Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I have (and have had in the past) male friends that I loved but wasn't
    "in love" with.  I think I can love and care about friends without
    involving all the emotions and feelings that come into play with being
    "in love."  I think they're two completely different things.  If I say
    I love a person, maybe a man, but I'm not in love with him, I mean that
    I love him and care about him in much the same way I do my daughter,
    maybe my parents or my closest female friends.  It doesn't mean that I
    would want to be married to him, live with him, date him exclusively or
    even necessarily have sex with him.
    
    If I say I am in love with a man, it means that I think about him a
    lot, maybe even constantly, that I definitely am sexually interested in
    him, and would probably feel jealous about any other women he dated,
    and that I might be interested in a long term relationship.  Just two
    very different things.  If a wife says she loves her husband but isn't
    in love anymore, I think it means the romance and thrill is gone.  She
    still cares about him, but that her need for romance and probably sex
    is not being met.
    
    Lorna
    

    This questions comes pretty close to home for me these days so here's
    my cut at it.
    
    - You can love many people at one time but only be "in love" with one at
    a time (IMHO). You might love your friends or a special friend,
    parents, children, etc. but not be "in love" with them.
    
    - Also, I think the key part of the phrase is "in love WITH"....you may
    love someone in the romantic sense but if they don't feel the same way,
    how can you be in "anything" WITH them. Being "in love", to me, means
    sharing that feeling WITH the other person, not having it be one sided.
    (This would signal trouble in a marriage I would think).
    
    - As for the emotions, loving someone means enjoying them as a person,
    enjoying spending time with them, but when they aren't around you don't
    feel as though half of you is missing. Being "in love" means finding
    your soul mate, or "other half", feeling such joy in life that you
    can't help but smile all the time. And there's this hard-to-describe
    feeling, deep within you, that is always there, whether the other
    person is there or not, that just makes even the worst days seem a
    little brighter.
    
    - Loving someone doesn't rule out the possibility that you may fall "in
    love" with them at some time in the future. It doesn't always happen,
    but isn't it an awfully good start? 
    
    - The biggest turn-on is making love with someone you're "in love"
    with, no doubt about it. Making love with someone you love can be real
    good, but its never as good as being in love.
    
    - Being "in love" means thinking about long-term commitment as the
    obvious next step (marriage, living together, etc.). It can help get
    thru the rough times because you have a common bond to help you though
    it. I don't believe the bond is there by just loving someone.
    
    - Being "in love" only happens once or twice in a lifetime. Loving
    someone can happen many times.
    
    These are a few of the thoughts I've come up with over the past couple
    months. They are, of course, my opinions only. As you can probably
    guess from my definitions, I think your friend needs to work on her
    marriage. But some people aren't emotionally able to be "in love",
    because they feel too much loss of control, so for them, loving someone
    might be the best they can do. For me, I wouldn't settle for less than
    being in love with whoever I was married to (and I would expect that
    feeling to remain over the years, even if it lessens in intensity), but
    to each their own.
    
    Debbie
    

JMW,

Your friend's statement reminds me of a Joan River's line:

I'm married and I'm happy. I'm not H*A!P*P%Y*  but I'm happy.

 :)  Meigs

    Bein "In-Love" might happen once or twice in a lifetime or NOT AT ALL
    in that lifetime! we only strive to find that sublime feeling a person
    gets when is "in love" with another person...
    By the way, a person can love and be in love with another without
    being corresponded... I mean, a person can love another thru a lifetime
    and not necesarily be "loved back" by that person... I have seen it and
    forever wondered why that devotion, feeling, dedication, went through
    so many years totally unchanged or dimminished!  I couldn't call that
    anything but LOVE or "BEING IN LOVE" even if not loved back.
    Believe me, I have seen true love and...it does EXIST! but only very
    few of the many people I know really have "IT".....
    You can make commitments, you can choose a partner by similarities,
    hobbies, customs, whatever, but you cannot choose to fall "IN LOVE"
    with him/her. 
    I was always told "wait for your turn, it'll come when
    you least expect it, but be ready to grab it because it is a very
    fleeting thing" so when I was little I did just that, I always waited
    to see if I could define, or feel, or notice, anything out of ordinary
    in any boy I met...(was I waiting to see stars in daytime?) I didn't
    know.  I was very joung and so naive...
    When I met "the right one" I looked into his eyes and I saw something
    so honest, so peaceful and so reasuring that right there, right then, I
    KNEW that I could have something very meanningful...
    and I was careful not to commit any mistakes! I was jelous and really
    kept an eye on him! I watched every girl around...it took me 2 years of
    dating, of sharing everything (except intimacy)... to get engaged. I 
    figured that if a person could remain with another without pressures
    for sex or demands of "if you love me prove it" (anyway I don't believe 
    in all that jazz) that person would come for the real human being in
    ME, not for sex! Maybe I was naive, maybe I was old fashioned, but
    whatever I was at the time...it worked beautifully! I wanted to marry 
    "permanently", for ever, and on top of that, be happy...twenty six years
    and 3 kids later still works... who could tell me I was wrong!
    
    Life is not easy, it constantly test us with financial problems, moral
    problems, sicknes... you name it, but when you have a person at your
    side in which you can fully lean to, those problems get solved a lot
    easier... and also those problems increase the faith, the sharing, of
    the couple and the family (if there are kids). I know a extremely happy
    couple, childless, who have been married 42 years and... they are so
    close to each other, so devoted to each other that is not even funny!
    Anybody could feel plenty of jelousy at their sight... and they are in
    their late sixties... that must be LOVE, as looks just could not last
    that long, they're great people but they're not ravishingly handsome,
    so, I am convinced that in their case, it is a very deep and wonderful
    feeling that have kept them so faithful, so happy, and so close,for so 
    long.
    Is that feeling accessible to everybody? I don't know.  Do everybody
    feels that way? I don't know. All I can say is that I know tons of people
    and only a tiny number are lucky enough to be in that state called
    "they are in LOVE WITH each other" thru the years... and I mean YEARS,
    not just a year or two, but decades and decades.
    
    A person can love many, many people, but to be really in love, that is
    much more difficult and rare!
    

    re: .3 
    
        Mike,
          I say only once or twice in a lifetime because, to me, that total
    overwhelming, all-encompassing feeling of being "in love" will only
    happen with one or two people. To me it relates to a depth or feeling
    and commitment that, if shared with many people, only becomes diluted.
    Sometimes I think that people who fall "in love" many times in their
    lives are more in love with being "in love" than they are with the
    other person.
    
    Just my way of looking at it.
    Debbie
      

    Within each one of us is a special place.  It is the place we store the
    perfect love. We lock it, and grow up and in our growing up we
    compromise, we rationalize, find someone who closely resembles our
    ideal, marry and continue the process of life.  But all of us keep
    looking, maybe not as intently as before. But look we do, and look we
    will. And someday, sometimes, not often enough, we find that someone,
    If we are wise enough, we turn away, secure in the knowledge that we
    have in our lifetime, not compromised our perfect love, and that we
    have not defiled that place within us. For only there is
    soulmate/everlasting/ love allowed to grow.
    
    a

    Re: .2
    
    	I disagree that someone who feels unilateral love for another is
    "not in love". In my experience, there is love and two kinds of "in
    Love". These are unrequited "in love" and mutual "in love". These are 
    in addition to "love". Unrequited love, the real heartbreaker, can
    happen many times in one's life. You can't go on without the other
    person, but they don't care. One of those "suffering" experiences that
    Dr. Peck talks about. This topic is also mentioned in .5
    
    	Debbie pointed out (.6) that truly being "in love" occurs only once
    or twice in a lifetime. Maybe, if your're referring to mutual "in
    love". But "one way" or unrequited "in love" occurs frequently. I have
    a friend now, who loves her husband but is "in love" with another man
    who won't give her the time of day. This brings up the question, "Can
    you be in love with two people at once?" 
    
    						Getting deep
    
    							Spuds

    >>>>    who won't give her the time of day. This brings up the question, "Can
    you be in love with two people at once?" 
    
    Yes.
    
    			-dwight

    to .9
    
    Unless there is two split personalities and each "half" loves a
    different one...
    
    real LOVE is whole, undivisible, total, if we are talking about LOVE.
    (there are always time for companionship, relationship, and all those
    ...ships, but please, let us not confuse them with the REAL THING...)
    
    IMO...

    
     re -1
    
    Anyway, being "in love" is so darned all-consuming and exhausting that
    I'd expire trying to do it/live it/be it with two people at once ;-)
    
   'gail

    I agree with .10 & .11, I believe someone can only be "in love" with
    one person at a time, because part of being "in love" is loyalty and
    having that person be the ONLY one you share parts of your life with.
    Otherwise the feelings just get diluted.
    
    Debbie
    

re: 1074.12

>>>I agree with .10 & .11,  I believe someone can only be "in love" with one
person at a time, because part of being "in love" is loyalty and having that
person be the ONLY one you share parts of your life with.

True... it's ONE part.  But that alone doesn't support your "loyalty" to
.10 and .11!

		-dwight

    RE:  1074.10 DUGGAN::MAHONEY

    >>>real LOVE is whole, undivisible, total, if we are talking about LOVE.
    (there are always time for companionship, relationship, and all those
    ...ships, but please, let us not confuse them with the REAL THING...)
    
    You make LOVE sound like something on a blue print, upon first glance.  But
    as one reads on... one realizes there is nothing tangible to your
    reply.  It's like a campaign speech to attract the masses without
    offending or debating the issues at hand.  Tactful, but not
    educational.
    
    			-dwight

Thinking out loud....

The real problem is, what is the "REAL THING" that .10 mentioned? In reality,
it doesn't exist.  And if it did, one could never recognize it, because *love*
is an emotion.  If it's warm and fuzzy, we call it love, (OK Z_MAN, I set that
one up for you!).  ;^)
    
Think about this.... Perhaps it would make more sense to say that when we find
someone that we think we *like* much more than the average person, then we may
call that *love.*  We enjoy being with them, we confide in them, we trust them,
they make us laugh, the sex is great, we help each other out, so we say, "Damn. 
I'm on a roll here.  I'm in love!"  We say that.... until they do something
that alters one or more of those items listed above.

Then we decide, since I have the *REAL THING,* I will marry this person.  We
are both SO IN LOVE!  We both swear before friends, a priest, and God, that
we'll LOVE and cherish each other until death parts us, no matter what.

Then sometime down the road, things happen, things change.  We get smart.  We
start watching Oprah, Married With Children, The World Turns, The Cosbys, ...
we read self-help books, make weekly contributions to our psychiatrist, get
religion, sell Amway, kids come, many unwanted, you realize your boss is a
jerk, the wood panel on your chevy wagon is coming off, the neighbors mongrel
jumps the fence in your back yard and knocks up your prize winning bitch, (I'm
talking about the dog, here). You're taping The Simpsons and the cable engineer
decides to work on your lines, your son's report card has a bunch of vicious
lies on it about your son's behavior, but you know he's a gifted child and just
bored with their inability to educate him.  Your mother-in-law hates you...
always has, always will.   Your mate snores.  The sex has become routine, when
you get it. Your mate never has time for you anymore.  You need a drink, but
the liquor cabinet is empty, the paper boy continues to throw your evening
paper in the sprinkler system, and your Sears Kenmore washer is leaking...
again.

All of a sudden, you decide that you made the biggest mistake of your life. 
You think, "Hmmmm.  I thought I loved _____.  S/he really did a snow job on me! 
I thought _____ really loved me too.... I married a real jerk!  What a fool
I've been!  Mother was right!  --  Well, it often happens this way.  Look
around you!

Next week you see their story on DIVORCE COURT, their picture on the National
Enquirer... headlines, "Wife takes HALF!  Husband take on three jobs."

But, alas, a perfect stranger you recently met, has displayed kindness and
affection for you.  There's smoke... then a spark... and a new flame starts!
Now you *know* you have finally found.....(all together now), ...

                              THE REAL THING !!!

Adult love is no different than puppy love, really.  It can be here today and
gone tomorrow, because its emotions, feelings, wants, desires, expectations,
hopes, and cable TV, all stored up in our hearts, or to be more accurate, in
our minds.  After all, the heart is just a muscle that pumps blood!

Love is like God.  We *make* it what we want to be.  Love is emotion.  People
say God is love.  So God = "emotions" too, I guess.  

I challenge anyone to define the *real thing.*  I know, somebody will say they
have it and have had it for 131 years, but that doesn't prove anything except
that you've found someone that meets the items I mentioned above and you've
been able to be friends throughout the years, etc, etc, .... and you may wind
up on DIVORCE COURT yet!  :^)  I hope not.

Fact:  50% of all marriages in end divorce.
Fact:  Many 'current' marriages have one or both partners having affairs, or
       have had affairs in the past, or are good candidates for affairs.
Fact:  Most of the people described above had the *REAL THING* too!

I'm not against *love.*  I'm not putting it down.  I have someone special that
I love very much.  I have a son that I love very much.  These people bring out
special feelings in me.  But I've also been married before.  I thought I had
the *real thing* too.  So did she.  Today I wouldn't give her air in a jug if
she was suffocating!  :^)  I've been in love with others besides her too,
before, and after, and probably during...  Because I can't define love, who can
say???

Lot's of people lose or divorce their partner, and still find someone to love.
OK, if that can happen, then one could feasibly find two, (or more), people
that could meet his/her needs and therefore be in love with more than one
person at the same time.  It probably won't be the best position to be in, but
I'm not so arrogant as to say it can't happen.  I'll leave that up to the
psychology majors who are happy to define love for us all.  :^)

So go ahead, love experts... explain it to me.  :^)  

			-dwight

    
    
    I agree with .16!!!
    
    Couldn't have said it better!
    
    

    Re: .17
    
    Well, Dwight, it isn't necessary to tell us that you agree with
    yourself.  But take heart, I agree with what you said in .16 as well.
    
    				Steve

    
    Ya know.  The only REAL THING I know I've had goes great with a
    hamburger and fries.....
    
    Know waht I meen, Vern?
    

    Dwight...
    You put it very nicely, but your explanation of everyday life looks
    like...too many events that go wrong and the person gets overwelmed and
    suffocated by them... I don't see that these events were really linked
    to love... it seems to me that the events of everyday life KILLED
    whatever tender feelings were there before.  That can happen any time
    to anybody, and people "in love" go thrugh them as often as you or I,
    but they just don't throw the towel at a sign of trouble, but unite to
    battle those troubles TOGHETER.  That is what I have seen, and those
    difficult times have made the couple to grow closer together, not
    apart.  By quitting a marriage we don't eliminate anything, we just get
    free and ready to start all over again... doing the same things that
    were done before... that EMOTION starts all over with the new person,
    gets suffocated and strangled by everyday pressures and slowly, or
    quickly, dies away... and the pattern starts all over again!
    
    It seem to me that we are so busy coping up with life and every day
    problems that we dedicate precious little time to our loved ones, we
    all stress the need for career, status, survival, whatever, we do put a
    lot of effort into that, but... I'afraid that we neglet a bit the
    person closest to us... in the process. (with results that statistic
    show, marriage-divorce rates...)       
    
    

re:  .21

Don't miss my point by focusing on the events themselves and not seeing my
remarks on *love,* or how love played it's role in the cycle.

I described a common cycle of many people in America, IMO.  I think all these
emotions *are parts* of love.  It is sometimes said, love is patience,
understanding, etc, etc.

People fall in love all the time, and some think that they can define *true
love* or the *real thing* and that once they think they've found it, they have
some kind of special magic.  I described the events, surrounded by the "falling
in love" cycle.  Don't get side-tracked by the events themselves, but key in on
my remarks pertaining to love.

>>>That can happen any time to anybody, and people "in love" go thrugh them as
often as you or I, but they just don't throw the towel at a sign of trouble,
but unite to battle those troubles TOGHETER.  

They often do throw in the towel, AND they had *THE REAL THING* just like you
may think you have.  But what I'm saying is that we love, and then we love
again.  People that claim they have *THE REAL THING* and believe they've got
the ONE and ONLY and can love no other  are living on a cloud cuz there are
others they can love as well, just as much, if not more.  And love can be
ripped by many events in our lives, no matter how real or special we think it
is.  That's why to LOVE is to RISK!

>>>were done before... that EMOTION starts all over with the new person, gets
suffocated and strangled by everyday pressures and slowly, or quickly, dies
away... and the pattern starts all over again!

Not always.  The pattern may or may not repeat.  Many folks stay happily in
love the second go-round.  We're not doomed to repeat history, not really.
    
As the saying goes, there are more FISH in the sea, (watch it Z).  

			-dwight    
    

    Dwuait...
    
    Lucky you that can divide your heart many times...among many loves...
    
    I did only ONCE, when I was barely 18, had huge hcnages in my life,
    lived in many foreign places without knowledge of their languages,
    without friends or family... and survived everything with flying
    colors, I guess that 27 years of happy marriage can vouch for it?
    
    At least, IMHO....

    
    Can anyone help to explain why Liz Taylor has been married eight times?

    re .24, she's rich, good looking and easily bored?
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .25,
    
    Well, she's rich and easily bored, anyway...

    What we need is a new word for 'romantic love' as opposed to
    the 'love' we feel for parents, friends, etc.

    
       > What we need is a new word for 'romantic love' as opposed to
       > the 'love' we feel for parents, friends, etc.
         
    
    
    How about "lust"?
    
    8)

    There are already distinct words, from the Greek I think.  Eros
    and Agape are two -  there are two more which I forget.
    
    			Steve

MikeZ>	Larry, I see we think alike.

		That is a REALLY scary concept.



	k

    re: .31
    
    Mike, thanks for the compliment.  :-)  I'm just sick of all of the
    Elizabeth Taylor hype.  The Enquirer must have half of their staff
    dedicated to writing pointless articles about her.
    
       Later,
         Larry

In-Love?  These days people aren't in love any more.  They are in
"relationships".  Just watched the movie _Romeo and Juliet_ the other day.
So, maybe I should make an exception for the teenagers.  Alright then, 
teenagers in love and adults in "relationships".  
So to speak.

Eugene

    Eugene, you are sooo right!
    People are not in-love anymore...
    the head have taken over and does what the "heart" used to do
    
    end result  "RELATIONSHIPS"

	My heart is passionate when my head says it's okay 8-)

	I think in one's teen years, there's a disconnect between
	the head and the heart.  The connections seems to kick in
	during the mid-20's.  Then you start to think before you let
	your heart leap.  Those falls when we're teenagers teach us
	to be more careful in the future; if we're lucky, some of
	the passion remains.

    And then some of us never grow up.  :-)
    
    Nanci

    People...
    
    The head can not take over what the heart does.  The heart is just a
    blood pumping muscle, a tool to recycle blood throughout the body.
    
    	-dwight

    re-1... obviously a man in a relationship .... ;-)
    
    (Sorry couldn't resist)
    
    Truth though... the reason the heart was believed to control the
    emotions was because of it's reactions to emotional situations (the
    speeding and slowing of the beat) and the feeling when subjected
    to a deep emotional shock such as the lost of a loved one, is for
    the most part centered in the chest.  
    
    Who hasn't experienced the feeling of an opened and sensitive void
    in the center of the chest which feels as if the nerve endings have
    all accumulated around edges of some hole and is sucking in all
    the air around you?  Especially at the initail impact of learning
    of the lose of someone loved.  (Maybe I'm the only person who has
    ever felt it?  If so, it is truly amazing to me that it seems to
    center around the area of the heart). 
    
    So... if you wish to be clinical... yes, it's the head that controls
    all emotion... but, if you choose to be romantic and go with what
    your body feels.... then you sir are very wrong and it is indeed
    the heart which controls emotions.  
    
    If you choose to be clinical it is a multi chambered muscle designed
    to pump blood (not recycle) through the body as the blood is cleaned
    via the Kidneys and replenished with oxygen (supplied by the lungs).
    To allow the replenishment of oxygen in the various tissues of the
    human body.  It is a ugly looking mass of muscle tissue.
    
    If you are romantic however... the heart is the house of nearly
    all emotions and (at least in spirit) is shaped like a v with a
    miss formed m over the top of it.  It not only houses emotion but
    is the source of courage and bravery as well.  
    
    Skip 

    Thank you Skip, for putting a bit of romanticism in your very true
    explanation of the heart... life without those emotions would hardly 
    be worth living... and yes, the heart feels, when the person is
    sensitive... I am sure that there are many souls with just pumping
    blood machines.

    Ya put in a simple line, being sarcastic.... and someone comes along
    and enters several screens, letting their emotions run at the finger
    tips.  How sweet....
    
    				-dwight

    Re-1... 
    
    Yes... and I write poetry too... 
    
    If you didn't expect a reply to your sarcasim you should have kept
    it to yourself.
    
    Cheers
    Skip

    I beg your pardon?  I've yet to see anyone with anything slightly
    resembling my PN.
    
    Skip

    
    Re last few
    
    I've always liked your -pn-, Skip :-)
    I don't think it's typical of anything....
    
    'gail

    Mee too!  I always thought it was pretty original....like you!
    
    Pam

>     <<< Note 1074.45 by WR1FOR::HOGGE_SK "Dragon Slaying...No Waiting!" >>>

>    I beg your pardon?  I've yet to see anyone with anything slightly
>    resembling my PN.
 

	How about a node peanut butter ?!?  :-)
   

	kits

    Okay Kits... but I never knew about the node when I picked my PN...
    Hmmm some of your IS personnel would probably like my PN... 
    
    Thanks for the support 'gale (its still Abby to me though), Pam,
    and Kits... 
    
    I agree 'gale, I don't understand what my PN has to do with what
    I'd written anyhow... also, after re-reading the note I answered
    his with, I have a question about he "dripping emotion from my finger
    tips... in a lengthy reply to his sarcastic remark... how sweet!
    (I paraphrased a bit but I think I've captured the essence of what
    was said). 
    
    I don't believe my reply was as emotional has thought.  I pointed
    out his error in stating that the heart re-cycled the blood (it
    doesn't) agreed with his "scientific/logical" answer, explained
    how the "myth" about the heart controling emotions came about and
    sited some personal examples.  I didn't insult his answer but explained
    why I felt (although I KNOW otherwise, as everyone else does) the
    heart was the center of emotion.  
    
    I would like to point out also that at the time the "myth" originated
    if he had made the statement that the emotions where nothing more
    then chemical responses created by various hormones and glandular
    activity in the body/brain... he would have been ridiculed and thought
    a fool.  The funny thing about the scientific/romantic beliefs of
    our race is that the romantic beliefs are all based on what at one
    time or another was felt to be a scientific belief.  Or what had
    passed as science at the time of origin of the belief.  
    
    Finally as long as we are discussing the relativity of PN's to the
    subject at hand,   I DO believe John Lennon was a very Romantic
    individual which, strongly motivated his outlooks about world peace
    and his song writing abilities.... so, how can one admire a person
    such as JL was and by so cynical at the same time?
    
    Skip

    Touchy/testy aren't we?
    
    Too much caffine?
    
    Skip

    Hmmm... a man of few words.... ah well, so ends another conversation.  
    It leaves to me to conclude that either...
    
    1) A cat got your tongue.
    2) You've seen the error's in "goading" me on the subject.
    3) You're to embarrased to continue the discussion in a resonable
       fashion and prefer to take hit and run "title only" messages.
    4) Your SO has seen your comments about the heart.
    5) You enjoy making cynical remarks and comments but don't like carry 
       through on it.
    
    Finally, I want to apologize for my share of goading in this file...
    I've gotten tired of the "cynical" view about romance and emotions....
    Science is wonderful and I'm as much into it as the next person.  But
    some things just don't belong with it.  The "mystic" qualities of love 
    have baffled scientists as well as theologists.  Why Cleopatra fell for 
    Mark Anthony, Romeo for Juliett, Bonnie for Clyde, no one will be able 
    to accuratly explain... the term "chemistry" has been used to discribe
    it. There was a time when that word wasn't associated with love or
    being in love... but the study of the chemical reactions of the brain 
    when two people are mutually attracted as added it to the vocabulary of 
    passion/emotional love.  
    
    Doesn't matter really other then there are some things that science
    will study to the point of creating drugs to change and people will
    always choose to allow some mystical qualty to be associated with it...
    
    To be honest, I don't think it can be helped.  After all no one can 
    explain some of the matches that have accured through history. Or from 
    personal experience for that matter.  People who have nothing at all in 
    common.  Yet still make meaningful and long lasting (till' death they
    do part) relationships.  
    
    I get tired of reading about all the scientific bro-ha-ha envolved in
    romance/love... and sometimes I wonder if it has anything to do with
    the increased divorce rate... seems that the more scientific study/
    explaination we develope for our feelings, the more we "understand" 
    emotional responses from a "scientific viewpoint" the shorter
    relationships last.  Divorce is more and more common.  At one point 
    when I was a kid it was published that if a marriage succeded the 2
    year mark the odds were in it's favor to last until one of the two 
    died.  As I got older, and more science meddled into romance....
    that number has climbed... now some say 7 years is the average length 
    of a "modern" marriage and if a couple lasts longer then that odds are 
    pretty good they will remain together through a lifetime.  I dunno
    somehow putting science into something like that just makes it cold and 
    seem unimportant to us somehow...  Oh and something else for you to
    consider... the number one complaint in a failed relationship is that 
    the romance has stopped... which includes the mythical/traditional 
    beliefs.  
    
    Skip

   I haven't been in this conference for a very long time and I just started
   reading it again a few days ago, so I haven't read the base note or its
   replies.  I do want to answer Note 1074.53 by WR1FOR::HOGGE_SK, however.

   I'm not sure why anything "mystical" should baffle anybody.  They just
   are.  I know the physical principles behind a waterfall.  I know the
   basic principles of flight.  I've seen many waterfalls, and they've all
   struck me as breathtaking.  Sure, one part of me knows what is happening
   with the waterfall, and I can certainly discuss it in those terms, but
   another part of me is awed just the same.  It's the same with flight. 
   I've flown many planes; I know the explanations that physics offers for
   the reality of flight, I even know a little about the planes themselves. 
   But I am always awed at takeoff and landing.  Those four little engines
   and those wings that don't really look that big are going to carry me and
   all these people, their luggage and everything else high up in the air? 
   Incredible, just incredible! 

   Certainly, one can over-analyze a relationship and reduce it to a mere
   set of interactions that are constantly repeated.  It is also certainly
   true that exploring the interactions, feeling their power and their
   subtleties, the pain and the pleasure of being with someone else, is
   nothing short of magical.  Sometimes discussion brings out more,
   sometimes an action, sometimes nothing at all is required.

   Yes, most of the time I *know* why my partner does a certain thing a
   certain way.  Most often, it is *not* the way I would choose to do it,
   nor for the same reasons.  But, many times I find myself grinning just
   because he is doing it his way.  Sometimes he shakes his head at the way
   I handle things.  But it's my way.

   Sometimes I know that I'm bringing my stuff into our relationship and it
   interacts with his stuff.  I can analyze it and know that I can be better
   and he can be better and that our future interactions will be changed as
   a result.  

   Am I in love?  Yes, very much.  Do I love him?  Yes.  Are they different
   things?  Yes.  I feel free to examine my love, my being in love, his
   love, his being in love, our relationship, the choices we make --  on any
   level with him.  Analyze it, play with it, get rid of it, let it be. 

   Is there is a physical, concrete system that will explain all of this? 
   Maybe there will be, but such explanations can never detract from my
   appreciation of what is.  It is that appreciation that separates me from
   the mere physical/scientific model.

   But I won't give up "science" either.  I love knowing how things work.

   It isn't necessarily science that has destroyed romance, although as I
   mentioned, a person can get so caught up in the analysis that the beauty
   or the ugliness is completely missed.  If a person is only interested in
   the cold, hard, provable facts, then it's no wonder they're cynical. 
   They've lost the wonder, the romance of just being, just appreciating
   things as they are.  They're missing the risk of *not knowing* and some
   of the most beautiful things in life are not knowable, and cannot be
   reduced to provable facts, they can only be experienced.


   							Terza

[1074.53]

>    1) A cat got your tongue.
>    2) You've seen the error's in "goading" me on the subject.
>    3) You're to embarrased to continue the discussion in a resonable
                  ^^^^^^^^^^                                 ^^^^^^^^^
                 (embarrassed)                              (reasonable)

>       fashion and prefer to take hit and run "title only" messages.
>    4) Your SO has seen your comments about the heart.
             ^^
Only a true PN would use this term.

>    5) You enjoy making cynical remarks and comments but don't like carry 
       through on it.                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think I know what you're saying.

Nice try Skippy.  Give it up, son.  You'll only wear yourself out.
    

    Or someone who has made the mistake of calling someone the wrong gender 
    enough times to think that it's safer to use SO then say
    boyfriend/girlfriend.  
    
    Well, enough on this... it's obvious you don't care to discuss your
    side of the coin so....
    
    Onward to other things.
    
    Skip