In love versus love

[donnamaybe]

Not only does it stem fom negativity, but I find it highly romanticized as the end all be all "rescue" from a sad existence; the Knight In Shining Armor Love that transforms all aspects of one's very existence.

 

While I believe in the transformative power of love and support from our SO, I rescue myself.

 

I choose who I love.

And JJ has stated several times that she would only leave her MM if another man came along. How limiting. I've enjoyed my times "alone." I did what I wanted, when I wanted, went out with friends, and just was ME. It helps ground you and prepares you for the next person, if one comes along. I can't swing from one man to another like that. I don't NEED a man to complete me. I sure like having a good one, however. I just don't think you GET a good man if you feel you ALWAYS have to have A man - ANY man.

[jennie-jennie]

But his dick could fall off tomorrow, and I'd still love him and stay with him. So much for the description of "in love" because the version that's been bandied about here is all about sexual feelings.

 

Well, so would I. You don't need a dick to share sexual feelings, although I prefer when there is a working one.

[jennie-jennie]

And JJ has stated several times that she would only leave her MM if another man came along. How limiting. I've enjoyed my times "alone." I did what I wanted, when I wanted, went out with friends, and just was ME. It helps ground you and prepares you for the next person, if one comes along. I can't swing from one man to another like that. I don't NEED a man to complete me. I sure like having a good one, however. I just don't think you GET a good man if you feel you ALWAYS have to have A man - ANY man.

 

You are twisting my words now, Donna. I would never take any man just to have a man. I too have spent time on my own.

[jennie-jennie]

Not only does it stem fom negativity, but I find it highly romanticized as the end all be all "rescue" from a sad existence; the Knight In Shining Armor Love that transforms all aspects of one's very existence.

 

While I believe in the transformative power of love and support from our SO, I rescue myself.

 

I choose who I love.

 

It is not about the Knight in Shining Armor Love. It is about the transforming power of a collective movement which goes beyond the transforming power of an individual.

 

Spark, did you not at one time fall in love with your husband? That was nothing you could have forced to happen, was it? It was involuntary, even if you then chose to feed it?

[jennie-jennie]

Oh yes, and many parts are beautifully written; but I would never be in the depths of despair in all parts of my life to realize I was in a less than fulfilling relationship; and I would not look for true love to rescue me from my last relationship.

 

I control my fate. My fate does not control me. I love myself enough to not need someone else to rescue me.

 

That is too much like the Cinderella Complex to me; believing Prince Charming will ride up on his steed and make my life perfect.

 

I make my life rich to the fullest extent I can; I am responsible for my own happiness in all aspects of my life; my lover's love just completes it.

 

Did you and I read the same books?

[Hazyhead]

I think I might have fallen in love Reading this

 

When all is said and done, love is a subjective phenomenon that defies universal definition. But what I think the "falling in love" or "being in love with" usually starts with is a waking up of passions with someone slightly or very much out of reach. Let's ask ourselves if we feel those butterfly or weak-kneed feelings for someone who seems attracted to us and makes the first move toward us and how it's different from developing feelings for someone who may not even notice us and our eventually winning their reciprocation. The dynamics of satisfaction are very different.

 

If one acquiesces to the person who makes the first move, even if there is a mutual attraction, and then builds a LTR or even marries that person, they may come to consider that they love that person--feeling protective and warm and comforted in the relationship. But is that the same thing as harboring passions about someone and "winning" their reciprocation? That usually is full of romantic extremes--some of heart break some of enormous joy and fulfillment but usually always a possessiveness and undercurrent of worry that you were the pursuer and they your quarry. Such a range of passions and insecurities can be summed up in the notion of having fallen in love with or is in love with the object of our affections because we have invested so much more emotional capital in putting them on a pedestal and loving the idea of them as much or more than loving who they actually are.

 

If we have to choose I think most would choose the second scenario--the one with all of the perils and pitfalls than the one of easy acquiescence. In the acquiescence scenario we tend to fail to experience the range of emotions that are all part of the "animal being" which underlies our spirit.

 

In as much as there's no denying that we are first and foremost animals and not some "created being" separate and above, we should consider the lengths to which many animals go to "win" the mate of their choosing. They fight to the death often without any assurances that the mate of their choice will choose them in return. And female animals are known to play roles of the "won" while having secret dalliances with the object of her affections whether he was a loser in the battle or a non-combatant grazing up the hill somewhere.

 

So, "love" is relative and subjective and contingent. It is a moving target of passions--passions which are addicting and sometimes cause people to drop everything about who they were and transform themselves for an ideal they may never achieve. Or it may take the form of acquiescence to the security of being the object of another's passion and living somewhat outside of the animal model, making human vows to forsake all others even though they usually have no clue what that can mean until someone else wakes them up to their real nature. That brings such heroes and victims to none other than Love Shack.

[GordonDarkfoot]

I have already done that. As far as I can see it reveals nothing about who you are or why you are here.

 

I think it does, to anyone with a sufficient amount of insight.

 

 

 

Nobody can be that stupid.

 

What is this supposed to mean? Are you saying your ex SO does not know how you feel about him? Or that he does not know you are having an affair with MM? Why would you be reluctant to show your ex SO this thread? You said the reasons were "obvious" but they are not "obvious" to me, and I simply asked you what the reasons are.

 

 

 

He does have a screen name here. Yes, who could he be?

 

I don't know. Why don't you tell us?

[GordonDarkfoot]

Wow, have you ever read anything of Alberoni? His portrayal of love is a very positive one. What you are reacting to is his explanation of why you may need to move from one relationship to another.

 

I read the quotation that you posted. You posted that particular quotation for a reason--you apparently feels that it validates your world-view. I have no need to hop from one relationship to another, thanks, I think that's your need, that's why you posted that particular quotation.

 

If you think there's something else that Alberoni wrote that is relevant, by all means, post it.

[donnamaybe]

You are twisting my words now, Donna. I would never take any man just to have a man. I too have spent time on my own.

I certainly don't mean to twist your words, but when a woman says she won't leave one man until she has another waiting, that smacks of a NEED to have a man. And you have said that on LS more than once.

[Spark1111]

It is not about the Knight in Shining Armor Love. It is about the transforming power of a collective movement which goes beyond the transforming power of an individual.

 

Spark, did you not at one time fall in love with your husband? That was nothing you could have forced to happen, was it? It was involuntary, even if you then chose to feed it?

 

Our physical attraction to each other was very real, but I remained reticent until I could ascertain more aspects of his character...over time.

 

When I concluded he was sensitive, caring and respectful, I began to feed that attraction. I/we/he chose to feed that mutual attraction until we fell in love.

 

I think it was mutually voluntary as one or the other could have decided, nah....not enough sustainability.

[spriggig]

we should consider the lengths to which many animals go to "win" the mate of their choosing. They fight to the death often without any assurances that the mate of their choice will choose them in return.

 

Romantic drivel. Such intra-species fights are purely for show, any real physical damage is accidental. There is zero evolutionary advantage to having two viable males of the same species "fight to the death" to "win" a female.

Edited August 5, 2010 by spriggig

[donnamaybe]

Romantic drivel. Such intra-species fights are purely for show, any real physical damage is accidental. There is zero evolutionary advantage to having two viable males of the same species "fight to the death" to "win" a female.

I don't think he meant that to be quite so literal as regards humans. He was talking about animals. And yes - animals DO fight to the death if one doesn't back down.

[Owl]

Romantic drivel. Such intra-species fights are purely for show, any real physical damage is accidental. There is zero evolutionary advantage to having two viable males of the same species "fight to the death" to "win" a female.

 

And you've completely missed the point of the theory of evolution.

 

There is absolutely the advantage to the gene pool of having the "lesser" of the two males die out.

 

Remember the "survival of the fittest" concept that is the BASIS for the theory of evolution?

 

The fact that only the "fittest" gets to breed and procreate is the bottom line of evolution. From an evolutionary standpoint, the loss of the "lesser male" is beneficial to the species overall.

[GordonDarkfoot]

Gordon Darkfoot, I must say I find your use of logic and reason to be refreshing.

 

I try my best.

 

 

Not being familiar with the acronyms on this site, I would assume that MM stands for "married man."

 

Correct.

 

 

If so, why would one even give the slightest bit of credibility to the views on love by an person choosing to engage in an illicit relationship with a married man?

 

Everyone is entitled to express their viewpoint. How much credibility should be assigned to a particular person's viewpoint is up to you, entirely.

[2long]

I don't understand the part you wrote that is "bolded." You stated your exSO was now your friend. What about anything in this thread, do you feel uncomfortable about showing to your ex SO, and why? What are the "obvious reasons" for concealing the thread from your exSO if you are willing to show it to your current MM? Please explain.

Nobody can be that stupid.

 

Gordon, as you can probably ascertain, you're butting up against the "cheater's code" (which is more a set of guidelines than ac2al rules, LOL!). The "obvious reason" is The Big Lie holding this house of cards 2gether.

 

But if it were me asking (and it is, now!), never mind "your" (sic) MM, I'm more interested in his wife's opinion on "in love versus love." I'd like 2 see her post here! But, of course, that would be a serious violation of the cheater's code, giving the betrayed spouse the information 2 make their own choices about their fu2re, and holding the philanderers accountable for their behavior.

 

-ol' 2long

[GordonDarkfoot]

Gordon, as you can probably ascertain, you're butting up against the "cheater's code" (which is more a set of guidelines than ac2al rules, LOL!). The "obvious reason" is The Big Lie holding this house of cards 2gether.

 

But if it were me asking (and it is, now!), never mind "your" (sic) MM, I'm more interested in his wife's opinion on "in love versus love." I'd like 2 see her post here! But, of course, that would be a serious violation of the cheater's code, giving the betrayed spouse the information 2 make their own choices about their fu2re, and holding the philanderers accountable for their behavior.

 

-ol' 2long

 

 

I can understand jennie not wanting to tell the MM's betrayed spouse as that might blow everything up.

 

However the part I really don't get is why she thinks it is so obvious that she cannot tell her ex-SO about whoever she's currently involved with. It sounds like she's been in several relationships after the ex-SO, clearly, the ex-SO couldn't expect her to remain celibate after the end of that relationship, so why is there a need not to disclose to the ex-SO?

[jennie-jennie]

Gordon, as you can probably ascertain, you're butting up against the "cheater's code" (which is more a set of guidelines than ac2al rules, LOL!). The "obvious reason" is The Big Lie holding this house of cards 2gether.

 

Ugh! I didn't think I had to explain the obvious.

 

I wrote some very straight forward things about my exSO in this thread, which are all true, and all of which he knows I am of the opinion of: "He is a very self-centered, abusive, narcissistic man having commitment phobia and sexual and intimacy issues." It would of course be hurtful to him to see it put that straight forward and on internet and all. I do still love him and perhaps I was more publicly honest here than I should have been. I don't want to hurt him. To see it all put in one sentence like this would be very hurtful to him in my opinion. He is struggling since a long time with self-improvement and has a good heart although he has so many issues.

 

So as you can see, 2long, my not wanting to show the thread to my exSO has nothing to do with the subsequent relationship I am in.

[jennie-jennie]

I can understand jennie not wanting to tell the MM's betrayed spouse as that might blow everything up.

 

However the part I really don't get is why she thinks it is so obvious that she cannot tell her ex-SO about whoever she's currently involved with. It sounds like she's been in several relationships after the ex-SO, clearly, the ex-SO couldn't expect her to remain celibate after the end of that relationship, so why is there a need not to disclose to the ex-SO?

 

Again you got everything wrong. I suggest you do not fill in the blanks when you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

 

I have not kept my exSO in the dark. He has been aware of my relationship with my MM since the very first contact my MM made to me five years ago. And prior to this contact I had told my exSO that I intended to find a new partner since I was not satisfied with our relationship. My exSO approved of continuing our relationship under these circumstances, so you might call it an open marriage perhaps?

 

I have not had any other relationship than the one with my MM since the end of my relationship with my exSO. I don't understand where you got that idea from.

 

Perhaps I should do it your way: It sounds to me like you are the betrayed spouse, that you demand absolute honesty and integrity from women, while recommending men to go to whores instead of having an affair, that you most likely have been posting on another infidelity forum before posting on LS.

[jennie-jennie]

Gordon, as you can probably ascertain, you're butting up against the "cheater's code" (which is more a set of guidelines than ac2al rules, LOL!). The "obvious reason" is The Big Lie holding this house of cards 2gether.

 

But if it were me asking (and it is, now!), never mind "your" (sic) MM, I'm more interested in his wife's opinion on "in love versus love." I'd like 2 see her post here! But, of course, that would be a serious violation of the cheater's code, giving the betrayed spouse the information 2 make their own choices about their fu2re, and holding the philanderers accountable for their behavior.

 

-ol' 2long

 

I can understand jennie not wanting to tell the MM's betrayed spouse as that might blow everything up.

 

However the part I really don't get is why she thinks it is so obvious that she cannot tell her ex-SO about whoever she's currently involved with. It sounds like she's been in several relationships after the ex-SO, clearly, the ex-SO couldn't expect her to remain celibate after the end of that relationship, so why is there a need not to disclose to the ex-SO?

 

Interesting that both of you immediately took for granted that I was trying to conceal something from my exSO.

[jennie-jennie]

Going back to the original topic, just like Peck I believe falling in love is involuntary and an emotion. I would go even further and say that falling in love/romantic love is a drive. This emotion/drive can if fed turn into attachment, commitment, altruistic love.

 

If we already are in a satisfactory relationship I believe the inclination to fall in love is small or even non-existant, unless we have personal issues which drive us to seek the solution in sex or extramarital relationships. Depending on the strength of our relationship and the nature of our personal morals we will ward away or choose to feed any attraction that could lead us to fall in love with anyone other than our spouse/SO.

 

Whilst I would consider staying in a relationship even if the romantic love part had died, I would not consider entering a relationship without romantic love being present at the beginning. This is where I wonder if Peck's and my opinion go apart. I actually do agree with a lot of what he says. I would do my best during the relationship to keep both the romantic love and the altruistic love alive. In fact I have never had a relationship where I have not stayed constantly in love with my SO whilst also loving him altruistically.

Edited August 6, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[jennie-jennie]

I certainly don't mean to twist your words, but when a woman says she won't leave one man until she has another waiting, that smacks of a NEED to have a man. And you have said that on LS more than once.

 

Donna, to me there is nothing wrong with staying with a man as long as he satisfies at least some of your needs and as long as you are honest to him about the character of your relationship. This doesn't mean I can not live without a man. I spent five years without a man, and this was voluntary, I had men at hand but preferred to stay single.

 

What I meant about my MM is that he satisfies so many of my needs that I see it as unlikely that I will choose to not have him in my life unless someone better comes along. Okay, okay, my belief is that IF I fall in love with somebody else it is likely to be because even though my MM at that time would be satisfying some of my needs, he would not be satisfying enough of my needs.

 

I just never realized why you would turn down what you want just because you want more. Both my long term relationships I have ended by - with my SOs' consent - making them into sexual relationships only. But when I am done, I am done, and then I will let go of this too whether or not I have a new man at hand.

Edited August 6, 2010 by jennie-jennie

[donnamaybe]

Donna, to me there is nothing wrong with staying with a man as long as he satisfies at least some of your needs and as long as you are honest to him about the character of your relationship. This doesn't mean I can not live without a man. I spent five years without a man, and this was voluntary, I had men at hand but preferred to stay single.

Well, when someone says they would NOT leave their current man until they had another, that doesn't exactly speak to what you say here.

 

But it's your life. Do with it what you will, and I wish you the best!

[Owl]

Going back to the original topic, just like Peck I believe falling in love is involuntary and an emotion. I would go even further and say that falling in love/romantic love is a drive. This emotion/drive can if fed turn into attachment, commitment, altruistic love.

 

If we already are in a satisfactory relationship I believe the inclination to fall in love is small or even non-existant, unless we have personal issues which drive us to seek the solution in sex or extramarital relationships. Depending on the strength of our relationship and the nature of our personal morals we will ward away or choose to feed any attraction that could lead us to fall in love with anyone other than our spouse/SO.

 

Whilst I would consider staying in a relationship even if the romantic love part had died, I would not consider entering a relationship without romantic love being present at the beginning. This is where I wonder if Peck's and my opinion go apart. I actually do agree with a lot of what he says. I would do my best during the relationship to keep both the romantic love and the altruistic love alive. In fact I have never had a relationship where I have not stayed constantly in love with my SO whilst also loving him altruistically.

 

One interesting thing I've noted in my years here at LS.

 

This topic comes up several times/year, and every time the line is drawn in the sand between OW and BS's on this very topic.

 

What's interesting about this is that invariably....without fail...the BS's view love as both an action and a feeling....and believe that love is somethng that is cultivated and developed.......and without fail the OW always believes that love is involuntary...something complete out of their control.

 

Which is interesting, but not surprising.

 

When it's out of your control, it frees you from the responsibility for it. It let's you believe within yourself that you're not at fault for the damages being done to others as a result of your actions.

 

Believing that it's something magical, momentous, and impossible to stop allows you to say that it's not your fault that it happened. That you "couldn't help yourself" when you started sleeping with someone's husband or wife.

 

Everytime...the drawing of the lines on this subject falls this exact same way.

 

It's interesting when you consider the "psychology" of it. Is this belief a common indicator of people who are predilicted towards becoming an OW/OM? Or is it a belief formed as part of the process of becoming an OW/OM?

 

And the same thing can be said on the BS side...we always take the mindset that love is deliberately built. I know that I've always personally felt this way.

 

Something to consider.

[jennie-jennie]

Well, when someone says they would NOT leave their current man until they had another, that doesn't exactly speak to what you say here.

 

But it's your life. Do with it what you will, and I wish you the best!

 

I understand you did not willingly twist my words, it is about interpretation, and perhaps I did not express myself clearly earlier.

 

I know you are kind at heart, Donna.

[jennie-jennie]

One interesting thing I've noted in my years here at LS.

 

This topic comes up several times/year, and every time the line is drawn in the sand between OW and BS's on this very topic.

 

What's interesting about this is that invariably....without fail...the BS's view love as both an action and a feeling....and believe that love is somethng that is cultivated and developed.......and without fail the OW always believes that love is involuntary...something complete out of their control.

 

Which is interesting, but not surprising.

 

As an OW, I do not fit your description above. I too view love as both an action and a feeling, I too view love as something that is cultivated and developed. The objection I make to what Peck says is that he seems to only view love as an action, only view "true" love as something that is cultivated and developed. For me true love starts as an involuntary emotion which causes me to take voluntary action and to voluntarily want to cultivate and develop the love as both romantic and altruistic.

When it's out of your control, it frees you from the responsibility for it. It let's you believe within yourself that you're not at fault for the damages being done to others as a result of your actions.

 

Believing that it's something magical, momentous, and impossible to stop allows you to say that it's not your fault that it happened. That you "couldn't help yourself" when you started sleeping with someone's husband or wife.

I always take responsibility for my feelings and my actions. Total honesty has always been the basis of my intimate relationships. If I start to fall in love with another man (involuntary emotion) I will either end contact with him or develop that contact and tell my present partner about it (voluntary action).

 

Everytime...the drawing of the lines on this subject falls this exact same way.

 

It's interesting when you consider the "psychology" of it. Is this belief a common indicator of people who are predilicted towards becoming an OW/OM? Or is it a belief formed as part of the process of becoming an OW/OM?

 

And the same thing can be said on the BS side...we always take the mindset that love is deliberately built. I know that I've always personally felt this way.

 

Something to consider.

My point of view is the same now as when I was the BS. I do not fit the pattern you state you have seen. Edited August 6, 2010 by jennie-jennie