When worlds collide: A hazard of compartmentalizing people

[Maelstrom]

"Slithytoves, I agree that most people can't or don't put much weight on logic/objectivity when choosing and building a relationship, but I also wonder what it would look like if that's what most of us actually did. I can't help but think the failure rate would be about the same.

You do have a point about fear of responsibility/commitment, though. If people are afraid of it, they're not going to want to get into a relationship that seems to skip right to it.

I used to hate it that more people didn't think like me about relationships, but now I kinda like it. It makes you really value a kindred spirit when you find one. Mainstream thinkers take so much for granted in others.

I like your posts Slithytoves ,I hope this one is okay with you?
I am kind of feeling you need both, the Romantic and logical side. You need to use your logical side to find the right things to do, to choose, to make happy the one you love. There is some raw chemistry in bioligy and personality matches, but there are lots of little choices you make every day that improve or erode love.

On the passion side you need it in some form, and your head isn't thinking right if you can't light the fire in some manner. I'm guessing not everyone has the same style on that front, but you still need to find a way to desire eachothers company. It is after all the whole point of falling in love and choosing a partner in life, having someone to enjoy being together with.

I think the problem is after a while people start wander off pursuing their personal interests and basically just forget about the one they used to love. You have to at least express as much affection daily towards your partner, as you would with your cat or dog. You'd be surprised how poorly that often comes out when you start measuring it up, even the kids often don't get much more than food thrown at them.

 

[Slithytoves]

Slithytoves I'm 21. I've always been this way. Maybe people value compatibility more as they get older, but I'm not sure if the percentage of people who can accept the complete lack of "eros" increases.

You might be surprised about that, but those people aren't easy to recognize. They can be that friend you're really close to and get a vague "vibe" from, but they never act anything out in an obvious way. I've run into several of those. They tend to be shy about making their interest known because they're pretty much already getting most of their needs fulfilled as-is. It's also hard to say "I love you" without implying they want to love you.

Also, once people get to an age where sex hormones are in decline, adjustments get made. A lot of mature adults would just as soon not have a lot of heat in a relationship, but they feel the same social pressure you do, and of course they don't want to seem "old".

There are more asexuals out there than I used to think. They often wear a mask much like Aspies do, though, so they may not be easy to spot either. If you do want a relationship, that pool sure would take a lot of pressure off.

But now I am curious. Is there a type of love (in your list, or beyond) to describe reverence and admiration (ie. for a mentor, teacher, idol, etc)? Or is that arguably not a form of "love"?

Oooh! You know what? NO! How strange is that?! You would think somebody would have categorized that one. I'll research it, but I've studied this subject a lot and have never seen one. Hiraeth, you may have a chance to create a neologism.

 

[Beverly]

Slithytoves we are friends, we respect each other, love each other as you would a sibling but, it's practical, we care what becomes of the other. None foe the floaty heart and fireworks infatuation garbage. More a relationship of mutual benefits and caring that the other is doing well for partially selfish reason - losing the other would inconvenience either of us but, it's unavoidable, it will happen someday.

We are both realists and do not allow ourselves to become so attached to any living thing that it would devastate us if it died be that another human being or an animal, plant whatever, all living things and, all can and will eventually die, some sooner than others. For us, getting to attached to any of them is a bad thing and, that includes each other.

 

[Slithytoves]

I like your posts Slithytoves ,I hope this one is okay with you?

Thanks, Mael. And of course -- AC is a free (imaginary) country!

I am kind of feeling you need both, the Romantic and logical side.

but there are lots of little choices you make every day that improve or erode love.

Some asexuals, and true sapiosexuals, don't. Not a "romantic" element by mainstream standards. They say they can feel emotional attachments that are romantically neutral, in the context of what they define as proper life partnerships, and I take their word for it. I can't know to think otherwise.

Totally agreed about everyday choices.

On the passion side you need it in some form, and your head isn't thinking right if you can't light the fire in some manner. I'm guessing not everyone has the same style on that front, but you still need to find a way to desire eachothers company. It is after all the whole point of falling in love and choosing a partner in life, having someone to enjoy being together with.

See above. The fire can be purely intellectual, or just be an ember of deep fondness. That addresses "desiring each others company" with no traditional romance/passion involved.

I think the problem is after a while people start wander off pursuing their personal interests and basically just forget about the one they used to love. You have to at least express as much affection daily towards your partner, as you would with your cat or dog. You'd be surprised how poorly that often comes out when you start measuring it up, even the kids often don't get much more than food thrown at them.

That definitely happens. If I've learned one thing in my relationships, it's that people grow apart and together at intervals throughout a union. If both partners don't make an effort to stay well-connected when they're furthest apart, they run a serious risk of collapse.

I agree that each partner has to make some kind of effort pretty much daily. Even if it's just positive regard and cooperation -- though if that becomes the norm, somebody is likely to become unhappy. Given the choice between a needy partner and an aloof one, though, I think I'd take the aloof one. I skew just a little bit away from the norm in my need for regular reinforcement. I'm much more demonstrative than I am in need of demonstration. As long as I don't sense something may be actively causing my partner to withhold.

 

[Slithytoves]

Slithytoves we are friends, we respect each other, love each other as you would a sibling but, it's practical, we care what becomes of the other. None foe the floaty heart and fireworks infatuation garbage. More a relationship of mutual benefits and caring that the other is doing well for partially selfish reason - losing the other would inconvenience either of us but, it's unavoidable, it will happen someday.

We are both realists and do not allow ourselves to become so attached to any living thing that it would devastate us if it died be that another human being or an animal, plant whatever, all living things and, all can and will eventually die, some sooner than others. For us, getting to attached to any of them is a bad thing and, that includes each other.

Gotcha. Thanks for the generous answer.

When you see an established couple that seems to value the things you personally think of as "floaty heart and fireworks infatuation garbage" (You have a way with words, there! ), what goes through your head? I'm not picking you out for dissection. It's just rare that somebody with your particular perspective is willing to be so direct about it, with such a strong opinion.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

Gotcha. Thanks for the generous answer.

When you see an established couple that seems to value the things you personally think of as "floaty heart and fireworks infatuation garbage" (You have a way with words, there! ), what goes through your head? I'm not picking you out for dissection. It's just rare that somebody with your particular perspective is willing to be so direct about it, with such a strong opinion.

Slithytoves
I totally agree with Beverly, now but perhaps not 40 years ago when I was half crazy with .... youth.
Let's get real here. When we are young and the hormones are gushing, the passions, from sex to rage and everything in between,(and sometimes, sex is hate for a few, right?) it is difficult to maintain cerebral control over glandular gushing and emotional responses to stimulation. That is fine, an aid to propagation of the species.
Sexuality needs no intellect whatsoever. The illusion and game of romantic love is fundamentally a con job, and the true believers and the willfully blind usually end up disappointed, over and over again until they become angry and bitter. Who wants to love an angry and bitter whiner that cannot give affection but needs it, in desperation. Doesn't anyone out there know with certainty, that the love of caring, sharing, understanding and growing takes time and effort as well as intimacy.
Infatuation and desire for sexual fulfillment for another, is at the very foundation, is an instant expression of selfish, needy and greedy, gimme, gimme,gimme (self love). You don't need to care to have sex, sometime I'm my opinion the best sex is care less, but you cannot love without caring for another, deeply
All too often in a matter of weeks or months the young or old lovers realize they were wrong in their beliefs, assumptions, approaches, expectations and then go through the same routine again expecting a different result. The definition of insanity.
Live and learn. If your approach does not work why not learn from those that are living with what does work.
What do I know? I am but a simple old man.

 

[Maelstrom]

I understand the intellectual thing and that things change with age, But at the end of the day if I'm going to turn my life upside down for a lovely Lady, I would hope she would Looooove me some, both mentally and physically. There is Biblical presidence for this by the way, I have yet to hear anyone quote it I wonder why? Even God him self weighed in directly in favor of the romantic fire thing when he gave Eve to Adom. It never fails to amaze me at how far off the percieved view of the bible is from the actual intent of the real text. Sorry for wandering into the weeds.
I still say there is something magical in fiery true love...but then I'm a wretched Idealist all the way through, not terribly repentant for it either.

 

[Slithytoves]

Eros, romantic love is fundamentally a con job, and the true believers and the willfully blind usually end up disappointed, over and over again until they become angry and bitter.

All too often in a matter of weeks or months the young or old lovers realize they were wrong in their beliefs, assumptions, approaches, expectations and then go through the same routine again expecting a different result. The definition of insanity.
Live and learn. If your approach does not work why not learn from those that are living with what does work.
What do I know? I am but a simple old man.

Eros sure is getting a bad rap around here! This subject isn't especially close to me since my own relationship/marriage started out with the long-term Pragma vibe. But there is a degree of Eros in the mix, now more than earlier on (on my side, anyway), so I want to defend it a little.

I think Eros has value in a new relationship. It drives the will to learn a lot about someone and to spend the kind of time that helps the average person make important decisions. Not decisions based on Eros, but based on the knowledge and the time Eros encourages. I know plenty of people whose early passion settles into something more enduring, without suffering the loss of a bunch of massive illusions. People can think and feel passion at once. Oxytocin isn't phencyclidine. If someone ha an unhealthy recurring pattern, it's got to do with much more than the presence of passion.

I'm not implicating anyone here, but I've made an observation over time that many people who identify as traditional hetero-/homo-/bi-sexuals and think Eros is total BS have either been hurt/deceived/mistaken a lot in their own relationships, or they have never been the object of anyone's passion. That's why I asked Beverly about her own viewpoint; I don't know where she's coming from, wouldn't presume to guess, and I'm always very interested to learn of new/novel reasons why people hold the opinions they do.

There is Biblical presidence for this by the way, I have yet to hear anyone quote it I wonder why?

Who knew you were so hot-blooded?

I'm an Atheist-Formerly-Jewish-After-I-Was-Pagan-A-Few-Years-On-From-Quitting-My-Mother's-Catholicism, so I don't usually reference the Bible. Definitely not in a conversation about romance. I appreciate insights offered from all sources, though.

 

[Maelstrom]

Eros sure is getting a bad rap around here! This subject isn't especially close to me since my own relationship/marriage started out with the long-term Pragma vibe. But there is a degree of Eros in the mix, now more than earlier on (on my side, anyway), so I want to defend it a little.

I think Eros has value in a new relationship. It drives the will to learn a lot about someone and to spend the kind of time that helps the average person make important decisions. Not decisions based on Eros, but based on the knowledge and the time Eros encourages. I know plenty of people whose early passion settles into something more enduring, without suffering the loss of a bunch of massive illusions. People can think and feel passion at once. Oxytocin isn't phencyclidine. If someone ha an unhealthy recurring pattern, it's got to do with much more than the presence of passion.

I'm not implicating anyone here, but I've made an observation over time that many people who identify as traditional hetero-/homo-/bi-sexuals and think Eros is total BS have either been hurt/deceived/mistaken a lot in their own relationships, or they have never been the object of anyone's passion. That's why I asked Beverly about her own viewpoint; I don't know where she's coming from, wouldn't presume to guess, and I'm always very interested to learn of new/novel reasons why people hold the opinions they do.




Who knew you were so hot-blooded?

I'm an Atheist-Formerly-Jewish-After-I-Was-Pagan-A-Few-Years-On-From-Quitting-My-Mother's-Catholicism, so I don't usually reference the Bible. Definitely not in a conversation about romance. I appreciate insights offered from all sources, though.

Hi Slithytoves , Well it's true that Mael (me) tends to walk where angels fear to tread. It seems like all men if left too much to their own devices ten to end up drifting into one ditch or the other on the highway of life, this includes love, religion, politics, basically everything. Sometimes a little reminder on were the real center line of the road is, is needed.
I lost my self for years in interests, and you all would have sworn I was a gray. But my last failed romance, (she courted me), knocked me out of my inward thinking. And yes the right soft lovely lady sitting next to me can light me up like a christmass tree, and I see no reason to apologize for it. If anyone wishes to hold it against me take it up with God, he made me, and he clearly values romance, look it up in Gennisis, if you don't believe me.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

Slithytoves , I agree that the romantic Eros is important initially in an relationship. The air is sweeter, the grass is greener, sky's bluer. Even the birdies sing just for our magic moment. Fine!
After the infatuation relaxes a little, isn't the air simply polluted, the weeds the greenest things in the lawn, the sky's a bit smokier, and birds decrease a little each year.
I think one of my first posts:/ questions in this forum, was when does perception become reality.

Does the Sun actually go around the Earth and can be stopped in the sky as told in biblical Joshua and accepted as true fact until 500 years ago.
Certainly a lot of folks have been told several points of view. Some must be correct, true, facts, that any normal human being can apply, in manifesting a happy and productive life, in spite of adversity.
It then seems to me that there is a less optimum path, a false and misleading path and that no matter how one applies oneself the result is disappointment, and eventually all too often, anger, fear and madness.
Illusion is fun to play in like make believe.
Reality is like gravity. It does not care if one believes in it or not.

By the way Slithy, what would happen to the human mind if it is under maximum romantic hormonal neuro chemical stimulation ( like at the initial romantic peak )for let's say 5 years.

 

[Beverly]

Slithytoves I smile at young, infatuated lovers, it's cute but, I will lay odds 10 to 1 that they won't last past five years. Once that infatuation wears off, most have nothing and, even if the relationship survives that, it probably won't survive when sex become a once a month or less chore for one of them and, not the other.

I've seen it too often: "Oh smooch, kissy, wow you're great in bed, I love you." suddenly becomes "You dirty good for nothing, get out of my life!" when that infatuation wears off and they start seeing each other's flaws and faults. Too many think infatuation is love and, when it wears off, which it always does, they think there is no love in the relationship anymore.

They move on to relationship after relationship, always ending up heartbroken and disappointed and, after a while begin to wonder what is wrong with them that nobody ever really loves them when in fact they have walked away form numerous people that loved them a great deal who simply stopped being infatuated with them because they got to know them, felt familiar and comfortable with them.

I can't tell them otherwise, it does no good, but I can't feel sorry for them either, they are creating the problems themselves, let them learn or not - talking does no good when they refuse to give up on the fictional ideal of love.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

Slithytoves I smile at young, infatuated lovers, it's cute but, I will lay odds 10 to 1 that they won't last past five years. Once that infatuation wears off, most have nothing and, even if the relationship survives that, it probably won't survive when sex become a once a month or less chore for one of them and, not the other.

I've seen it too often: "Oh smooch, kissy, wow you're great in bed, I love you." suddenly becomes "You dirty good for nothing, get out of my life!" when that infatuation wears off and they start seeing each other's flaws and faults. Too many think infatuation is love and, when it wears off, which it always does, they think there is no love in the relationship anymore.

They move on to relationship after relationship, always ending up heartbroken and disappointed and, after a while begin to wonder what is wrong with them that nobody ever really loves them when in fact they have walked away form numerous people that loved them a great deal who simply stopped being infatuated with them because they got to know them, felt familiar and comfortable with them.

I can't tell them otherwise, it does no good, but I can't feel sorry for them either, they are creating the problems themselves, let them learn or not - talking does no good when they refuse to give up on the fictional ideal of love.

Beverly, I applaud your courage and conviction to speak your mind and I agree.
I would like to award the first Diogenes Award for brutal honesty.
You may be called a cynic by some. Remember; a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist. Don't fret, Beverly, with various points of view, reality always wins, facts support reality and knowledge trumps belief.
Some need knowledge, some need beliefs, and all need understanding.

 

[hiraeth]

I can't tell them otherwise, it does no good, but I can't feel sorry for them either, they are creating the problems themselves, let them learn or not - talking does no good when they refuse to give up on the fictional ideal of love.

I don't know. I used to think that way, but I don't anymore. Maybe that's because I have a youthful and idealistic side that just isn't romantic or sexual, but is still youthful and idealistic in some fashion.

I believe in the value of passion as an energy -- a lot of creativity, a lot of humankind's greatest achievements sprung from that energy. (Heck, some love songs aren't so bad, even.) Maybe for me, instead of being passionate about a person, I am passionate about a subject or an issue, which could totally be unrealistic to achieve (like, world peace). But I still see the value in believing in it and making an effort to live and make decisions in a way that is faithful to that direction. And sometimes the heaviness of the task before me does make me feel heartbroken and sad. Or I might want to master a skill that I have no innate talent for and will never be stellar in, and recognize this (ie. being socially charismatic....), but my desire to make a difference in the world (or whatever else the subject of passion is) gives me the energy to try.

So, although I don't understand people who are not aromantic and asexual, I try to imagine that the fundamental energy of passion is the same, it just manifests differently.... and that makes a lot more sense to me. Although, I don't know if this is an accurate comparison really, it's just the best that I've got.

Does that make any sense? Am I totally off the mark?

 

[SignOfLazarus]

 

[Maelstrom]

Very funny Laz I love Tinas singing, but Mael still believes in magic when it comes to love...the wind sighs through the trees the birds sing sweetly and the silver moonlight looks so lovely when a soft Maiden has your heart.

It is about the only magic I believe in other than a little in art and music, on everything else I'm a cold razor blade of logic.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

I awoke too early this morning, still nattering about the above discussion with all my friends.
I felt that there were some misunderstandings that needed to be clarified. I think that most of the misunderstandings were in each of us defining our terms a bit differently, perhaps based on our individual perceptions and experiences.
So I reviewed Slithytoves and Dr. Lees multi definitions of love on page 4 of this thread, several dictionary definitions and the etymology of the word "romance, romantic".
So I concluded that, speaking for myself only, I do not have issues with Eros as romance or passion. As a matter of fact I can say, I never had an orgasm that I did not like. Each one was and is, dead bang on the money, whenever, however .
I have issues with ludus and mania actually being a form of love. I can't get my head around guile as love.
My contention is that ludus/ mania are deceitful manipulations that are all too often employed as manipulative precursor to Eros and the more nurturing forms of loving.
To make it crystal clear. In my opinion, the very act of trying to impress, persuade, inflate, lose weight and create a temporary false, and in time, unsustainable persona by word or deed is what I define as "the romantic illusion".
This illusion of romance may have some limited value, but after the initial hormonal gush, the jokes told, the charms grown old, the grunting, moaning toe curling intimacy getting kind of old yet sweet, the relationship better have something more permanent than a few moments of slippery friction and fairy dust to base the rest of our lives on.
I will add that if the initial foundation of the loving relationship is mostly based on sensual/ sexual comparability and little else, after the glow settles into a pragma routine, usually one party or the other in this shallow relation either breaks off the "love", by requesting, abandoning or betraying the relationship to pursue a new high, a new fix, a new paramour.
True love takes time and effort, it is not really meant to be a respite from being lonely or an acknowledgement, that one is fun to hang with until the thrill is gone.

 

[Slithytoves]

The passionate, electric type of love EP mentions, which in my (and the Greeks') scheme is called Eros, has been sold to us for many generations as the necessary precursor to a steadier, more rational kind of love that comes as a relationship matures. What its purveyors fail to mention is that not every Eros-based attraction lasts. In fact, most flame out quickly. Waiting Eros out to see what will be left to work with afterwards has never been appealing to me. So the kind of love/relationship you describe, while not the sort of thing movies and songs are written about, is actually the kind I would say is most valuable.

Epicurean Pariah, after reading all of the responses posted since I was here yesterday, the majority of which are yours, I kinda feel the need to preface my response to you with my original comments on my own position on Eros, above. It actually accords with a lot of the content from this new batch, at an essential level. Like you, I'm not someone who bases my relationships on the whirlwind of infatuation and lust that the average person seems to prize. That's why it find it perplexing that this thread has evolved into a frontal assault; not only on the phase of love relationships that brings many of the most successful couples together as well as the tragically unsuccessful, but to an extent, on the people who view it as such. As I said, I don't really go for much Eros, either, but when I see such an extreme position presented as the only one that's reasonable, the moderate thinker in me looks to restore balance. That's pretty hard to do here, since there's an argument going on against a position that nobody has actually made.

You said: "I think one of my first posts:/ questions in this forum, was when does perception become reality."

and: "Reality is like gravity. It does not care if one believes in it or not."

You keep talking about "reality," but that's not where your arguments are actually grounded. They're firmly grounded in your perception; in this case, that Eros is intrinsically bad.

A very important reality of nature is that all living organisms continually seek homeostasis, the steady state -- balance. It's when we're in balance that things work properly, and I believe that goes for perceptions and arguments, too, so that's what I seek in mine. I firmly believe that there's a need to be cognitively alert when our hearts are pounding so that we can take the longer view, and that Eros -- while healthy -- is tricky to keep in realistic balance (there's both terms in one go). I think you could agree with that. But when you go so far as to paint a picture of a very natural part of the mating game as an almost guaranteed one-way ticket to oblivion, then say things like what you did to Beverly:

You may be called a cynic by some. Remember; a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist. Don't fret, Beverly, with various points of view, reality always wins, facts support reality and knowledge trumps belief.
Some need knowledge, some need beliefs, and all need understanding.

...well, that's just a little over the top, don't you think? Where is the natural balance of reality in that -- both in what you're actually asserting and in the dramatic weight you give to your position(s)?

My education in counseling included a course on relationship dynamics, and from that I've learned that there's a massive body of data that points to the very real value of Eros in even long-term partnerships. Maybe not in small corners of humanity like ours as Aspies/Auties, but absolutely to the vast majority out there that's neurotypical. When talking about love as a partly-academic exercise like this one, I simply can't discount all that data, not to mention most of the rest of the world, even if my own experience doesn't particularly align with them.

This is a friendly exchange, right? So maybe watch the "wins" stuff, when this isn't a polemic exercise and you aren't really dealing with facts, only your opinions. Think a minute: How would someone who truly embraces the idea of Eros feel about chiming in on this thread now that you've said some of the things you have, the way you've said them? Comfortable? I don't think so. That worries me somebody who likes a healthy debate that all can join and enjoy.

By the way Slithy, what would happen to the human mind if it is under maximum romantic hormonal neuro chemical stimulation ( like at the initial romantic peak )for let's say 5 years.

Since this doesn't happen, I'm not sure why you're asking. I'm puzzled by your persistent intermingling of insistence on "truth" and "reality", injection of your personal perceptions, and now, your querying on impossible scenarios.

Closing clarification: It's not our disagreement on any points that's frustrating me. I like debate and those who know me here and elsewhere will tell you I can do it sans emotion. But somehow through your posts, this debate is strangely morphing into something else. You may not realize it, so please understand why I'm pointing it out. No hard feelings towards you personally whatsoever.

Slithytoves I smile at young, infatuated lovers, it's cute but, I will lay odds 10 to 1 that they won't last past five years. Once that infatuation wears off, most have nothing and, even if the relationship survives that, it probably won't survive when sex become a once a month or less chore for one of them and, not the other.

I can't tell them otherwise, it does no good, but I can't feel sorry for them either, they are creating the problems themselves, let them learn or not - talking does no good when they refuse to give up on the fictional ideal of love.

Thanks for continuing to clarify your point of view. I've enjoyed this, and I agree with a lot of what you say. From a lot of the outcomes I've observed among couples I've seen come and go, I think of Eros almost like a gun. Put it in untrained, unthinking, overzealous hands and it can do a lot of damage -- with nobody else to blame but the shooter, who ironically shoots him-/herself as often as anyone else and never understands why it's their own fault. Every. Single. Time.

What can you do, right?

I'm really glad you've found someone who can share the kind of union you need to be sane, productive and content. I'm sure you know exactly how lucky you are.

I believe in the value of passion as an energy -- a lot of creativity, a lot of humankind's greatest achievements sprung from that energy. (Heck, some love songs aren't so bad, even.) Maybe for me, instead of being passionate about a person, I am passionate about a subject or an issue, which could totally be unrealistic to achieve (like, world peace). But I still see the value in believing in it and making an effort to live and make decisions in a way that is faithful to that direction. And sometimes the heaviness of the task before me does make me feel heartbroken and sad. Or I might want to master a skill that I have no innate talent for and will never be stellar in, and recognize this (ie. being socially charismatic....), but my desire to make a difference in the world (or whatever else the subject of passion is) gives me the energy to try.

So, although I don't understand people who are not aromantic and asexual, I try to imagine that the fundamental energy of passion is the same, it just manifests differently.... and that makes a lot more sense to me. Although, I don't know if this is an accurate comparison really, it's just the best that I've got.

I think you said all of that very well, adding a comparison to the conversation that most any of us can relate to regardless of our romantic orientation. If you don't mind, I may link back to this post in other threads I join in the future. I can think of several subjects we've discussed on AC where your perspective would apply.

 

[SignOfLazarus]

I find the notion of love- that initial First Few Months Love- to be a very interesting one- even knowing what it comprises, what it does to us physically, that it makes us stupid [really], that it's kind of a way to reel us in and hook us... I find everything about it fascinating.
There have been so many things written about it from everywhich angle.
Including studies done about how people attain this state of being in love, and experiments which hope to acheive that state "artificially". [But then... if you actually then feel you are in love, truly, at the end of such events- what is artificial about it? And then years later? hmm]

Ha, sorry...

I'm getting confused, back on track- I think there's a lot to be said for what we expect to have to put into a relationship. If we expect a "perfect" relationship to mean no work, any relationship will be at the very least imperfect, but more often disappointing and sometimes closer to a disaster. Two people coming together who might not initially seem an obvious match but who see a relationship as an endeavor necessitating teamwork may have a great lasting bond.

"Give 60%, Expect 40% [think variably]"<--- This helps, in my experience.

...did I tangent? I don't think so, but this is a really confusing conversation in some ways for me. I try not to tangent too much but I can't always tell when I'm overdoing it.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

Epicurean Pariah, after reading all of the responses posted since I was here yesterday, the majority of which are yours, I kinda feel the need to preface my response to you with my original comments on my own position on Eros, above. It actually accords with a lot of the content from this new batch, at an essential level. Like you, I'm not someone who bases my relationships on the whirlwind of infatuation and lust that the average person seems to prize. That's why it find it perplexing that this thread has evolved into a frontal assault; not only on the phase of love relationships that brings many of the most successful couples together as well as the tragically unsuccessful, but to an extent, on the people who view it as such. As I said, I don't really go for much Eros, either, but when I see such an extreme position presented as the only one that's reasonable, the moderate thinker in me looks to restore balance. That's pretty hard to do here, since there's an argument going on against a position that nobody has actually made.

You said: "I think one of my first posts:/ questions in this forum, was when does perception become reality."

and: "Reality is like gravity. It does not care if one believes in it or not."

You keep talking about "reality," but that's not where your arguments are actually grounded. They're firmly grounded in your perception; in this case, that Eros is intrinsically bad.

A very important reality of nature is that all living organisms continually seek homeostasis, the steady state -- balance. It's when we're in balance that things work properly, and I believe that goes for perceptions and arguments, too, so that's what I seek in mine. I firmly believe that there's a need to be cognitively alert when our hearts are pounding so that we can take the longer view, and that Eros -- while healthy -- is tricky to keep in realistic balance (there's both terms in one go). I think you could agree with that. But when you go so far as to paint a picture of a very natural part of the mating game as an almost guaranteed one-way ticket to oblivion, then say things like what you did to Beverly:




...well, that's just a little over the top, don't you think? Where is the natural balance of reality in that -- both in what you're actually asserting and in the dramatic weight you give to your position(s)?

My education in counseling included a course on relationship dynamics, and from that I've learned that there's a massive body of data that points to the very real value of Eros in even long-term partnerships. Maybe not in small corners of humanity like ours as Aspies/Auties, but absolutely to the vast majority out there that's neurotypical. When talking about love as a partly-academic exercise like this one, I simply can't discount all that data, not to mention most of the rest of the world, even if my own experience doesn't particularly align with them.

This is a friendly exchange, right? So maybe watch the "wins" stuff, when this isn't a polemic exercise and you aren't really dealing with facts, only your opinions. Think a minute: How would someone who truly embraces the idea of Eros feel about chiming in on this thread now that you've said some of the things you have, the way you've said them? Comfortable? I don't think so. That worries me somebody who likes a healthy debate that all can join and enjoy.




Since this doesn't happen, I'm not sure why you're asking. I'm puzzled by your persistent intermingling of insistence on "truth" and "reality", injection of your personal perceptions, and now, your querying on impossible scenarios.

Closing clarification: It's not our disagreement on any points that's frustrating me. I like debate and those who know me here and elsewhere will tell you I can do it sans emotion. But somehow through your posts, this debate is strangely morphing into something else. You may not realize it, so please understand why I'm pointing it out. No hard feelings towards you personally whatsoever.




Thanks for continuing to clarify your point of view. I've enjoyed this, and I agree with a lot of what you say. From a lot of the outcomes I've observed among couples I've seen come and go, I think of Eros almost like a gun. Put it in untrained, unthinking, overzealous hands and it can do a lot of damage -- with nobody else to blame but the shooter, who ironically shoots him-/herself as often as anyone else and never understands why it's their own fault. Every. Single. Time.

What can you do, right?

I'm really glad you've found someone who can share the kind of union you need to be sane, productive and content. I'm sure you know exactly how lucky you are.




I think you said all of that very well, adding a comparison to the conversation that most any of us can relate to regardless of our romantic orientation. If you don't mind, I may link back to this post in other threads I join in the future. I can think of several subjects we've discussed on AC where your perspective would apply.

SlithytovesI thank you for your time, insights, perspectives and the levels of considerations that you include in your all your posts. I have very high regard for you and yours.
This is my contention. The majority of mankind has always been and continues to be subject to a systematic and systemic indoctrination. Since thoughts are built on previous thoughts, perspectives and interpretations that usually support those earlier concepts, we tend to constantly reinforce previous thinking. This tends to lead to willful blindness and the unwillingness to reassess ones position and is supported by the powers that be.
The question arises what is rational thinking? Is rationality based on indoctrination, emotions, hysteria, hormones or beliefs? I think not. Just the opposite.
I think it is based on a cool dispassionate and brutally honest self awareness and honest introspection.
One may say hardly anyone is that thoughtful, it requires that one reject too much of what culture expects and demands. To that, I agree. I truly think that a brief contemplation of human history is at least suggestive that psychopaths, and sociopaths crave and gain power, control and respect. Sycophants support the hierarchy, which is usually patriarchal in nature.
I will go as far as to say that facts and true, mean the same thing and need little support, they are self evident. Belief and truth are subjective and personal and if promoted need to stand up to scrutiny, of skeptics.
As I have explained I am not an educated man, I do not have a way with words. Reading me must be like reading Joyce's Ulysses, flow of consciousness.
Between the spellcheck, typing on an I phone and not self editing, my posts are a pain. But, I have lived a full, adventuresome and wonderful life and try to share hard earned insights with the many beaten down, confused and
emotionally weakened. I do not have academia to support my cause, only the conviction and life experiences that say my path to reason and happiness works for me. I am a churlish curmudgeon but I am self confident, progressive, young at heart and unbowed. I have few regrets and do as I claim. Not bad for an old fool.
Those that are unhappy might learn to tear down the wall of delusions that obstruct their path. That is, in fact, the first step to a new path that may work better than the highway of histrionics.
It simply think that we have all traveled a rough road. Some of us that consider ourselves happy, or at least content, successful in spite of adversity and optimistically looking toward a splendid tomorrow. We seem to promote the same things, and ideas.
At the other extreme is a large group that seems to me, defeated or at least in despair.
Those that are sad cannot really help those that are sad, they just reinforce the sadness.
You are filled with frankness and common sense, I applaud your view. We are not really different, I don't think, but you are more polished.
Please help me to express myself better to those that I wish to touch. I am trying to do good thing here but "concise and precise" is far beyond my ability.

 

[Slithytoves]

Please help me to express myself better to those that I wish to touch. I am trying to do good thing here but "concise and precise" is far beyond my ability.

Thank you for your patient and generous reply. I'm not exactly concise either, so you definitely won't ever hear me complain about length. Long-form discussion is why I like forums a hundred times more than other "social media", no matter how long that long-form becomes. If you have a lot of thoughts, you may have to use a lot of words.

Since we agree we have some views in common, let's shake on it and leave it at that, with each of us better informed about the other's perspectives, shall we?