Truth of Love Meme Poll

[nowwhat]

Have you ever seen the film called The Mexican, with Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts? At one point...I think it was she who said to the question about love: Sometimes love is not enough.
So, to me this means...you might love someone unconditionally, but this in no way negates the fact that if the person you love is having a negative impact on you or those you care about, then that means you should not tolerate it...or remain with this person...

...cuz no matter how much you love them...or whether the love is "conditional" or "true", either way, sometimes love itself is just not enough.

Take a mother whose son has turned to drugs to cope with life's trials and tribulations, like in the film Requiem for a Dream. (Yes, I often use movies to help me to better understand human nature and its perpetually fluctuating nature.) Should such a mother tolerate her alone nefarious behavior, especially if he's stealing from her and those she cares for or are within her proximity? Should the needs of the one be placed at a higher priority than herself or the many? Or paraphrasing the Vulcans of Star Trek say: Why should the needs of the of the one outweigh the needs of the many...

...or I say: the needs of yourself?

I think the line from The Mexican sums it up the best: Sometimes love is not enough?
Sometimes you need...more. Sometimes you need your needs...your self respect...your happiness to come first.

Especially when anothet's happiness comes at the expense of your own.

Especially when another's love is so conditional it could be detrimental to you both...

...but most definitely detrimental to YOU!

Not to be selfish or self serving.

But for the same reason the airlines caution adults to place the airmask on yourself before doing so for your children...

....we must also be certain our needs are priority before we think of worrying about another's.

Self love...self compassion...and self respect must come before all other loves....

Everyone deserves to be loved unconditionally. So, I think...just because you love someone it doesn't mean they deserve that love.
This is my conclusion.

This is what I know. This is the purpose of love...from my own personal perspective

This is sort of what I was trying to say in my post about the difference between love and relationships, and elaborates on what I was too tired and lazy to exlore very much.

 

[theminx]

My thinking runs like this: love is pure, perfect and transcendant. It does not require reciprocity as it is selfless. We have all felt this, usually alloyed with a great deal of pain. Why? Because RELATIONSHIPS require reciprocity, being a practical, temporal and earthbound thing. Just how I think of such things.

I have a practical observation of love:

It is a rough game. The nicest people, with the most sincere good intentions, covered in their most trusted protective gear can take the field, but no matter. Someone is certain to wind up sitting dazed on the ground, bloodied, and incapacitated, while the game goes on heedless around them. No one will pay them any mind and they are left to drag themselves across the churned ground to a safe place where they can mend.

Yes. I agree...this is a more truncated version of what I was saying. Thank you.

 

[theminx]

Theminx, that was outstanding.

Especially the separate rooms bit. However when I tried that in a prior relationship it was taken as a personal attack by my ex.

To the original point, I think that our culture has a delusional definition of romantic love that is at odds with the human history of coupling.

Also a Norwegian friend has explained that in northern Europe, practicality and values play a much greater role in coupling than emotions and lust. It is a much more pragmatic approach that I think would work for myself.

Thank you!

 

[Lena_C]

Everyone deserves to be loved unconditionally. So, I think...just because you love someone it doesn't mean they deserve that love.

Thanks for proving that I have made a right decision.

 

[Cali Cat]

Thanks for proving that I have made a right decision.

You and me both.

 

[Lena_C]

You and me both.

My INTJ character seems more obvious in relationship thing.

 

[Cali Cat]

Oh! You're INTJ too? Cool !!!

Very rare for females.

 

[Jonathan Lees]

wow this thread blew up, i think a lot of good comments have been said,

Oh! You're INTJ too? Cool !!!

Very rare for females.

forgive my naivety but what is INTJ, i hear its a personality type but i don't really have a clear idea of what it is, im always curious in learning about personalities and psychology.

 

[Cali Cat]

wow this thread blew up, i think a lot of good comments have been said,



forgive my naivety but what is INTJ, i hear its a personality type but i don't really have a clear idea of what it is, im always curious in learning about personalities and psychology.

INTJ ...

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html

 

[theminx]

Cali Cat and Lena_C...I'm INTP.

 

[Cali Cat]

Cali Cat and Lena_C...I'm INTP.

I knew you had to be close to INTJ !!!

Actually, when I took the test, I was just slightly into the "judging" side, so I probably have traits of both.

 

[blue_bird]

I think love is wanting for others, what you want for yourself.

 

[Cosmophylla]

I'm borderline INTJ and INTP.

This is a good thread with a lot of food for thought.

I don't know exactly what a meme is but the original text has some truth and some flaws, in my opinion.

While I agree that loving another person is largely about accepting - consciously or unconsciously - their "failings" (which are what make us who we are, I think), the meme doesn't address the dangers inherent in blind acceptance (dangers such as continuing to accept abuse).

Perhaps the original text is referring only to one aspect of love, and from an individual's point of view, as opposed to referring to a reciprocal relationship. The wording is problematic. "Filthy heart" is particularly unsavoury, and if that is how one describes their partner it doesn't sound like a healthy or happy relationship.

I also agree that relationships don't usually fail because one person gets fed up with another's failings. (An exception to this is, of course, when someone leaves an abusive relationship.) People grow apart because despite being "together" we are still individuals and our individual experiences on a day to day basis can lead us on courses that diverge wildly from our partners' paths. A chance conversation with a stranger could lead to a new job, a new interest, a new love...who knows?

I wholeheartedly agree that self acceptance is a part of love. I think my second marriage is so successful because I've been able to finally accept my own flaws (well, most of them...), and feeling more comfortable with myself makes me a happier person to be around. Being secure in myself helps me feel secure with my partner.

In hindsight, my previous relationships (with the same types of broken people you describe, Cali Cat) were likely infatuation even though there were a couple of six-year partnerships in there. When distilled to its absolute essence, each relationship was more about me needing another person than much else. It speaks volumes about my poor self esteem at those times.

I think the idea that "love" is hard work is wrong. A reciprocal relationship can require "work" but it shouldn't be "hard". In a happy relationship, sacrifices come easily from both partners. There is compromise and turn-taking, and negotiation. Because both partners have a vested interest in the keeping the relationship successful, the "work" is easy. (I have to add that one partner should not ever expect the other to participate in sex when they don't want to...in my opinion, in a happy partnership the one wanting sex wouldn't even want to force it on the other...where is the enjoyment in that??? So many guys just expect women to submit to them, as if it is their right as sexual beings...many previous relationships saw me submit. )

Love as an emotion or state of mind, though, is not work of any kind. If it's hard work to feel love for one's SO, the relationship should end (if practical... There are always circumstances where this is hard and couples choose to stay together, such as for the sake of kids, etc.).

The original meme statement could also be viewed in a different light: rather than speaking of partnership love, could it be referring to compassion, or platonic love for humanity? Viewed in that light, does the meme make more sense?

 

[Cali Cat]

I'm borderline INTJ and INTP.

This is a good thread with a lot of food for thought.

I don't know exactly what a meme is but the original text has some truth and some flaws, in my opinion.

While I agree that loving another person is largely about accepting - consciously or unconsciously - their "failings" (which are what make us who we are, I think), the meme doesn't address the dangers inherent in blind acceptance (dangers such as continuing to accept abuse).

Perhaps the original text is referring only to one aspect of love, and from an individual's point of view, as opposed to referring to a reciprocal relationship. The wording is problematic. "Filthy heart" is particularly unsavoury, and if that is how one describes their partner it doesn't sound like a healthy or happy relationship.

I also agree that relationships don't usually fail because one person gets fed up with another's failings. (An exception to this is, of course, when someone leaves an abusive relationship.) People grow apart because despite being "together" we are still individuals and our individual experiences on a day to day basis can lead us on courses that diverge wildly from our partners' paths. A chance conversation with a stranger could lead to a new job, a new interest, a new love...who knows?

I wholeheartedly agree that self acceptance is a part of love. I think my second marriage is so successful because I've been able to finally accept my own flaws (well, most of them...), and feeling more comfortable with myself makes me a happier person to be around. Being secure in myself helps me feel secure with my partner.

In hindsight, my previous relationships (with the same types of broken people you describe, Cali Cat) were likely infatuation even though there were a couple of six-year partnerships in there. When distilled to its absolute essence, each relationship was more about me needing another person than much else. It speaks volumes about my poor self esteem at those times.

I think the idea that "love" is hard work is wrong. A reciprocal relationship can require "work" but it shouldn't be "hard". In a happy relationship, sacrifices come easily from both partners. There is compromise and turn-taking, and negotiation. Because both partners have a vested interest in the keeping the relationship successful, the "work" is easy. (I have to add that one partner should not ever expect the other to participate in sex when they don't want to...in my opinion, in a happy partnership the one wanting sex wouldn't even want to force it on the other...where is the enjoyment in that??? So many guys just expect women to submit to them, as if it is their right as sexual beings...many previous relationships saw me submit. )

Love as an emotion or state of mind, though, is not work of any kind. If it's hard work to feel love for one's SO, the relationship should end (if practical... There are always circumstances where this is hard and couples choose to stay together, such as for the sake of kids, etc.).

The original meme statement could also be viewed in a different light: rather than speaking of partnership love, could it be referring to compassion, or platonic love for humanity? Viewed in that light, does the meme make more sense?

When thinking about the original meme statement in terms of a broader interpretation of love, it makes somewhat more sense. People in general tend to suck, and loving them would be hard work for sure. The abuse would be endless, and I suppose if one were committed to "loving" them in spite of this, one would have to endure it. I believe, though, it is easier to detach oneself from humanity enough to not take people's words and actions in general to heart.

The problem I see is that the creator of this meme, known only as The Great Kamryn, takes this broad generalization and attempts to apply it to more intimate relationships, i.e. marriage partners, parent/child, friends. This becomes problematic because it is much harder to detach from intimate relationships. You and the other are wrapped up together in layers of emotional entanglement. Where there is more potential emotional payoff, there is equal potential for harm. If a partner, a child (an adult child anyway) or a friend becomes selfish or abusing to the detriment of the other, then the other is going to be seriously affected even if the love they feel for that person is deep. That's where I believe love of self has to prevail.

I found an article regarding the six types of love as defined by the Greeks. It doesn't go into great detail about how best to express that love, but it makes clear that "true love" can be many things, and not all of it requires the giver to be a doormat.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/happines...ove-and-why-knowing-them-can-change-your-life

 

[Cosmophylla]

I found an article regarding the six types of love as defined by the Greeks. It doesn't go into great detail about how best to express that love, but it makes clear that "true love" can be many things, and not all of it requires the giver to be a doormat.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/happines...ove-and-why-knowing-them-can-change-your-life

Yes, agape is what I was referring to as love of humanity or compassion for others. Or benevolence. I had forgotten that word, so thank you for reminding me.

And I agree with you that agape doesn't really fit with intimate relationships. It's easy (maybe) to make grand sweeping statements about the "truth" of love but like so many things, it really depends on the context.

The original statement reminds me a little of religious doctrine...

 

[Bellatrix]

Do you see any drawbacks to the meme statement? Any inherent flaws in the logic?

Logic? When it comes to love I don't think there is any logic to be found, because that's not what it's about. It's not about definitions either.

 

[Cali Cat]

Logic? When it comes to love I don't think there is any logic to be found, because that's not what it's about. It's not about definitions either.

But I'm an INTJ Aspie. Logic is everything!

 

[Ocarina]

Love is an interesting one.

From what I can see, the practice of love - as opposed to the fictitious Disney style infatuation which we often define as "love", begins when one of other partner falls out of love - that's when we are unable to use the attentions of another to feed our ego and fuel a fantasy of ourselves and instead are required to look at our partner and ourselves, as flawed, falilbe and human. This is where the practice of love needs to begin yet so often this is seen as the end - you've lost "that loving feeling" so move on and find it again in another.....

I think relationships are about confronting and healing in oneself, the intimate parts of self that closeness to another human tends to reveal. It's often quite an uncomfortable process and so we tend to shy away, blame the other person and hence get stuck in that pattern of never having found "the one". It's a shame because perhaps it's just in that cusp where we tend to give up, that the richest learning can be found.

 

[Maelstrom]

or to put it more simply:
How much suffering will you take for the few crumbs of love you get back?

On the other Hand:
Giving love warms ones own soul even if you don't get much back.

It is possible some one could love a person who is incapable of love, and receive some blessing from their own selfless love.

Usually however someone who can not love is burned by the other persons good example....and eventually lashes out and drives them away.

So we are back to God on love again, both people will need to seek Godly selflessness to prevent a unequal yoking from shattering.
Kindness can only abide Kindness...and evil can abide nothing.