You know, it sounds more like you're describing love at first sight. I personally will never be able to relate to that, because I find a very specific type of intellect attractive. Even if a person made me feel everything you're describing when I first saw them, I'd still only want them on a physical level until I began to speak to them. I'm a bit of a sapiosexual in that regard. I agree, love is subjective.
here's my take on the subject, conclusions reached after over a half-century of both falling and being 'in love' several times, being married/divorced twice, and bearing/loving 7 children [none of whom were conceived on purpose, or fathered by a loving mate, sad to say]: http://www.saysmom.com/maia/content.asp?Writing=77 [i've been having problems with my site and some punctuation marks show as symbols when i go to the site, though it doesn't seem to do that for others... so please let me know if it's ok to you, or not... thanks!]
Ha, I loved the bit about 'true love' not existing in anything other than the relationship between parents and their children—I fully agree with that. I didn't really think about that side of love when I was replying before, not being a parent and that.
Can't say I agree. There're people with problems in sex, who don't particularly want any kind of sex, but are perfectly in love. And considering I dated two ugly men - I'm sorry, I did genuinely find them unattractive, the first one I cringed when I saw him, the second I also cringed over, and I don't mean metaphorically. No. I didn't particularly want their penises. In fact, the second one was so messed up, I found it positively repulsive. Did I love him? I'd say yes - as much as I knew how to love back then, which isn't very well at all, but it would be false to say there was nothing true. Mind you, I'm also of the school where I see the distinction in semantics between "loving someone" and "being in love with someone" as absolute bullshit. You either love that person or not. Anything else is an excuse. If love could really be reduced to what you said, then all couples who're unable to perform sexually should be miserable or separated/divorced, and anyone in their 60s and above should also probably get divorced. All those spouses who stay by the sides of their loved ones through cancer and Alzheimer's and depression and mental illness and other trauma - all of them should leave their helpless partners because they would no longer love them, no? Or are they staying by their sides in the hopes of sex in the end? And what about the ones who are widowed and miss their late spouse and never remarry for the rest of their lives? Spiritual sex, is that what they're waiting for? Think what you like, but imo you couldn't be more wrong, and such a view is insulting to all those who are faithful to their spouses even unto death, and that is an understatement.
I can't disagree with the points you made. Although the examples you gave were quite, extreme. A lot of people are misinterpreting what I said, I never said people fall in love to have sex. Or that sex was seemingly the only thing important about love. I said they fall in love because sex exists—it's the underlying reason for attraction. Even animals who can't think rationally feel attraction, but because we have rational thought we try and understand these powerful feelings. We make it out like it's some magical unique thing, when it's simply how we survive. That's what I was getting at—guess I didn't word it the best way though. In your case, I can't understand why you would even continue to speak to someone you say you found physically repulsive? To actually feel repulsed by someone, are you sure that's the right word here? Maybe I'm shallow, but I honestly wouldn't see the point. Not when there's over six billion people on the planet, surely, there must be someone who fits me better. Right?
I would definitely disagree with that. True love between equals is possible, but it takes a tremendous amount of effort and, as with a parent's love of a child, requires selflessness on the part of both partners. Lots of people never get there. At the same time, it is quite possible for the parent-child relationship to be completely bereft of love.
Tis true, there are some truly messed up people who don't feel anything for their children. Well, I'd imagine they do feeling something, but they still do heinous things to them. I think what makes the love more pure between a parent and their child is that there's nothing sexual about it—well, for shall we say a normal parent. Like before, there are those twisted people who rape their own kids and what have you. You probably have different views on what you consider 'true love' to be than I. But seriously, how can you even compare the two? Your partner is essentially a person you met due to utter randomness. There was no choice, it just so happened they were in your class at school, or that they worked at the same place you did and other typical scenarios. A child on the other hand is a piece of life you created out of your own DNA. It's a blank slate you guide and nurture so that they can also go on and create life themselves. There is absolutely no comparison to be made. None. I'm not saying your love for your partner is insignificant, because it's not. Finding someone you genuinely love is hard—but it's incomparable to something you both made together.
Personal experience, of course that's where conclusions here are being drawn from. Love is such a personal thing, that's what people would be drawing on. I've had love that grew first, sex came later, and love where the overwhelming attraction started first. I don't agree such infatuation is all about sex and lust. It may be infatuation that does not mean two people are going to be compatible as they get to know each other better. But to brush that pheromone rush off as only lust? That honeymoon period when you meet someone and don't want to be apart, when you spend hours on the phone with each other when you can't be together, that's not just sex. Infatuation, sure, but to dismiss that infatuation period in a relationship as only physical, no, that's not what it is.
You ignore the children who feel nothing for a parent. You also ignore the parent who thinks they have the right to impose their will on the outcome of their children's lives. Or who insist on living vicariously through their own children. I could go on. I didn't. You did. How does that translate to "no choice"? Of course you have a choice. You can approach or not approach. You can give of yourself or not give of yourself. My grandmother used to say "there's a cover for every pot", and I used to wonder what happens if you meet your perfect match and don't realize it. But the truth, of course, is that people make their relationships through the choices that they make. Some can't bring themselves to be as selfless as real love requires. Love doesn't "just happen".
Ooo, I dunno Ed. I think it's impossible to feel absolutely nothing, even I corrected myself when I said it in my post. The child and parent will always feel something. But yes, there are many different examples of parents not loving their children—which wasn't even the point of what I said. The article assumed the parent and the child's relationship was a normal healthy relationship, exuding radical examples of twisted human behaviour. It's point was that the love between parents and their child—actual life they created—will never be anywhere close to their own love for each other. It's not in the same league. It just so happened that they labelled this as 'true love'. I agree with it being labelled 'true', although 'pure' would of been a better label, because it's love that was created—it wasn't the meagre result of attraction and randomness. Which is exactly what the love between two human beings is. It's not a choice at all. You don't control what you find attractive. That's all it is, you just so happened to be in the same place where a person you found attractive was, you felt compelled to speak to them because of your own perception of attraction—that is not a choice. You can not change how your brain works in that regard.
Cultural, economic and age shortsightedness is apparent in that statement. Not everyone finds their mate via mutual attraction and infatuating pheromones. I have a good friend who chose to marry a good friend (he was attracted to her) in order to give her daughter a more stable home life. They literally worked on her becoming physically attracted to him and remain happily married more than 2 decades later. I haven't asked but I assume she grew physically attracted to him over time.
I didn't specify physical attractions. He was physically attracted to her and she longed for a father figure for her daughter. A suitable candidate presented himself. That's not choosing anything—it's two people acting accordingly. Like I said, it was just a coincidence that those two met. They didn't choose where they were born and the circumstances that lead them to be the way they were when they met. It's just the result of randomness.
And my point, which you seem determined not to get, is that there are countless examples of dysfunctional relationships between parents and children in which one or the other (or both) feel nothing, except possibly distaste (or worse), they are not radical examples of twisted human behavior. And from that I posit that the parent-child relationship is no more inherently loving than a committed relationship between two adults. Hence, I reject your notion (as well as mammamaia's - and I don't do that very often) that the parent-child relationship is the only pure true love. Oh, I think one's attractions are very likely based in another of choices one makes through one's formative years. But even if the initial attraction is not a matter within one's control, the decision of whether or not to pursue a loving relationship, the decision to willingly sacrifice one's own wants in favor of another is very definitely something that we control. The first thing the minister, priest, rabbit or justice of the peace asks two people who present themselves to be married is, "Have you come here of your own free will?"
^ Nah... proof that each individual has their own way of looking at things, perhaps. @jannert is bouncing ideas about, giving the OP some options and food for thought. Just because she rattled off the list shows me she has good understanding of the things that make people tick. Notice I said 'people', not women. I know guys that could rattle off a similar list. Or are you poking with a pointy stick to get a reaction.
That's walking back what you said, not to mention there are scenarios where a parent chooses the spouse and the attraction comes later. If you want to now say you meant any kind of attraction or circumstances, is it even a meaningful statement?
That and watching people in real life. Spend time at an art gallery, airport or bus station. Dudes often meet women at a grocery store. One has to muster up the courage to face possible rejection, but to express to someone that you need their help in learning about others is tough for most people to turn down. I commend you on your courage to admit English being your second language. It's considered the toughest to learn. If you master it? Bravo!
OP, I'm not sure how your female MC would react, but this one time I was followed around the grocery store by this guy, asking all kinds of questions about me, and that just made me want to run like hell. So, you know, there's a chance for comedy for ya. Except he might not get the girl after that... 'cause she'll think he's a creep... unless he's really good-looking.
THAT does sound creepy. I don't see myself as overly photogenic nor as a toad, still, as long there's no stalking involved, I strike up conversations with quite a few people at the store. Following ANYONE that's obviously trying to outrun you is bad form...
That was never point, the article didn't say parents love for their children was always functional. It simply implied it was the only case where love is pure or true. You were the one who brought dysfunction into the conversation. Despite that, you clearly disagree. I simply don't see the results of random occurrences and involuntary feelings as being pure. The notion of creating life yourself with a person you love, that's pure. The love for said life is pure. You choose to create that life—you don't choose to find your partner attractive. Those decisions to peruse the relationship with said person are birthed from your attraction. If you didn't feel any type of attraction towards them, they'd just be like the rest of the people you meet in your life—utterly common. Attraction is a necessity in order for the series of events to take place. There has to be something that makes you feel compelled to interact with them—that is an attraction. Attraction is not a choice. It's like for example, do you think people choose to be gay? No. That's just what that individual finds attractive.
@123456789, Are you saying that the people where you live are so repulsive that they shouldn't be allowed out in public? ... another term for photogenic.
Yes, I did. Because the volume of thse dysfunctional relationships disproves the generalization. That is an ideal that is not borne out in human experience. No doubt, you wish it were true. Sometimes it is. Often, it is not. If you, as a writer, wish to reflect the real world then I advise you to take note of the real world. If, on the other hand, you wish only to portray the world as you wish it were...well, be my guest. As for your contention that attraction is involuntary, and thus everything that follows...well, that's an interesting contention but also disproven by real world experience. Maybe not your experience, but others.
Mmmmmm this thread certainly has gotten some interesting perspectives... I like to think of love as a form of energy that exists within a spectrum. Different frequencies exhibit different types of love (e.g. agape, filial, conjugal, etc.). I could go into more detail on that, but That's best saved for another time. I'll just say that I don't really agree with @mammamaia's article because I think of love as so much bigger than that (no disrespect of course). And I can't agree with @Laze's Naturalist/determinist view of how it all begins. To a degree he's correct about some of it being beyond control, but his depiction is a bit to fatalistic for me. I may side a bit more with @EdFromNY, in that there is more to love than has been posited here. To the OP. I believe @jannert has given some good advice. Try to image being in your character's shoes. try to imagine falling in love. Read a few romances. I'll disagree with those who say falling in love for males and females is the same and that you shouldn't consider the differences. It's been pointed out in other threads that males and females tend to think a bit differently. That's not a bad thing, just a fact of life. Write your characters as humans, but don't forget that part of the human condition is being male or female. Getting into the other gender's head can be tricky, just remember to make them themselves FIRST, flesh out their desires, their needs, and worry about male vs female later.
