. That is real tragedy, a real arrow of love to the heart, the best of all Western tales.

Do not too many of the young persons you know believe that true happiness is to be found in true romantic love? (They may not know how to distinguish true romantic love, but they seek desperately to try it out, so that at last they can become “happy.” For so many, “happiness” means romantic love.) Do not many long to be “swept off their feet”? Be honest, you almost certainly remember this wistfulness in yourself, long ago. Perhaps, still, even at your present age, you tend to think that romantic love, a true passion as the French used to call it, was once, or still is, the highest, sweetest peak in your life. We all know people who refuse to be bound by an earthly commitment to any one concrete, imperfect human being. Instead, they fall in love with love, over and over again. Until death brings them rest.

The above has a somewhat different take on romantic love, at least the ideal of it as far as I understood it. I cut off the last bit as it went into religious territory.

I think I am personally afflicted by the need to 'suffer' through the feeling of longing and never attaining. I find I become easily attached to some people but what I am really attached to is the feeling, the ephemeral ideal. I think there is an aspect of this suffering that I feed on, maybe the feeling of it within myself, the feeling of emotional pain produced by wanting something you can never get. The inevitable heartache. I suppose it's a longing for something that cannot exist because the idea of this thing has not met the limitations of reality, the reality of reality, it exists above and beyond, detached. My first thoughts of this was when I was like 7 and I remember walking from school and looking up in the sky and just thinking to myself that one day I'll have an amazing love drama, where it'll be like music that you dance to.

I also came across the term Limerence:

Limerence (also infatuated love) is a state of mind which results from a romantic attraction to another person typically including compulsive thoughts and fantasies and a desire to form or maintain a relationship and have one's feelings reciprocated. Psychologist Dorothy Tennov coined the term "limerence" for her 1979 book Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love to describe the concept that had grown out of her work in the mid-1960s, when she interviewed over 500 people on the topic of love.[1]

Limerence has been defined by one writer as "an involuntary interpersonal state that involves intrusive, obsessive, and compulsive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are contingent on perceived emotional reciprocation from the object of interest".[2] Limerence has also been defined in terms of the potentially inspirational effects and the relationship to attachment theory, which is not exclusively sexual, as being "an involuntary potentially inspiring state of adoration and attachment to a limerent object involving intrusive and obsessive thoughts, feelings and behaviors from euphoria to despair, contingent on perceived emotional reciprocation”.

In short: Romantic Love = Minefield.

 

[Miss.K]

Thank you Luke for putting that together, it helps connecting the dots I think

I read it yesterday.... I thought it was somewhat idealistic and maybe even portrayed mature relationships as somewhat boring. On reflection I think it was really solid and very very mature article. A mature relationship is stable.

:D I thought so too when I was younger. In Danish loving is "kaerlig" and boring is "kedelig", and I made a lot of jokes about that.

-and hey! crazy passion is a pretty great drug (the best) ...specially for the first 2 weeks before the grinding of teeth, and pulling out hair, and hurting worse than you thought you could, and acting crazy from hurt, and spending all your life force trying to fix it, and dying inside, and feeling lonelier than you've ever felt, while sitting in the same room as your partner, and the break up and the crying, and the tying to get your life back together, and pay off your loans, while figuring out you are not young anymore, and some of the things you didn't get to do because you spend so much time being insane, are too late to do..

In short: Romantic Love = Minefield.

Yes....No....well yes, but that doesn't mean one should worry too much. If it hits one full force, there is really very little that one can do about it (it don't necessarily help saying no to the relationship as those feelings are so powerful they can live on for 10 years without even seeing the target of the passion again)
And as the passion of Christ, one can use the pain, and sacrifice for purification. I think (which changes the past)
Like a bully=minefield, but worriers that are practical, use them as petty tyrants, and in the same way, suffering from romantic love can be used to purify, if used right (though petty tyrants are way more mercyfull that passion, so it's not for the fainthearted) :)

I think I'd have the same reply, as the heroine of a lovely American show I watched earlier said, when asked by her old flame (whom she once had a passionate relationship with and left, but they'll always love each other) what she would have done different if she could, "Nothing....Everything..."

as Shellycheval said earlier in this thread:

[.......] young people who have overwhelming feelings of need will continue to enter into entirely dysfunctional relationships and get their hearts broken, mess up their lives, and suffer abuse—which, ironically, all contributes to learning some of the most important lessons about yourself and life you will ever experience.

So, IMHO, in the end, relationships are probably the most important knowledge-gaining experiences we have in life and we all have to learn one way or another.
So, strive to be kind. Keep your ego in check, “Learning is Fun.” and “All is Lessons.”

 

[mrelectric91]

In terms of romantic field being a minefield, I think it is more about the attitude you take to your experiences. I think it's important to be both vulnerable and less sensitive. Vulnerable to allow yourself to be seen, as in flux, imperfect, developing towards a more centred being, and less sensitive to realise especially when young that rejection shouldn't touch your self worth and you can't find relationships at will but that shouldn't be an excuse for withdrawl.

 

[Menna]

In my experience not all things can be learned by theory, some have to be learned by practice, I'm not sure that one can learn to be STO by sitting by one self reading

Agreed. Or by posting theories on the internet typing away about the issue they are avoiding.

 

[axj]

_http://a-bev-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/psychological-triggers-in-romantic.html

There are many factors that affect the likelihood of someone becoming obsessed with another in a romantic relationship. Lack of self-worth is one of these factors; those who do not have any self-love have a void to fill, and often as soon as someone shows interest in that person, they are drawn to them like a moth to flame. Peele (1975) explores this phenomenon by stating that those with a void can only subside it “by subsuming someone else's being inside [themselves], or by allowing someone else to subsume [them]. Often, two people simultaneously engulf and are engulfed by each other. The result is a full-fledged addiction.”

Thanks for posting this. I also think that this type of "hole-filling" is one of the major challenges in romantic relationships. Some literature calls this addictive dynamic "emotional co-dependence".

Here is a description of the root of the problem and why breakups are often so painful:

The by far biggest reason for suffering after breakups is painful emotional wounding that comes up to the surface when a relationship ends.

Emotional wounds and trauma are created in early childhood when the emotional needs of a child are not sufficiently met by the parents or caregivers. We become emotionally wounded when we do not get enough love, acceptance and approval as children.

We can heal emotional wounding only through our own efforts – whether it is with the help of a therapist or in self-therapy, as described in this book.

* * *​

Nobody has a perfect childhood and so everyone is emotionally wounded to some degree. Most people cannot remember the origin of their wounding and pain. Not only are early childhood events difficult to remember, but we also habitually use all our will to suppress these very uncomfortable experiences into the subconscious.

However, suppressing the pain of emotional wounds never really works. Inevitably, emotional wounds come up again and again in situations which resemble the original situations in which the wounding occurred in childhood.

What do emotional wounds feel like?

When emotional wounding comes up, it always feels very uncomfortable and even painful. Emotional wounding is usually accompanied by deep sadness, extreme rage, hopelessness, emptiness and other similar emotions.

Since we are so used to suppressing and not really feeling these negative emotions, we may only notice that our body becomes tense and uncomfortable.

When you focus on this tension in the body (around the neck or in the belly, for example), you may notice that it is there because you are not acknowledging some uncomfortable emotion, such as sadness, fear or anger.

* * *​

Especially after a breakup a lot of emotional wounding comes painfully to the surface.

The main reason why this happens after breakups is that in most relationships the partners develop at least some degree of emotional co-dependence. This may not sound like a big deal, but co-dependence is always a very unhealthy dynamic.

When a co-dependent relationship ends you literally feel like a junkie on withdrawal, though in this case the “drug” was the co-dependency.

Co-dependency is based on emotional neediness. The reason for this neediness is the emotional wounding we already talked about.

Authentic needs vs. neediness

It is quite important to clearly distinguish between true emotional needs on the one hand and neediness on the other.

We all have the natural authentic need to feel loved, appreciated, and so on. Neediness and needy behavior, on the other hand, is always based on emotional wounding. Neediness is not authentic.

When people are needy, they try to fill their painful emotional holes in co-dependent relationships. In other words, co-dependency means that people try to lessen the pain and discomfort that their emotional wounds are causing them. They do this by filling these “holes” from the outside – with the love and attention of their partner.

However, the big problem of co-dependent behavior is that filling the holes from the outside never heals the wounds. When the relationship ends, the emotional wounds come back screaming to the surface, as they are no longer “filled” by the partner.

The only way to get rid of these wounds is to heal the holes yourself. Each wound needs to be healed only once – then it is gone for good.

Neediness is also often the reason why relationships end. Some people try to control their partner because of their neediness and insecurities. Other people become too attached or clingy to their partner for the same reasons.

In all these cases, the underlying cause of the neediness and the insecurities needs to be addressed – they need to heal their emotional wounds.

A sure sign of neediness is the feeling that “I cannot live without that person”.

True Love vs. Pseudo-Love

Unfortunately, neediness and co-dependency are very often confused with being in love. Yet true love has nothing to do with emotional addictions, neediness or co-dependence.

True love in a relationship is always based on the self-love of both partners.

For someone who lacks self-love it is almost impossible to love someone else. Emotional neediness like “I cannot live without you” is an addiction and has nothing to do with love.

True love does not give you withdrawal symptoms when a relationship ends. You may feel natural grief and sadness for some time, but this also passes relatively quickly.

From: "Heartbreak? How to heal your broken heart with self-therapy"

 

[luke wilson]

Well personally I enjoyed spending time reading up on this. To see that other people have written about it, in ways that allows reflection and learning.

But still, as a culture we continue to demand that every girl or boy, when they reach the age of puberty or sexual awareness, that they must have a romantic other attached to their hip and invisibly connected to their hearts. They are expected to prove their completion in the reflection of somebody else. The pressure is too much from popular culture that you doubt your contentment if you are not this way perfected.

Modern society is obsessed with the issue. In a world where God has all but died on the Western front, romantic love has replaced religion and devout worship. Undeniably, we are fed every day with the image of two people who find purpose and meaning only because they have found each other first and then presumably they disappear to the end of the rainbow.

From Hollywood scripts and novels, to magazines, pop songs and self-help workshops, the pressure is on to accomplish this unconditional union of two with the opposite sex or the same. As long as you are not happy being alone and single; as this upsets people and shakes their concepts of being fulfilled and satisfied to the core. Like it or not, romantic love is believed a requisite for happiness and an indication of personal worth.

Unfortunately, it is also a large inward measure of how we equate and validate ourselves, as I have seen people do the stupidest of things for “love” by internalising the strongest of love expectations. They end up holding on to toxic relationships that only bring them abuse, disrespect, anger, frustration and pain, not to count the weeks, months and years wrongly invested. If you ask them why, the response is: “Because I am in love.”

Both intelligent and simple people lower themselves for the affections of an unsuitable or undeserving other, being so emotionally wrapped up in this way. There are also others who on the strength of the original euphoria have tried to stay together but are currently disheartened for the complications and bad feelings now come.

I still want to ask why we submit to this force and whether romantic love has to be so blind. Or is it just because that in the beginning it felt like heaven or paradise that is now forever gone and lost but you still wish to reclaim it? When does the ugliness enter into it? Can we save ourselves from romantic love’s grip and obsession?

Reading stuff like the above for example indicates that your Being obviously is absorbed in an environment where from all directions, a certain message is projected. The internal conflict is inevitable. To read about it, see it from different angles, surely that can only help the learning process?

In my morning walks, I've been thinking that maybe the universe placed me in this situation so that I can learn something, for a reason, not as a punishment or not because I am not worthy, or not because I am avoiding things but maybe because, this is the path for me to learn the lessons I have to learn. Anyways, I don't regret spending time reading about theory!

 

[Miss.K]

_http://a-bev-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/psychological-triggers-in-romantic.html

A sure sign of neediness is the feeling that “I cannot live without that person”.
True Love vs. Pseudo-Love

True love does not give you withdrawal symptoms when a relationship ends. You may feel natural grief and sadness for some time, but this also passes relatively quickly.

From: "Heartbreak? How to heal your broken heart with self-therapy"

I'm not sure about that it passes so quickly. I remember reading an article on Sott once about that psychologists wanted to make it so that if people were sad for more than 2 weeks if someone close dies, then they should be put on medication, as it was not normal...I think sometimes psychologists think that pain is not a part of normal healthy human life, and I don't agree.
I don't know what the ones who have a good relationship feel, but I would imagine that having a good relationship, and losing ones partner would be more or less like losing a leg. Not something you hysterically have to grief, but you will always miss your leg, and not walk as well without it..

In my experience not all things can be learned by theory, some have to be learned by practice, I'm not sure that one can learn to be STO by sitting by one self reading

Agreed. Or by posting theories on the internet typing away about the issue they are avoiding.

Do you mean this thread? I think it is good to network about these things. For some people it really causes them a lot of pain feeling lonely, and missing love, so I don't think it is a silly discussion :)

-edit- spelling

 

[BHelmet]

A sure sign of neediness is the feeling that “I cannot live without that person”.
True Love vs. Pseudo-Love

But then, perhaps this feeling of need of a person stems from a sense that we have unlearned, incomplete lessons to be learned in the relationship with that person.

True love does not give you withdrawal symptoms when a relationship ends. You may feel natural grief and sadness for some time, but this also passes relatively quickly.

The devil is in the details: with true love, does the relationship ever really end? There is often a confusion of 'relationship' with sexual exclusivity or living together. They are not the same things. And what is 'passes quickly'? "Quickly" is a very subjective amount of time.

I'm not sure about that it passes so quickly. I remember reading an article on Sott once about that psychologists wanted to make it so that if people were sad for more than 2 weeks if someone close dies, then they should be put on medication, as it was not normal...I think sometimes psychologists think that pain is not a part of normal healthy human life, and I don't agree.
I don't know what the ones who have a good relationship feel, but I would imagine that having a good relationship, and losing ones partner would be more or less like losing a leg. Not something you hysterically have to grief, but you will always miss your leg, and not walk as well without it..

Grief can be a great teacher and a cause a great opening up of the soul to higher channels/information/knowledge. Enlightenment is not always accompanied by ethereal string harmonies, white light and rainbows.

In my experience not all things can be learned by theory, some have to be learned by practice, I'm not sure that one can learn to be STO by sitting by one self reading

Totally agree - so many lessons in the trenches of life and love.

Do you mean this thread? I think it is good to network about these things. For some people it really causes them a lot of pain feeling lonely, and missing love, so I don't think it is a silly discussion :)

There is a lot of value here in hearing people's stories. I know sometimes a person can feel isolated and think they are alone with unique difficulties but when it is clear the problems are universal, or when you hear someone has bigger crosses to carry that put your own in perspective, it can be a source of inspiration.