"The Love of my Life" - After the A

[SidLyon]

hmmmm....according to the stupid banner adds that keep coming up when i use the internet, pretty much everyone ( at least every man) can find his "soul mate" in Russia...maybe if we all moved there we could cut down on some of the legwork involved in finding our "soul mates":laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

is somebody trying to tell us something?

 

Ha that's pretty funny ... and relevant to me as my H's OW was Russian. As it turned out she was the "soulmate" of many a MM.

 

Edited to add: On a different note; is anyone else finding the LS response times really slow right now?

Edited January 19, 2012 by SidLyon

[SoMovinOn]

"Hot" doesn't have to apply only to looks. I am betting these so-called "soulmates" are those where an attraction existed for some reason.

 

OK. Although I've not ever heard anyone described as hot, other than looks, I'll concede others may use it to describe someone personality, sense of humor, or some other aspect.

 

For certain, there would need to be an attraction among soul mates. Lacking any type of attraction, they'd not likely talk to each other, or end up involved in a relationship.

 

In the context of "One true love" or soul mates, I would think the connection would go beyond just attraction. I wouldn't even care to try to put into words the connection and bond which exists between people who are truly in love, but, certainly, it is that connection and bond which defines true love. Discovering and nurturing a bond like that could only be something which would happen over time, where initial impressions, based on any criteria, would be irrelevant.

[seren]

I find this very interesting ES, on D Day, I can say hand on heart, that had my H wanted to leave, I would have been beyond heart broken, but, would have wanted him to go on to have a happy, fulfilled life. if he wasn't happy with us and loved the OW, then so be it (of course a period of histronics from me). But, my H is the one person, other than my son, who I would put aside my own happiness for. I found it odd that when the OW spoke to me about the A, she totally went off it about what a b****** my H was for not choosing her, and that my reaction was to defend him, yet surely, if we were having a, right to rail competition, my case would or should have been the primary one for b****** calling.

 

I will state categorically that my H is the absolute love of my life, yes, that word, the soulmate word, the person who I feel, more than anyone I have ever met, that I connect with, that I love with all that I have, the person I would give up all for. When his A came to light, it didn't stop these feelings, I still loved him, understood the why's and totally shocked friends who never for one moment thought I could or would forgive. I am no shrinking violet and known for my assertiveness and have a healthy dose of ego. Yet, I forgave H, defended him against those who would begin to degenerate him and the A,

 

We have been together not far off 27 years now, he still makes my heart sing, I still want to crawl under his skin and I still feel the churny stomach thing when I see him someplace and there would or could not be anyone else for me. His A hurt us both, but we are still here, still holding hands and loving and still both feel that we are one half of a whole and that there, realistically, could not be another who fits so well as we fit with each other. At times we have ding dongs, we annoy each other, especially as we are each other's best friends and are quite insular, we clash, disagree on our politics, but, when it matters, he and I are dammed good together. If it all ended tomorrow that would be it for me, I wouldn't pine, more I wouldn't settle for something that was second best and I fail to see how another relationship can measure up against what we have.

 

Yes, my H is my soulmate, long may it continue .... and I am really an old cynic, but on this, I remain fixed.

[donnamaybe]

OK. Although I've not ever heard anyone described as hot, other than looks, I'll concede others may use it to describe someone personality, sense of humor, or some other aspect.

 

For certain, there would need to be an attraction among soul mates. Lacking any type of attraction, they'd not likely talk to each other, or end up involved in a relationship.

 

In the context of "One true love" or soul mates, I would think the connection would go beyond just attraction. I wouldn't even care to try to put into words the connection and bond which exists between people who are truly in love, but, certainly, it is that connection and bond which defines true love. Discovering and nurturing a bond like that could only be something which would happen over time, where initial impressions, based on any criteria, would be irrelevant.

 

And so many times on this forum people who say "how can you really know until you actually have a full time life together. All of it. The bills, the chores - everything." And they get shot down. It's easy to think it's love when none of the drudgery of everyday life intrudes.

[beenburned]

DM,

[SoMovinOn]

And so many times on this forum people who say "how can you really know until you actually have a full time life together. All of it. The bills, the chores - everything." And they get shot down. It's easy to think it's love when none of the drudgery of everyday life intrudes.

 

The drudgery of everyday life in no way defines love. As I mentioned in an earlier response to this thread, it possible to love someone, yet not be compatible in other ways such that living together, or even having a long term relationship, is difficult or impossible. Love is not enough.

 

Likewise, people can get along very well, share all the drudgery of every day life, and not be in love at all. Firefighters, military, ships crew, oil rigs, etc. are all instances where people live together, share every bit of everyday life - good, bad, ugly, without being in love at all.

 

In my opinion, there is absolutely no connection between love and the ability to live together.

[MissBee]

i do not believe in soul mates. i also believe that someone we may love at 16 is not the same 'type' of love someone would have at 40. during our lives, we change and grow. what was fun at 20 (partying all the time) is not something someone 42 would be interested in.

 

i loved someone when i was 16, but what i felt then does not compare to what i feel today with my husband. i was engaged in my 20's, thinking he was the only man for me, but i learned that wasn't the case. there are many, many people who marry young and stay married until a partner dies, thinking they will never marry again because their former spouse was their 'perfect' partner, yet they meet someone and marry again at 73. i know of several women who married widowers who always felt as if they were comparing the love their now husband had for his wife before she died. i think many women compete with others, alive or dead, for being the love of their man's life.

 

some women have a very hard time accepting that their partner loved someone prior to them, deeply and passionately. they like to dismiss what their partner had with someone else as not as passionate, not as exciting, not as whatever because they (the women) cannot handle knowing their partner loved as deeply as they did. many women with divorced men also have this issue.

 

does it matter who someone loved prior to entering our life? why the need to try to belittle what others felt - in an affair or not? ending an affair for some is not much different than divorcing a spouse...you loved that person at one time, but due to circumstances, that love no longer exists. what's the big deal in needing to act superior to those who no longer are with their former partner and they no longer love that person? are you trying to imply that the they never must have loved that person, in your view? why are you having an issue with someone having hostile feelings towards a former love partner? should someone who was beaten every day by a former lover not feel anger or even hate towards them? do you not believe that someone's feelings can change after time? i am glad i have an open attitude towards those who have former lovers that they now no longer can stomach to look at them or speak to them. it is okay to not fawn all over a former lover or sit and cry all day that it didn't work out. its life. stuff happens.

 

Awesome post!

 

I have seen it implied and stated outright this type of patronizing attitude by those in As of "Sorry it didn't work out for you". My response is: I am long over that and ALL my exes I can see them for who they are, and it makes sense why it didn't work out....and I am not "bitter" or sad that it didn't work out.

 

At the time I thought they were great and as I grow, I am different, they change too and the me who loved them no longer exists and that them sometimes doesn't exist anymore either. Such is life. I don't feel like any less of a person for not still wanting an old ex.

 

You don't need to hate your exes....but certainly, it is common and makes sense that an ex is not the reigning love of your life when you are no longer together. I'd rather have my current partner holding that title over an old flame.

Edited January 20, 2012 by MissBee

[donnamaybe]

The drudgery of everyday life in no way defines love. As I mentioned in an earlier response to this thread, it possible to love someone, yet not be compatible in other ways such that living together, or even having a long term relationship, is difficult or impossible. Love is not enough.

 

Likewise, people can get along very well, share all the drudgery of every day life, and not be in love at all. Firefighters, military, ships crew, oil rigs, etc. are all instances where people live together, share every bit of everyday life - good, bad, ugly, without being in love at all.

 

In my opinion, there is absolutely no connection between love and the ability to live together.

 

Drudgery defining love? Is that SERIOUSLY what you got out of that? LMAO

 

How does that quote go about love? "Love endures all things" I believe is part of it. Get it? Come on. Admit you get it.

[Summer Breeze]

Drudgery defining love? Is that SERIOUSLY what you got out of that? LMAO

 

How does that quote go about love? "Love endures all things" I believe is part of it. Get it? Come on. Admit you get it.

 

Drudgery is pretty much how you described the day to day stuff.

 

As far as having to live with someone day to day to know if you're in love. What about 1950s and back when no one lived with anyone before M? My grandparents fell in love and were together over 50 years and never spent a night together before they M. My parents never spent a full night together before they were M and they're on 52 years together. There was a time when love was found and accepted before anyone spent any time together.

 

I don't believe in soulmates. I also believe that we ebb and flow with love and if we're lucky we find someone who ebbs and flows with us. I do believe in having huge loves in your life. I've had the great blessing of having 2 but a friend of mine hasn't felt love like that at all and she's mid 40s. My xMM is one of them and just because it, or any R, ended it doesn't minimize what we had. Will I find it a 3rd time who knows. I do know I won't settle for less than that though even if it means being alone.

[MissBee]

Drudgery is pretty much how you described the day to day stuff.

 

As far as having to live with someone day to day to know if you're in love. What about 1950s and back when no one lived with anyone before M? My grandparents fell in love and were together over 50 years and never spent a night together before they M. My parents never spent a full night together before they were M and they're on 52 years together. There was a time when love was found and accepted before anyone spent any time together.

I don't believe in soulmates. I also believe that we ebb and flow with love and if we're lucky we find someone who ebbs and flows with us. I do believe in having huge loves in your life. I've had the great blessing of having 2 but a friend of mine hasn't felt love like that at all and she's mid 40s. My xMM is one of them and just because it, or any R, ended it doesn't minimize what we had. Will I find it a 3rd time who knows. I do know I won't settle for less than that though even if it means being alone.

 

I don't think you need to live together to be in love.I am not sure about the bolded though, i.e. not spending ANY time together and being inlove. But I guess it depends on your definition of love. I also avoid romanticizing some aspects of the past as our parents and grandparents didn't always have it right.

 

Dating without living together and being in a secret A aren't the same at all though and I can't speak for donna, but for me, it is about seeing the relationship in the light of day without the drama darkness provides that makes the difference. I think secrecy, like literal darkness/dim lighting can set the mood to be more romantic and infatuating than it really is. Think about it.

 

I agree about having more than one great love though. I don't think breaking up has to minimize it...I do find for myself though that after a while it doesn't seem as great, or great enough for me to consider that person the love of my life. My aunt's first husband, she was in love with him since she was 16 and they married when she was 23. They were married 12 years before they divorced. She has been remarried for 13 years and has never been happier....they act like teenagers! We had a talk and she said she still loves her ex husband, I was shocked....but she clarified that she will always love him BUT she is INLOVE with her husband and he's the love of her life. Her ex was diagnosed with prostate cancer 3 years ago and he had surgery, and she flew to NY to stay with him and give him after care. Her husband didn't mind as they know where their relationship stands. That is loving an ex....but I differentiate that from romantic love and considering them the love of your life.

Edited January 20, 2012 by MissBee

[SoMovinOn]

Drudgery defining love? Is that SERIOUSLY what you got out of that? LMAO

 

Yes. Your claim was clear - if you don't live with someone and experience the drudgery of every day life, you can't possibly know you love them. I laughed when I read it too.

 

How does that quote go about love? "Love endures all things" I believe is part of it. Get it? Come on. Admit you get it.

 

It's a nice quote. It's right up there with "... and they lived happily ever after". It has no basis in truth. Coping with the challenges of life requires a lot of different skills. Having someone you love to help you deal with them is a plus, but it doesn't give you the skills you need if you don't have them.

 

The more appropriate love quote here is "Love is not enough" ...

 

... and, of course, your whole line of reasoning here is based on the fantasy that A's don't involve the couple dealing with every day life, finances, challenges or problems.

[woinlove]

I think if you talk to couples who have been married for 50 years to the love of their life, they will tell you that their love has deepened over the years. That is certainly how I feel after more than 25 years. Not everyone's definition of love is the same, but for many love brings out the best in each other, and to experience that over many years brings a depth which is difficult to appreciate in the early stages. There is a headiness in the early stages, but even more richness and breadth develops with time.

 

I would think someone who looks back on an A that ended still in affair-mode as the love of their love still has a lot of potential to experience deeper love. If one values openness and honesty, the deception of an A has to be a negative and so the concept of bringing out the best in each other is mixed with other stuff, which may be denied or rationalized, but is still there. There is a reason that so many affairs leave people with bad feelings, it is because when people think they have behaved poorly or encouraged those they love to behave poorly, it feels bad. I think those who end up together can get past all this, but probably not by ignoring the negatives in their beginnings. Just like counselling is considered a useful component for married couples with problems, I would think counselling would be useful for anyone wanting to make a go of an R that started as an A.

[MissBee]

Yes. Your claim was clear - if you don't live with someone and experience the drudgery of every day life, you can't possibly know you love them. I laughed when I read it too.

 

 

 

It's a nice quote. It's right up there with "... and they lived happily ever after". It has no basis in truth. Coping with the challenges of life requires a lot of different skills. Having someone you love to help you deal with them is a plus, but it doesn't give you the skills you need if you don't have them.

 

The more appropriate love quote here is "Love is not enough" ...

... and, of course, your whole line of reasoning here is based on the fantasy that A's don't involve the couple dealing with every day life, finances, challenges or problems.

 

I don't think fantasy is an accurate term....

 

I know that you like to cite the less common A scenarios, and I believe it is unfair to act like the rarer cases are average.

 

Anyway, I don't think the point is about dealing with finances etc....but if your A is a secret relationship, as most are by definition....then that takes away from you being able to conduct it normally and it can, and often does promote more fantasy (so too does LD sometimes).Is this always the case? I am sure not, but again, it's more useful to consider what's average versus exceptions.

[MissBee]

I think if you talk to couples who have been married for 50 years to the love of their life, they will tell you that their love has deepened over the years. That is certainly how I feel after more than 25 years. Not everyone's definition of love is the same, but for many love brings out the best in each other, and to experience that over many years brings a depth which is difficult to appreciate in the early stages. There is a headiness in the early stages, but even more richness and breadth develops with time.

 

I would think someone who looks back on an A that ended still in affair-mode as the love of their love still has a lot of potential to experience deeper love. If one values openness and honesty, the deception of an A has to be a negative and so the concept of bringing out the best in each other is mixed with other stuff, which may be denied or rationalized, but is still there. There is a reason that so many affairs leave people with bad feelings, it is because when people think they have behaved poorly or encouraged those they love to behave poorly, it feels bad. I think those who end up together can get past all this, but probably not by ignoring the negatives in their beginnings. Just like counselling is considered a useful component for married couples with problems, I would think counselling would be useful for anyone wanting to make a go of an R that started as an A.

 

Well said. This is true.

[donnamaybe]

LMAO = amusement at how certain people will take one simple word and twist and mangle it so that it no longer even remotely resembles the context in which it was originally used in an effort to avoid discussing what was a very valid point.

 

"Love endures all things..." Let's take a look at that for a minute. If one can say that little phrase has no basis in truth, please - keep your so-called "love." I want none of it. If someone's R is so incredibly shallow as to be able to state that their love WILL NOT endure all things (and we're talking about life situations - NOT wilfull damage to the R by one or both parties by sneaking around and screwing other people behind your partner's back ), then, IMO, it's not love. That shallow kind of love is one in which one or both parties merely enjoys how the R makes them feel. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with deeply loving the person - who they are as a human being, but rather, what they get out of that person for themselves. It's a selfish thing.

 

In an A, there isn't much, if ANYTHING, to "endure" except, perhaps, the corroboration of lies. There are stolen moments together; secrecy; NOT a full life lived wherein you "endure all things" together.

Edited January 20, 2012 by donnamaybe

[donnamaybe]

I know that you like to cite the less common A scenarios, and I believe it is unfair to act like the rarer cases are average.

Spot on, and is a tactic used by another poster regularly.

[Owl]

As I mentioned in an earlier response to this thread, it possible to love someone, yet not be compatible in other ways such that living together, or even having a long term relationship, is difficult or impossible. Love is not enough.

 

I think that we have very different definitions and understandings of what constitutes "love".

 

What you describe above, I would consider a strong ATTRACTION. Perhaps even limerance. But certainly not love.

 

If you don't have enough in commmon with that person to be able to live together or maintain a long-term relationship...there's no basis for love. Attraction, yes. Those feelings generated by limerance? Certainly. But love is a much deeper thing that stems from that attraction AND many other things tied together...compatability being chief among those.

 

I might have agreed with you a couple of decades ago...but given all that I've learned and lived and loved...I have to say I think that we define love in tremendously different ways.

 

Likewise, people can get along very well, share all the drudgery of every day life, and not be in love at all. Firefighters, military, ships crew, oil rigs, etc. are all instances where people live together, share every bit of everyday life - good, bad, ugly, without being in love at all.

 

In my opinion, there is absolutely no connection between love and the ability to live together.

 

In my opnion...if you can't share enough connection to live together...there's no love.

[Owl]

And almost as if "someone" were trying to prove my point, as I was typing my previous post, my wife posted something at the exact same time on another site talking about our relationship, and used a quote along the lines of "Anyone can come into your life and say how much they love you...but it takes someone really special to stay in your life and show how much they love you".

 

And it happened that I was making my above statement at the exact same time.

 

Interesting coincidence, ya know?

[pureinheart]

Drudgery is pretty much how you described the day to day stuff.

 

As far as having to live with someone day to day to know if you're in love. What about 1950s and back when no one lived with anyone before M? My grandparents fell in love and were together over 50 years and never spent a night together before they M. My parents never spent a full night together before they were M and they're on 52 years together. There was a time when love was found and accepted before anyone spent any time together.

 

I don't believe in soulmates. I also believe that we ebb and flow with love and if we're lucky we find someone who ebbs and flows with us. I do believe in having huge loves in your life. I've had the great blessing of having 2 but a friend of mine hasn't felt love like that at all and she's mid 40s. My xMM is one of them and just because it, or any R, ended it doesn't minimize what we had. Will I find it a 3rd time who knows. I do know I won't settle for less than that though even if it means being alone.

 

Bold- yeeepppp!

 

The love of my life was an AP and my second husband. It didnot work. That doesn't mean I have to be single for the rest of my life. There is always the possibility that I will meet someone of whom I love more or the same.

 

For me, what causes my ex to be considered by the term, "the love of my life", simply means that there will never be a time in my life such as that (which I realise could be said for most relationships in ones lifetime). I will always cherish this relationship and his family.

[pureinheart]

And almost as if "someone" were trying to prove my point, as I was typing my previous post, my wife posted something at the exact same time on another site talking about our relationship, and used a quote along the lines of "Anyone can come into your life and say how much they love you...but it takes someone really special to stay in your life and show how much they love you".

 

And it happened that I was making my above statement at the exact same time.

 

Interesting coincidence, ya know?

 

This is way cool! I really like this saying/quote/statement...wow, can't tell you how many times this type of incident has happened to me ...the total "wow factor" IMO:)

[MissBee]

And almost as if "someone" were trying to prove my point, as I was typing my previous post, my wife posted something at the exact same time on another site talking about our relationship, and used a quote along the lines of "Anyone can come into your life and say how much they love you...but it takes someone really special to stay in your life and show how much they love you".

And it happened that I was making my above statement at the exact same time.

 

Interesting coincidence, ya know?

 

That's beautiful! I agree with that so much.

 

What SMO and other people in real life and on LS sometimes characterize as love, seems to center around feelings. I am not that old, but already realize a feeling doesn't mean that much. Feelings come and go and are fickle. So many people in As are sustained by a feeling though....example, so many OW have come here describing how their "boyfriend" is currently on vacation with his wife/family and is having a miserable time and wishes it were both of them instead, and they feel good about these feelings, and take comfort in someone thinking about them while having a whole other life. This feeling and connection means nada IMO, if at the end of the day, you are there and you live in a bubble with your feelings and their feelings but they are living life....and as far as most know (his family, wife, coworkers, friends) you don't exist. How can that not promote more fantasy?

 

Anyway to each his/her own definition. I love and subscribe to the bolded though.

[Quiet Storm]

I think many times when people say "the love of my life" or "soulmates", they are attributing it to basic chemistry, or the way the other person makes THEM feel.

 

Most of the time, I think many of these former OW don't view MM as such a great person. Many of them probably couldn't even name the specific qualities or personality traits they love about MM... the feeling they call "love" is often based on how he made them feel. "But I love him", "We have a connection", "He knows me so well", "He makes me laugh", "he makes me feel so special". Many men are skilled in making a woman feel this way. So he gets her hooked with words, and when he gets her in bed, the oxytocin starts flowing and she becomes bonded to him.

 

Limerance, dopamine & oxytocin, those firing brain chemicals, are very powerful. But it's not real love...it's an illusion. A trick our brains play on us that is rooted in biology.

 

It's not so much that these OW love the other person, because many times the MM has shown himself to be very flawed, or even a fraud. Many OW hang onto that "love of my life" feeling - in spite of all evidence that this MM was not a very good person.

 

That's not love. It's delusion. If OW truly loved MM, she would not have participated in his self destruction or conflict avoidance. She would not have stood by watching him lie and sneak. She would not be a player in his double life. She would say, I love you MM, but this is not good for you. I won't be with you while you're living your life like this. Come to me when you are ready to live an honest and authentic life.

 

So for most OW, MM may be "the one" that got her panties wet. The one that made her feel good. The one that called and texted and paid attention to her. But what she is really longing for, and what she really misses, is those feelings that he sparked in her. Not him, but her own feelings. And that's selfish. True love is not selfish.

[pureinheart]

Yes. Your claim was clear - if you don't live with someone and experience the drudgery of every day life, you can't possibly know you love them. I laughed when I read it too.

 

 

 

It's a nice quote. It's right up there with "... and they lived happily ever after". It has no basis in truth. Coping with the challenges of life requires a lot of different skills. Having someone you love to help you deal with them is a plus, but it doesn't give you the skills you need if you don't have them.

 

The more appropriate love quote here is "Love is not enough" ...

 

... and, of course, your whole line of reasoning here is based on the fantasy that A's don't involve the couple dealing with every day life, finances, challenges or problems.

 

This is very much the truth. Depending on the length of the affair most of everyday life enters in without even realising it.

 

In my case love wasn't enough. The love was there, although there were many areas in which we were not compatible. This was discovered early on. After he divorced we tried to defy reason and logic hoping that love would be enough, but unfortunately it wasn't.

 

Excellent insight SMO. It's always a pleasure to read your responses/replies as they make a whole lot of sense.

[MissBee]

I think many times when people say "the love of my life" or "soulmates", they are attributing it to basic chemistry, or the way the other person makes THEM feel.

 

Most of the time, I think many of these former OW don't view MM as such a great person. Many of them probably couldn't even name the specific qualities or personality traits they love about MM... the feeling they call "love" is often based on how he made them feel. "But I love him", "We have a connection", "He knows me so well", "He makes me laugh", "he makes me feel so special". Many men are skilled in making a woman feel this way. So he gets her hooked with words, and when he gets her in bed, the oxytocin starts flowing and she becomes bonded to him.

 

Limerance, dopamine & oxytocin, those firing brain chemicals, are very powerful. But it's not real love...it's an illusion. A trick our brains play on us that is rooted in biology.

 

It's not so much that these OW love the other person, because many times the MM has shown himself to be very flawed, or even a fraud. Many OW hang onto that "love of my life" feeling - in spite of all evidence that this MM was not a very good person.

 

That's not love. It's delusion. If OW truly loved MM, she would not have participated in his self destruction or conflict avoidance. She would not have stood by watching him lie and sneak. She would not be a player in his double life. She would say, I love you MM, but this is not good for you. I won't be with you while you're living your life like this. Come to me when you are ready to live an honest and authentic life.

 

So for most OW, MM may be "the one" that got her panties wet. The one that made her feel good. The one that called and texted and paid attention to her. But what she is really longing for, and what she really misses, is those feelings that he sparked in her. Not him, but her own feelings. And that's selfish. True love is not selfish.

 

Awesome post as usual!

 

This is so true and I realized this with my ex, it was a normal relationship. Everyone, but especially those in As, are subject to that process. Up to a year post-breakup with my ex I was convinced I loved him....then I realized I did not, when I started to write down what I loved/missed about him, it was ALL shallow stuff that had to do with how he made me feel (I missed that he was a great cook, good in bed, took me to nice places, we had fun ). It wasn't because he was such a great person at all, none had to do with his character, and someone's character is who they ARE when no one's looking, when they aren't trying to woo you, how they treat other people etc. I was shocked at this realization!

 

People fall in and out of "love" all the time....and I suspect it is due to those feelings. But practicing love, practicing being your BEST self through love and inspiring this person to be theirs is often non-existent. How have most OW/OM inspired the MP to be a better person and vice-versa?

 

Owl's wife's quote is so right. ANYONE can make you feel giddy, stroke your ego, shower you with attention and flattery. Most of us take a microscopic view of our lives and relationships, i.e we can't see the forest for the trees....but if we took a macroscopic view...we'd see a bigger, complete picture. It is esp hard to avoid the microscopic view in As and the nature of it is such that, in order to keep it up, people will zoom in on the feelings and little examples they feel illustrate it being good, avoiding the larger picture. As you said, that is delusion.

Edited January 20, 2012 by MissBee

[donnamaybe]

I think that we have very different definitions and understandings of what constitutes "love".

 

What you describe above, I would consider a strong ATTRACTION. Perhaps even limerance. But certainly not love.

 

If you don't have enough in commmon with that person to be able to live together or maintain a long-term relationship...there's no basis for love. Attraction, yes. Those feelings generated by limerance? Certainly. But love is a much deeper thing that stems from that attraction AND many other things tied together...compatability being chief among those.

 

I might have agreed with you a couple of decades ago...but given all that I've learned and lived and loved...I have to say I think that we define love in tremendously different ways.

 

 

 

In my opnion...if you can't share enough connection to live together...there's no love.

As usual Owl, you totally get it!

 

Yep. It's easy to maintain some kind of fantasy of "love" when in an A situation. Anyone could do that. That's enjoyment of a feeling. One thing it is certainly not is love for another.