Discussion: the development of 'Love' in a relationship

[RhaegarTar]

Hello everyone, I thought i'd bring this question to the community i've belonged to the longest, even if generally only browse these days.

Background: was dating great girl, and we shared a ton of interests, though she has an incredible amount of issues (raped in past, beaten by mother as a kid, emotional abuse over five year first relationship).

I was her first relationship in many years, and I didn't really know how to support her properly as she worked through these issues (going to therapy 2-3 times a month, which always brought this stuff to the fore). The only way I knew how was to express my affection for her and, despite knowing better, this discussion often got far too 'future-centered.' We only had dated for a couple months. I could feel that the relationship was straining, and yesterday she broke it off.

Her reasons made sense. She is an atheist and leftist from France. I am a Christian, and very politically conservative, and though I do not attend church very often, I would often (politely and VAGUELY) disagree with her when she suggested that religion should disappear or that nationalism is awful or whatever. I tried as hard as humanely possible to not discuss the specifics of politics or religion with her.

In the grand scheme of things, while I will miss her, it was probably a good thing that the relationship ended when it did. I am the king of relationship flexibility, because I believe that love grows over time, not through some teenage insanity. However this makes me often far, far too flexible in relationships (a sign of my own mental weakness I guess)

However, this brings me to the general topic. She said, 'I am the best, kindest boyfriend she has ever had, she didn't know she could be treated so well,' yadda yadda yadda. Yet she said that she didn't think she would "fall in love with me," based on our mutually exclusive values or whatever. Something didn't click, got it.

I cannot express how much I HATE the, in my opinion, disneyfied insanity, that is the idea that you MUST fall madly in love with someone, or the relationship is shit and you should bail. I often think of the episode of Rome where Lucius and his wife make fun of their daughter because she wants to 'fall in love,' and they know that love grows over time. In the past the very concept that you would fall in love, and then commit to each other, was very rare, if it happened at all.

How did we get to the point in time where a teenage version of love is the desired form, and love which develops over the years based on mutual care, affection, kindness, and satisfaction (in a variety of areas, including sexual obviously), is not even considered for many people? Am I just an idiot for hoping that i'd meet a great woman, and even if we didn't click completely, we could make it work and build a life together?

Anyway, thanks for listening, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on relationships and 'love.'

[Castel]

Perhaps there's been a shift in language only (or mostly) and people really do feel that mutual kindness and affection would be affected?

Either way, it's hard to discuss this by contrasting to the past, since y'know, no one wants to live there now.Consider the status of Vorenus' wife and how she feared he'd kill her for adultery. I mean, Late Republican Rome was exciting if you could sneak into a legion but do we really want to take our cues from them? :P

[sologdin]

good to see you, RT. politically mismatched associations are doomed, in my experience, unless everyone involved is subject to profound apatheia. 'falling in love' & 'being in love' = infatuation, eros, which can occur immediately, and probably is extremely common. can likely be terminated as easily.

[sj4iy]

I've been married 10 years (and I knew my husband for 5 years before that), and even still...I can't define my love for him. I respect him, I care about him...but I'm not a romantic person. There's not much of the movie-type love to be found in our relationship, but I don't think that type of love is realistic. Neither my husband nor I are jealous people...if I tell him that I'm going to hang out with a male friend of mine, he has no issue with that. Nor do I have any issues with him going out with a female friend.

My children, on the other hand...it's very different. I fiercely love them, more than anyone else on earth. I would kill for them- I don't think I would do that for anyone else, even my husband.

I do think love is different for everyone, and I do think many people mistake other feelings for love. But it's different for everyone.

[Disturber of Peace]

With very much increased social mobility (mostly considering women's), decrease in obedience towards some old rules, longer lifespans and the greater desire for constant enjoyment displayed through all classes of people, the norm became to only advance those romantic relationship in which "teenage love"/"chemistry" is present as well as some common interests and to use that initial love as a key boost to the foundation of the relationship.

[MinDonner]

Oh noes, we are no longer expected to marry someone for familial/societal/whatever pressure reasons, who we may not even like that much, and then hope that "love" develops over time? What is the world coming to?

This sounds like standard pissy entitlement issues here, where you seem to think you deserve a relationship with the woman of your choice simply by being "nice", and that she needs an objectively-justifiable reason for breaking it off or else she's just being immature. Sorry dude, you don't get to make that decision for her, and knowing what we do about the extremity of some of your political views, I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. Keeping quiet about your views in the long run would just be a form of deception; I know I wouldn't be thrilled to find out I was dating a white supremacist, no matter how well he treated me personally.

[Kelli Fury]

Nobody is obligated to be with you. You can't earn or deserve a relationship with someone. Anyone is entitled to leave at any time, for any reason. That doesn't mean they are naïve, they're just looking for something else. You can't tell other people what to want, it's her life, she gets to choose it.

[sj4iy]

Nobody is obligated to be with you. You can't earn or deserve a relationship with someone. Anyone is entitled to leave at any time, for any reason. That doesn't mean they are naïve, they're just looking for something else. You can't tell other people what to want, it's her life, she gets to choose it.

I personally would not want to be in a relationship where the feeling wasn't mutual. It creates problems and isn't a healthy relationship to be in to start with. I had a friend who did have feelings for me, but I didn't feel the same about him. We would not have made a good couple.

If someone doesn't reciprocate your feelings, then it's time to move on and try to find someone who does instead of trying to find ways to make them love you.

[Eponine]

"Love" in a long-term committed relationship is going to look a lot different when the partners are equal, in aspirations, intelligence, earning power, and decision making (unlike in Rome). Oh, and ability to consent to the marriage. If my husband makes all the money, has final say over spending decisions, his career controls where we live and what kind of people we associate with, what religion we practice, and he gets his intellectual stimulus from all male gatherings, then sure, he needs to treat me well (maybe I should be appreciative if he doesn't beat me), and after that, pretty much my entire burden as far as he's concerned is to find a few reasons for fondness and be kind to him, and presumably I'll love the children he fathers although I don't really have a choice about bearing those children. Sure some women will be more fortunate in being married to someone fairly compatible. And some will be married to someone who hits them and be told that love will grow if they submit more.

Obviously this, good or bad outcomes notwithstanding, is entirely different for couples who both have a voice in finances, jobs, location, and general life choices. So the solution is clearly to find a girlfriend who's willing to put aside any opinions or plans she had to support yours, then she should find it easy to grow to love you.

[Eponine]

Sorry, double post

[Relic]

As a person who has sworn off relationships for a decent amount of time (mostly due to my inability to FIT into a mold that seemed to be expected from me) I have a lot of thoughts on this. From the very definition of the stupid word "love" (whch is...inadequate to say the least) to the conditioning of people to expect a deep 80's movie style romance right off the bat. However i have found this a topic much better discussed over several beers than via message board posts. It's too fluid an issue.

So next time im where ever the hell you live feel free to buy me a beer or three =P

[Theda Baratheon]

LOLOLOL I'm sorry but never am I going to think relationships and marriages of Ancient Rome are better than today PAHAHAHA

Although, I will admit; better Rome than Ancient Athens *shudder* man...being a woman in Ancient Athens fucking SUCKED.

[rocksniffer]

With very much increased social mobility (mostly considering women's), decrease in obedience towards some old rules, longer lifespans and the greater desire for constant enjoyment displayed through all classes of people, the norm became to only advance those romantic relationship in which "teenage love"/"chemistry" is present as well as some common interests and to use that initial love as a key boost to the foundation of the relationship.

ye gods this is the greatest answer to the age old questions of love i have ever heard...now if i can just figure out what the fuck is going on i shall try it out... :bowdown:

LOLOLOL I'm sorry but never am I going to think relationships and marriages of Ancient Rome are better than today PAHAHAHA

Although, I will admit; better Rome than Ancient Athens *shudder* man...being a woman in Ancient Athens fucking SUCKED.

according to the gaggle of ladies that surrounds me...you are right....i commented one night while watching a doc on nat geo or history channel about women's lives during dark ages and i said...stupidly to be sure...well beats caveman days and wow shit hit the fan...i got a lecture from my women's studies major about the systematic treatment of women from day one til now and ancient greeks (who i had always viewed as enlightened ...you know science math etc)...were some of the most worthless sexist c*cksuckers on the planet...

...now i know the rest of the story....

:smoking:

eta: to address topic...sorry RT but i fall into the 'she has a right to decide for herself if she is satisfied with what you could give' category...i am a 63 yr old bachelor because i have never been able to get past...we are great friends, have loads in common but i don't love anyone more than my dog family...only was in teenage love once...when i was a teenager...first love=first sex...sorry ladies i know that sounds like shit...but for this old salty dawg it was true...

..and now even when i meet a beautiful little bird that would be the greatest thing that ever happened to me, i can't be what they need...to set in ways now...but i make a hell of a friend with bennies...or so i been told...

...when i'm not too drunk or off fishing

:smoking:

[RhaegarTar]

Thank you everyone for your comments. As I said in my original post, her decision is probably best for the both of us, as sad as that makes me feel, and as pissed as I am at myself for stepping over the line regarding future-centric talk and losing a few good months of fun with a great person. Though obviously that would make the breakup more difficult.

What fascinates me, and why I started this thread, is the idea that commitment/marriage has so radically changed in the last few centuries. Has it? I'm not really that sure; we get the impression that, among the upper class, marriage was not an institution about love, and you needed to build that (or not) between yourself and your spouse over time. Yet it was not the upper class who had the majority of children. So who knows what was really happening across societies. I just think that holding out for some kind of hollywood disneyfied notion of romantic love is absolute insanity, and it seems that our adoption of this standard is rather unhealthy.

[Salafi Stannis]

I saw something very similar on the Daily Show today, about relationships between liberals and conservatives being doomed.

[LogicalLeopard]

How did we get to the point in time where a teenage version of love is the desired form, and love which develops over the years based on mutual care, affection, kindness, and satisfaction (in a variety of areas, including sexual obviously), is not even considered for many people? Am I just an idiot for hoping that i'd meet a great woman, and even if we didn't click completely, we could make it work and build a life together?

Anyway, thanks for listening, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on relationships and 'love.'

The answer to your question is that since no one needs marriages for survival anymore, people are free to explore great romantic ideals and leave them after the brain chemicals calm down. As many times as they want.

And you're not an idiot. You have stumbled on to something that is the key to great relationships. Love is not about a dreamy feeling you get, at least not true love. That is infatuation. True love, the love that matters, is a commitment to someone else's good, without personal gain. This is the love that endures. Its the love we have for our families, its the love we have for our friends, its the love we have for our children, and it should be the love we have for our spouses. That can also be accompanied by romantic love of some type, but it has to be grounded in a dedication to that persons best interests DESPITE how you feel about them at that moment. That's what you can build on. You're a Christian, read I Corinthians 13: 4-7. Lovely stuff for wedding cards, but there's great substance behind it- it basically says love favors the other person.

Speaking of Christian stuff, I'm sure you've heard the phrase unequally yoked before. Christian or not, its a surefire recipe to prevent a train wreck. Whatever your core beliefs are, if the other person doesn't share them, it will probably collapse. There are James Carvilles and Mary Matalins, but even they must have a common love of country or public service. Something stronger than just Dem/Republican. If you have an issue at the core of your being, and the other person doesn't share it, it won't work, or you'll compromise your beliefs.

And thirdly....don't feel bad about this thing not working. Even if you both didn't have substantial difference it kind of sounds like she's got some issues she needs to work through before she engages in a healthy relationship. Maybe you helped a bit to help her find someone suitable when she's ready to look. May not seem like a consolation, but if you have to have exes, it's better to leave them better than they were on your way to find who is for you. That's love.

[Relic]

I saw something very similar on the Daily Show today, about relationships between liberals and conservatives being doomed.

I know of at least one happy couple that made it work. I was best man at his wedding 6 years ago. The trick is that neither really cares if anyone else disagrees with them, and they have the ability to compromise when it comes to stuff they have to agree on together than might involve politics or ideology.

[Darzin]

I saw something very similar on the Daily Show today, about relationships between liberals and conservatives being doomed.

Yeah politics is just one facet of a relationship as long as someone has well thought out opinions it's fine if we disagree on politics. I would have much more trouble being with someone who is apathetic about politics, because that I cant' understand.

[sj4iy]

I saw something very similar on the Daily Show today, about relationships between liberals and conservatives being doomed.

Eh, my husband is pretty conservative while I'm very liberal. We don't vote the same way at all and are registered with different parties. But that kind of stuff doesn't impact our day to day lives like things like religion (we are both atheists) and how to raise our children (which we agree on, as well) do.

[Tears of Lys]

How did we get to the point in time where a teenage version of love is the desired form, and love which develops over the years based on mutual care, affection, kindness, and satisfaction (in a variety of areas, including sexual obviously), is not even considered for many people? Am I just an idiot for hoping that i'd meet a great woman, and even if we didn't click completely, we could make it work and build a life together?

Anyway, thanks for listening, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on relationships and 'love.'

Are **you** sexually attracted to her? or do you find her to be a logically appropriate choice as a mate and trust that sexual attraction will follow at some future point in time?

My husband and I have just a few things in common, more things NOT in common, actually. He's conservative, I'm liberal. He's a Type A personality, I'm the more laid back type. I could go on and on, but you get the drift.

Yet we've been married for 36 years (!) and are very happy with each other. I chalk this up to the fact that we're very forgiving of each other's foibles AND, more importantly, we are extremely sexually attracted to each other. To us, this was key. To others, with weaker sex drives, a common love of garage sales may be the key to a happy life.

RhaegarTar, I've grown to somewhat "know" you over the years and I've noticed a trend with you and your relationships. You tend to be attracted to women very different from yourself. While this isn't unusual, a lot of us have experienced the "opposites attract" phenomenon, (as in my husband's and my case,) it doesn't seem to be working for you. Have you tried to get to know any women that are more on your same level, physically, intellectually, and spiritually?