Love and relationships

Well, here goes;
a few days ago, i was wondering about relationships, (and my obvious lack of one) and i was wondering why people will only get in a relationship if they're both in love, i mean, over 90% of all relationships started because of something trivial as love. There's no sense in falling in love, if you use it as a tool to get into a long-term relationship. I mean, you're both high on love and the relationship you have while in love may be quite good and romantic, but that love is gonna die one day, and you still have a long way to go with someone if you want to stay in that relationship. And on that point the relationship starts to become a lot more 'honest', in the sense that you're having a relationship with a person at that time, not the combination of a person and a revered image you hold.
So why does almost everyone let falling in love guide them in taking a relationship? In the past, you'd have... marriages of convenience, where both persons decided that they wanted a relationship (be it from the perspective of personal gain or the wish for a long-term relationship, let's not discuss that) which society seems to frown on nowadays, but why would those be less good than a relationship where you fall in love first?
Wouldn't it be a lot more honest to ourselves and the other to select a partner on the person her/himself, without something as irrational as love 'making' us take the decision?

And now i lost my lead once again, so please, flame away, and if i recall what i originally tried to put into words, i'll post it.

oh cmon... you already know this answer... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

its due to social conditioning.

ok ok... sure, there have been marriages of
convenience before.... look at anna nicole smith
(which i mentioned to tg the other day)....

we all KNOW marriages like that exist....
we just don't wanna hear about them. we don't
wanna ADMIT that they exist...

in as far as love goes... i don't think i've
ever began a relationship at the point that
i loved a person. i mean... i usually love them
AFTER i've been around a bit... not before.

yes, love changes... i'd go so far as to say
that love 'evolves'.... quite possibly to what
love really is... and not that cheesy romantic
stuff that is there in the beginning.

you can't have a relationship/marriage based
on love alone... which is why so many younger
people get married like a couple of dolts only
to later say 'we just aren't compatible'....

well no durphy eddie murphy....

relationships are business.... or, at least,
damn close to one. love is merely a buffer (???)
or maybe a cliche frame you add to a picture
you've taken several weeks ago... but it certainly
shouldn't come first.

its like starting a business.....
you can really love what you do, but love ain't
gonna make sales... nor keep your business afloat.
it takes more than that.


this is all common place......


or is it? [img]redface.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

well... to be honest, if you'd asked me 3 years ago i wouldn't knpw.
I just, dunno, noticed that a lot of people i know are starting to get in a relationship and they usually did so after falling in love. It struck me as odd that people almost exclusively use this as a way of selecting a mate.
Ehm.. so far my feeble attempt to bring some fun stuff to GP

There is no such thing as love [img]graemlins/broken_heart.gif[/img] [img]wink.gif[/img] Only chemicals that tell us to reproduce and fuck. Relationships are either a form of mutial agreement and there is a bond between the couple or because of sheer loneliness.

1. When people first meet, there is that chemistry between them, not love and usually it will wear off as the couple realise that there is not much to go on as the chemistry was overpowering their sense of judgement.

2. some people get together not of love or mutal agreement but rather of what society dictates what a couple should be, hence the popular chics go out with the popular guys or most likely the certain types of men have "trophy" wifes, eg dumb blond big tits etc. some people just look for good house wifes and those who'd be good mothers.

3. The rich marry not of love or societies demand but rather of buisness, of pushing forward their finacial gains of themselves and of their families.

4. mutual agreement or love sex. in this the couple not only recognise that sex is not the only factor and that there is common grounds, interests and lifestyles. or that by being together is in both of the parties best interests of surviving in society and that their mutual agreements of living together does not inflict to0 much sorrow on each others lives.

most of society falls under the 2nd point, that is to say, most of society crumbel under peer presure to conform to these standards, there is no real love there only hollow delusional love, the fear of being alone love.
the 4th point would come second but would not be close to being 1st.

i would say that the fear of being alone would drive many people to relationships that do not suit them. that and social conditioning that enforces our beliefs of being alone is bad for us, so it is better for us to be with anyone then no one...

whoa... that was so cleverly mapped out....

i can do nothing but applaud you... [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

my next Q is.... what is the harm in admitting
the above reasons???

if two people KNOW these things... why can't
they just admit them and have a relationship
at face-value?


would it be any less?

If your relationship is based on a delusion out of fear for loneliness or social demand, popping the bubble will still not remove your need to satisfy those two.

And no, it would not be any less, in my eyes the relationship would just be a lot more honest.
And it seems you have to lie, delude or be deluded to get into a relationship around here lately, i think most women would reject me if i came with the truth instead of the delusion everyone seems to crave.

I would personally go with the 4th point as it would be a more honest approach to relationships..

i guess my angst against common relationships is because of the amount of denial/ delusions that they are based on. these people base their entire lifes on this preseption of "love" & "marriage" which only contributes to the social image of relationships which in the end denies the persons of real happiness and love.

As for Shatzy Q.

there is no harm admitting to these reasons but rather the oppposite as each party would begin to see relationships in a different light. and on some ground they might work toward the 4th point of mutual agreement/love..

but the 2nd point, there can be no good come from them in their current form, as they are dictated by societies warped sense of relationships.
For example a football jock would have a hot cheerleader type wife or relationship but they would not of gotten together out of love but rather what the social order places on them. the Jock would be in love with the cheerleader as would be the cheerleader but it would not be a love of choice but rather some predetermined love set out by society in which the jock and cheerleader's relationship is already planned and set. But deep down, there stirs that urge for free love, to break free from societies restraints placed upon them...

i would be interested to know, and not surprised, at what rates of cheating and divorce would be consistant with relationships in the 2nd point..? and i would go as far and say domestic violence as well.

Unfortunatly relationships of todays standard are based upon delusions, whether out of fear of rejection (know all too much about that) or some warped sense of love.

i am in a delusional relationship and feel it is going now where but am afraid to break it off cause of fear of loneliness. my problem is i am a self aware delusionalist where i know that this cant go on forever and she is just deluded by her societies image of relationships and what she thinks is western style relationships.. i guess not so typical relationship but still has common features where we know much about each other yet hardly anything at all. and we find out stuff along the way, to be more blunt we lied, i did it, she did it, and now we are finding ourselves drawn apart by the truth..
We lie in order to give a false impression and then slowly over the relationship we expose more of ourselves and in many cases couples find this as their downfall and some people just live that lie for as long as they can....

I lied, i eventually told my g/f that i was a card carring member of the CPA about 9 months after i joined and there was conflict about that as commies in her country were brutally murded a few years back, but alas our powers of delusion pushed it aside yet it still resides in our minds and i know that sooner or later it will become a issue when i get on a picket line. (or my head kicked in by govt henchmen [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]wink.gif[/img] )

i feel a more truthfull relationship from the start would reflect on society as a whole, less deceit and less delusional mentalities (eg Bush & Co.) and would take pressure off our everlasting feeling of loneliness and maybe our lives will start to begin... [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img]

been there.... done that.....

yeah... you'll be rejected....

but it will make them think....

and maybe, if you're lucky....

they will return when they know you are right [img]wink.gif[/img]

i think the problem comes not in the truth...
but in the realization that people just refuse
to accept it... its like the prefer delusion.

who wouldn't? delusion is nice and comforting...
but it is still just delusion...

and its unfortunate that people prefer it. [img]frown.gif[/img]

situations like yours above, SL, are bittersweet...
its unfortunate... but at the same time healthy
(if but for you alone)....

the common question:

be truthful and risk being alone....

or be a liar and surround yourself with a crowd.

how terribly awful

did i mention i can have bouts of gregariousness?
I'm not sure about other people, but i do know that i need at least occasional social contact for some reason, maybe some mental flaw, or maybe because i'm only human, but i can imagine it's hard to stay alone. In fact i hope i won't stay alone, but i don't know if i'd lie for it.

Fuck love. [img]graemlins/thumbs_down.gif[/img]

Well, if things miraculously work out afterwards, in the sense that you both fit together and would be able to mantain a good relationship without love, why not. In that case it can be fun, because the repercussion (reality) is not there.

so.... if a relationship, when clearing away all
of the delusion, doesn't necessitate love (and
vice versa).... what does that say about love?

it's not needed.
That does not however exclude the possibility of love later on in such a love-less relationship.

there is a difference between love and....
respect, security, dependency, etc etc

Love is easier. Doesn't require a lot of thinking.
But yeah, secretly i think most people want that in a relationship.

this thread reminds me of my parents. they've been married for about 22 years (or so). and i think the reason they're together is because of societal conditioning. i mean they're fairly happy together and i'm sure earlier on they were REALLY HAPPY together, but with age, that gets a bit lost and slowly you slip into a certain state of apathy and or familiarity. (i don't think they've reached apathetic yet, but certainly familiarity.)

there are different kinds of love, the romantic &/ passionate love (self explanatory), the respectful love (ie friend) and the obligatory love (ie parents). it's always good to elvolve from romantic to respectful love. there the relationship's longevity will increase.

Same here, they both tell me they're not in love as they used to be, but they still like eachother enough to stick together.

My parent seem to hate each other most of the time. But they will never weperate because they have been taught that they must stay together. They are always fighting, sleep in seperate rooms, never do anything together, never anything nice. But they will stay together until they die.

evidently... in some skewed thinking, staying
together is all that matters.

personally, i think that sucks.

Almost makes you wonder what got them to choose to stay together in the first place (considering that most people marry after having been in love, but being no longer in love)

One way of looking at marriage is as a rather odd sort of package deal, an exchange in which the two parties agree to share income, housing, sexual favors, and a collection of productive activities such as cooking meals, cleaning house, washing dishes, and rearing children. Seen from this standpoint, the motivation for marriage is, in part, the existence of economies of scale in production--it is easier to cook one meal for two people than two meals each for one person--and, in part, the advantage of division of labor. A marriage is simply a particular kind of two-person firm.mmmmmmmmm

I have said nothing about love, which is widely believed to have some connection with marriage. It may seem odd to ask why we marry someone we love, instead of marrying someone whose tastes agree with and whose skills complement our own and then conducting our respective love lives on the side, love is associated with sex, and sex with having children. Parents much prefer rearing their own children to rearing other people's, and much of child rearing is most conveniently done in the home of the rearer. So it is convenient, to say the least, if a child's parents are married--to each other.
Now love reduces, although it does not eliminate, the conflicts of interest that lead to costly bargaining. If I love my man, his happiness is one of the main things determining mine; we therefore have a common interest in making him happy. If he also loves me, we also have a common interest in making me happy. Unless our love is so precisely calculated that our objectives are identicalin either direction; if we love each other too much, my attempts to benefit him at my expense will clash with his attempts to benefit me at his expense.

whoa... welcome SA!!!! glad you get your input
as well... and GREAT input at that [img]cool.gif[/img]

ok... some thoughts --

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoulAngel:
I have said nothing about love, which is widely believed to have some connection with marriage. It may seem odd to ask why we marry someone we love, instead of marrying someone whose tastes agree with and whose skills complement our own and then conducting our respective love lives on the side..

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">i find this interesting.
first of all, it suggests that you can either
choose the one that best suits your abilities/needs
as opposed to the one you love (for other reasons).

what zela is saying...
is that should the former be true... then love
should (???) naturally evolve... or, at very
least, something close to love.

in regards to marriage, love isn't enough...
regardless of romantic notions.
love doesn't pay the bills. love doesn't fix the
rusted pipes. but then again, this is the
'business' aspect.

in any relationship, i do not feel LOVE comes
first. that is... when you agree to date someone,
it isn't for the reason that you love them...
you don't even know them. it is for alternate
reasons (business again).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoulAngel:
Parents much prefer rearing their own children to rearing other people's, and much of child rearing is most conveniently done in the home of the rearer.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">hmmmm... i'm not sure i agree with this.

while it seems appropriate for our era/culture...
it is not essentially true on a whole.

many cultures (like native americans, for example)
found it much more beneficial to rear children
in a 'social' context... meaning, many women
sharing the chores as a single 'unit' for many
children, regardless if it were their children.

this is similar to other nature/nurture elements
found in non-human contexts... such as bees,
whom care and nurture thousands of offspring
that are not genetically theirs.. or other primates,
elephants, lions, etc that care for offspring
from the respective groups.

does this defy the 'love' aspect in this discussion?

no.

but it doesn't define it either.

going back to the original quote:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoulAngel:
Parents much prefer rearing their own children to rearing other people's, and much of child rearing is most conveniently done in the home of the rearer.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">again, if this were true... then is it out of
love or lack of love that a parent sends their
children out of the home to be educated?
(this does not only include schooling, but also
in cases of employment, social relationships, etc)

while it is true that some parents home school
and teach SOME foundation towards economics,
chores, business, relationships (with kin), etc...
it does not seem to answer the question.

(this isn't directed AT you SA... but just as a
general thought for all)

I think soulangel tried to point out that as a human you have the instinct to get kids. And that you want these kids to be yourself (sort of implicit to wanting to have kids).
However, before you decide to have kids with someone, you want to be in a stable relationship, so you're sure things can keep on going (the business part), and at the same time you want to have the best possible platform for the kids and two people can do more than one.