Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    This is indeed a very interesting topic.  I have been devoting some
    thought to this issue as of late.  There have been many occasions
    on which I have entered a room and have imedeately been attracted to
    one or two women in particular.  Over time I have come to the conclu-
    sion that there really are no discerning similarities between any
    of these women.  I think at this point there is some possible overlap
    with the topic discussing "chemistry".  I have been trying to figure
    out what exactly attracts me to those women in particular, however,
    to no avail.  If it is not something superficial like physical char-
    acteristics and I have not had any personal contact (at that point),
    then what is it?  The only conclusion that I have been able to draw
    is that it must be something more esoteric like "vibes" or something.
    This brings me back to the point in question.  I think that it is
    possible (Love at first sight) but the trick is definitely making
    it work over time!  Falling in love is easy, staying in love requires
    commitment and devotion.  I will, however, add that on the occasions
    that I have persued a relationship with one of "the" women that
    I have previously mentioned, it has usually been a wonderful
    experience.  This just reinforces my knowledge that it really does
    pay to listen closely to that "inner voice"!
    
    							...Martin
    

    It seems to me that LAFS connotes an image of love
    as something that happens, a non-autonomous reaction to
    some stimuli.  I prefer to restrict the word "love" to
    feelings/actions that I choose.  "Attraction" or "Connection"
    are a couple of words that seem to better fit the reaction
    that I have heard referred to as "Love at First Sight".

    
    I beleive in it, but it's never happened to me.  I'm so damned shy
    most of the time that talk at first sight is an achievement.
    
    DFW

    
    I've been afflicted with 'lust at first sight' many times.  It takes
    a while before I can fall in love.  When I met my wife, I knew after
    a couple of hours that it was special.  However it took me a couple
    of weeks to sort out love from my other emotions.
    

    Well, sort of.
    
    I've had the experience once. It was with someone I knew as an
    acquaintance, but a particular event happened and I suddenly *SAW*
    this person for the first time.
          
    I couldn't believe it was happening to me. It was very much like
    tumbling down Alice's rabbit hole. I knew what was going on, but
    I didn't want to/couldn't stop myself, until I hit the ground with
    an "Oh, my god! I just fell in love, didn't I?" 
    
    Actually, first I loved this person and then I fell in love with them,
    but it all happened within a couple hours. It was like finding the
    other half of myself, everything fit together perfectly and completely.
    
    I'm deliriously happy with this person and we're still very much
    in love.
    
    Will it last? I can only say I fervently hope so--for the rest of
    my life.
    
    Tamzen
    

    Ha!

    Falling in Love is NOT LOVE.  
    Falling in Love is Sexual Infatuation.

    

    Excuse me, Michael.
    
    But I don't share that opinion. I agree that frequently what people
    mean when they use the phrase "Falling in love" is mostly sexual
    infatuation. However, I believe that it is *possible* to instantly
    both "Fall in love with" and "to love" another person. And it's
    possible to love someone and then fall in love with them.
    
    Of course, even discussing this is sort of silly. It's such a totally
    subjective thing. I don't see any way to really figure out if we
    mean the same things when we talk about love at first sight.
    
    Tamzen

        I recall an excellent section of Leo Buscaglia's book "Love"
    which discusses love, and falling in love.  My copy of the book
    is packed away so I can't get to it.  Would someone who has the
    book be able to look it up ?  If not I'll get the book from the
    library and post that section here.
    
        My opinion of "love at first sight" is that it is infatuation,
    or atttraction strong enough to move a person to work towards a
    loving relationship.

    I guess I would say i belive in the falling on first sight but love
    I'm not too sure about. I met my ex-wife 2000 miles away from her
    home and we both thought wwee were in love. We made plans to get
    together the next day and at the end we had decided we were right
    for each other. This would have been great but I had fallen for
    the person I THOUGHT she was and she had fallen for someone she
    thought I was. As the story gos we were both wrong and found this
    out too late. We had already purchased a house and were two weeks
    away from the altar when it first hit home. Too late we both
    thought and went thru with it. We filed 18 months later after
    trying hard to find what we thought we had lost in the confusion
    but in reality was never there.
    Over all I would say lust is far closer to what really happens
    and this can be good if the word love dosent enter and cloud
    the issues. 
    Can a strong attraction be defined as love? I say no,unless 
    it is an attraction that has been built and confirmed with
    the true test of time.
    
    
    -jerry
    

    Ok Tamzen, I understand what you mean but I still
    contend that if you see someone for the first
    time [LAFS] then it is ONLY a physical attraction
    and so called chemistry mentioned is nothing
    but hormonal urges to continue the species.

    When you see someone for the first time,
    you have no idea what their history is, nor
    what they are like!  In my case [male] the women
    might even be lesbian and I wouldn't know and
    you are saying this is love?  Or are you.

    

    Infatuation ain't necessarily physical.  It seems to me
    that most of the things I see in others, both attractive
    and repulsive, are parts of me that I am not in touch 
    with.  I experience LAFS when I see an opportunity to
    complete myself by combining myself with another person.
    It feels real nice, but it ain't love and it ain't physical.
    Further, it doesn't usually form the basis for a viable 
    relationship.

    How about the cosmic relationship.  The kind of LAFS where you
    establish an immediate rapport, communicate on a subconcious level,
    and bond instantly.  The other person may not be the "right" age
    or height or coloring.  They may not have a "similar" background
    or education.  They may have some "inconvenient" attachments (children
    or husbands or parents or pets).  But suddenly and quickly you meet
    and look into each other's eyes and start to grin at each other
    and you know that you have loved each other for a thousand lifetimes
    before and probably will forever.  This sort of LAFS certainly doesn't
    "fit into" our carefully planned and ordered future and it may not
    work out in "real life" either.  But the experience is sometimes
    worth the risk, n'est pas?
    
    

    
    
    I, like many others, looked up one day and saw someone I thought
    I couldn't live without.  It turned out to be nothing but a
    very unhealthy obsession.  And I spent almost two years weaning
    myself from it.  On the other hand, the man I married I knew for
    almost 5 years before we hit the altar. I loved him in many 
    different ways during that 5 years but none of the best "loves" 
    were before the 3rd year and the ultimate has occurred since
    we've been married.
    
    Vicki  

I believe in Love at first sight...  But perhaps my definition of love varies
from other people's...  It takes more then love to make a marriage, contrary
to popular myth...

Jim.

    re .6 etc.:

    I shall never believe in the classification of love among the purely
    physical joys (supposing that any such things exist) until I see a
    gourmet sobbing with delight over his favorite dish like a lover
    gasping on a young shoulder.  Of all our games, love's play is the only
    one which threatens to unsettle the soul, and is also the only one in
    which the player has to abandon himself to the body's ecstasy.  ... 
    
    The short and obscene sentence of Poseidonius about the rubbing
    together of two small pieces of flesh, which I have seen you copy in
    your exercise books with the application of a good schoolboy, does no
    more to define the phenomenon of love than the taut cord touched by the
    finger accounts for the infinite miracle of sounds. Such a dictum is
    less an insult to pleasure than to the flesh itself, that amazing
    instrument of muscles, blood, and skin, that red-tinged cloud whose
    lightning is the soul. 
    
	From "Memoirs of Hadrian"
	Marguerite Yourcenar

    I believe in lafs, it happens to me often.  Many a man that I have
    loved at first sight are now or have been friends.  Its not the
    whole person, its something about them, but its a love all the same.
    I don't take a lsfs experience as the grounds for a forever love
    affair, but rather as an attraction to the man to makes him my 
    friend.  Make sense??
    
    vivian

          LAFS ???

          I suppose it could happen.  Kind of  like  winning  the
     mega-bucks.   You  have  one  chance  in  1  million to spot
     someone you might feel that way about.  Then also the  other
     would  have  to  feel  the  same, so  there's 1 in a million
     million.  Sorry but I'll take my chances on the lottery.

     At least you can always count on the SUN.

     Lee

As Stephen King would say, "Do you love?"  Can you?  Then you
can probably do it at first "sight" or first meeting or whatever.
The human mind seems to have a natural ability to complete unfinished
sentences, like when I look at a crossword puzzle and fill in a twelve
letter word based on two known letters.  So we can probably recognize
a kindred spirit at times based on what would normally be considered
very sketchy information.

BUT, is this "True Love" or "Forever Love"?  (You pick the name for
this concept, which probably came into existence no earlier than the
late Middle Ages, and probably has only really taken hold of the
popular imagination (i.e., as in becoming a major motif in advertising)
since the latter part of the 19th century.)  Well, I doubt it.  The
percentage of "lifelong" relationships that have remained 19th-century
romantic is probably pretty small, and the percentage of that small
percentage that happened "at first sight" is probably miniscule.

So I'll vote for love (and not necessarily sexual love) at first sight.
I just have my doubts about it being any more "privileged" than a love
that takes much more time and effort to grow into its fulfillment.  And
I have equal doubts about whether one type or the other is meant to
last "forever"...other than in TV commercials.

    "One cannot abide by an emotional decision one's whole life"
    
                                       Elizabeth Bowen
                                       English novelist
    
    
    
    I tend to agree with those who say that "love at first sight" is
    really "lust at first sight" or maybe strong attraction or like
    at first sight.  I might meet a stranger that I am strongly attracted
    to, enjoy talking to and have strong feelings about seeing again,
    but I don't think that I would instantly begin loving this person
    in the sense that I think of love when I think of my daughter or
    my mother or even, at one time, my ex-husband (in the hey-day of
    our marriage).  Perhaps this is infatuation at first sight.  I think
    that sometimes people meet someone that they become infatuated with
    in the first 2 or 3 hours of meeting, the relationship continues,
    and eventually turns into real love.  I think that sometimes these
    people look back and, remembering the strong attraction they felt
    from the beginning, think that what happened is "love at first sight".
    What really happended is attraction at first sight that later, over
    time, turned to love.
    
    Lorna
    

    It's very easy to view love at first sight as a silly, emotional,
    ephemeral thing. 

    Love at first sight is a mystical experience. Much has been written
    about mystical experiences of all varieties, and there is a common
    thread that all mystical experiences have: Those who haven't had one
    pooh-pooh them. Those who have had them can't really describe them, and
    often think that they're deluding themselves when those who haven't
    sniff and demand explanation. 

    Let me assure you, it does exist. You're not going to believe it unless
    it happens to you, but it does. If you haven't had it happen to you,
    you're not going to believe it. I know I didn't up until the time it
    happened to me. 

    It wasn't literally "first sight." I didn't realize it had happened
    until three or four days afterwards. I was thinking to myself, "What's
    *wrong* with me, I must be sick or something. I can't eat, I can't
    sleep, I have this vague feeling of nausea, I feel all wound up. It's
    like I ate about two pounds of chocolate all at once!" At the thought
    of chocolate, it hit me and I stared out into space open-mouthed and
    thought, "Oh *no!* I recognize these symptoms -- I've read about them
    -- I'm in love! But, but, I didn't *want* to fall in love!" Silly me.
    Of course I didn't want to. It never happens when you want it to. It
    only happens when you're not looking. Just like other mystical
    experiences, like enlightenment in Zen koans. 

    Afterwards, having gone over what happened, I could tell I was doomed
    from the moment I looked into her eyes. Like someone so wounded that he
    couldn't feel anything, I didn't realize how badly I had been smitten
    until later. 

    There are people in this conference who have sniffed that it's lust.
    Yup, you're right. It's lust. And Beethoven string quartets are only
    horsehair rubbing over steel wires. The Beatles were only four
    under-educated, working class chaps from a port city. If you choose to
    look at it that way, that's all there is. 

    To me, that's being a bit of a reductionist and a bit of a Philistine
    not to mention an indication that you're jealous. But what do I know?
    I'm only in lust. 

    There those who huff, "well, it takes more than love to make a
    long-term relationship." Pardon me, but did we ever say that it didn't?
    This sort of remark is obvious and unnecessary. It is also smug,
    purposeless, jaundiced and sad. It's very much like lecturing a new
    mother about the aftermath of nuclear war. 

    It short, all I can say is yes, love at first sight exists, despite
    what others will tell you. And don't worry; if you're fortunate enough
    to have it happen to you, you'll know it. 

	Jon

Pardon me Jon, ...

I agree with most of what you said, and I agree that Love at First Sight exists
(from experience :-)), but

"There those who huff, "well, it takes more than love to make a long-term
relationship." Pardon me, but did we ever say that it didn't? This sort of
remark is obvious and unnecessary."

is uncalled for, and it *is* necessary to say that it takes more then love
to make a long term relationship!  Look at all the fools who want to rush
out and get married when they fall in love!

Jim.

    Re: -.22
    Bravo Jon, bravo!!
    Beautifully said and ringing soundly with truth.

    I think the approach of Valentine's Day is getting to you people!
    
    You all sound so romantic.  Why isn't life really like this?
    
    Lorna
    

    It is Lorna :-)  It can be if you let it, and if fate, destiny and
    karma work their magic just once for you.  It doesn't happen often
    and you can't plan on it, but when it happens.......look out! :-)

    Since I started this, I'll throw in my two cents worth.
    
    I agree completely with Jon Callas on this one.  LAFS (an amusing
    acronym!) is a trigger that allows a deeper relationship to unfold.
    The feeling is indeed overwhelming - loss of sleep, appetite, the
    works.  After a while, it settles down to a nice, warm glow.  But
    only if you allow yourself to "fan the flames", as it were.
    
    I don't believe in meeting someone and agreeing to marry them the
    same weekend, for example, as one used to see on "The Love Boat".
    But the initial attraction, assuming it is mutual (and it often
    is in these cases), can definitely be the key to a long-lasting
    and fulfilling relationship.
    
    Let me also say that I am not arguing that a mutually satisfying
    relationship can't develop slowly - certainly it can.  But when
    LAFS happens, and happen it does, you've got a good start on
    happiness - as long as you then take the time to fill in the
    friendship that is equally important.
    
    					Steve

    re .28:
    
    Oh, my goodness, you're right, Valentine's is *Saturday*!!! Oh, jeez,
    the florist's probably sold out, too. Drat! 
    
    	Jon

    Lorna, life really is like this. At least, mine is. /.[

    re .28
    
    Hi Lorna,
    
    There is a bit by Dororthy Parker in the Globe Calendar section
    tonight for those who wish Valentines day would go away....
    
    Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song  
    A medly of extemporanea:
    And love is a thing that can never go wrong:
    And I am Marie of Roumania
    
    The article goes on to list sources of anti Valentines
    such as:
    
    Stay out of my life, and It's been lovely but I have to scream now,
    
    for people who have been "dumped on by the love of their life" 
    
    

    re .31
    Jon, 
    
    I went flower shopping yesterday and they still had *lots* of
    lovely things. (and boy did I enjoy how surprised my husband was
    when *he* got flowers delivered to him at work.
    
    Bonie

    Thanks.
    
    I was thinking of seeing if "Dialogues of the Carmelites" is out on CD.
    The subject matter *is* appropriate... 
    
    	Jon

    re .34
    
    I'm not sure I understand the connection?

    Re: .22 & .26--Good for you, Jon!!  Well said.
    
    I always BELIEVED in love at first sight, and sometimes I really
    thought it might have actually happened to me--BUT the big difference
    is when it DOES happen.  (well, that's pretty clear, isn't it?)
    When it happened to me, I thought so that's where all those old
    hackneyed sayings come from ; "it was like a bolt from the blue,"
    and "love is a many-splendored thing", "walking with your head in
    the clouds", etc. ,etc.  But it IS like all those things, and the
    best part is that it happens when you aren't looking.  When the
    right person for you comes along (oh no, I'm speaking in cliches,
    and I can't stop!!), you realize all that was missing before.  I
    am, of course, speaking from experience.  To the person who talked
    about someone you love kicking you in the pants, I've had that happen,
    too.  Let's add to the old sayings that love is truly blind!  
    
    I even find myself saying, "THIS time it's right," then laughing
    because it sounds so typical.  This relationship is wonderful, and
    everything seems to work.  (I really can't find anything wrong with
    him!!)  You're right, Jon--LAFS is for real, and until it happens
    to you, you can laugh all you want.   
    
    Still in love/lust/friendship/companionship,
    
    Jane

    I, too, believe in love at first sight, using the "bolt from the
    bolt" type of definition others have given in this file.
    
    But English is funny language, and it's too bad that we use 
    the same word to describe LAFS and the kinds of emotions
    involved in an evolving long-term relationship.  

    Anyone willing to coin a new word for either situation?
    
    Gloria
    

    I believe that a large part of a lasting bond between two people is
    a deep spiritual empathy between them. Not the only part, but a large
    part.
    
    Since love - to me - refers to the total relationship, and requires
    that you know each other. I do not believe in "love at first sight".
    
    However, from personal experience I do believe in "empathy at first
    sight" -- you can call it chemistry if you like, though I don't really
    like that term. 
    
    I also believe that this empathy can suddenly coalesce between two people
    who have been acquaintances for a while: since the spirits have touched
    you both see each other through new eyes, and hence it is as if you
    see each other for the first time.
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    
    Love at first sight -  yes.  Though perhaps it might be better
    said as 'pair bonding at first sight.'  
    
    For myself, it is a rejoining of soul mates.  But people usually
    look at me strange when I say that, so I have found less
    philosophically loaded terms to be more useful in day to day
    communication.
    
    alison
    

    I waited three whole days before telling him I loved him.  We were
    incredibly happy.  After all, when I met him I was looking for a
    job, getting over a rape (p****ed off at every man who smiled at
    me...), living in a commune with TOO many people, and just feeling
    lousy.  I met Dom, he moved in the next week, we were one of those
    "cute" couples in love, we even lived in his parents' house for
    a couple months, I got an interview at DEC the week I met him, and
    started work two weeks later in a GREAT job, and kept wondering
    HOW my life went from SO BAD to SO GOOD.
    
    It couldn't work (he was a freshman in college which is very different
    from someone long out, he is filthy rich and my parents still use
    food stamps, he's arty and I'm a pragmatic engineer type, mostly
    he was too young and even more messed up than me), but I went with
    it as long as I could.  The break-up (I was the dumpee) was horrible
    and drawn out, but never to have loved him?  how sad...
    
    
    Lee

I have to agree with those who believe in the existence of LAFS.  I had an
experience _very_ similar to that describe in .22, except it took me about
3 or 4 hours to realize it.  But lust?  Not for me.  I couldn't take my
eyes off her eyes the whole evening, and eating was nearly impossible!  If
you'd asked me the next day what she looked like, I probaby would have said
"Well, she has blue eyes, and I think blondish hair".  As for the rest, I
didn't have a clue!  ( Reminiscent of the song "Eyes Without a Face". )


Even without that experience, though, I'd still vote for it.  While I'll admit
to being skeptical beforehand, I didn't actively disbelieve it either.  But I
guess the point is, how many times have people said, "That's not possible" --
only to have someone else prove them wrong?  Even if it is impossible for you,
that doesn't mean it's impossible for someone else.


Gotta keep an open mind...


Brian

    I have a friend that has been divorced for less than a year and
    about 3 months ago she signed up with a video dating service in
    Mt.View.  She is now engaged to be married in July to the man she
    met on her second date, and she had only known him about 1 1/2months
    before he proposed.  I want to be happy for her, but it just seems
    like such a short time for her to really know what she wants.  Can
    there really be situations in this day and age where it is "love
    at first sight??".
    
    She tells me that they are a perfect match and that she is very
    happy!!  
    
    I guess what I would like to know from some of you reading this
    is, what is a reasonable courtship??  Can people really put a time
    on what is and isn't right??
    
    Your input is appreciated, and thank-you!!
    
    K :*)

    Sure, I think it's possible.  At least they've set the date at a
    reasonable point in the future - aren't they waiting a year from
    when they met?  Sounds reasonable to me.  The only thing that makes
    me wonder is that she was divorced for less than a year.  From
    my experience, it seems like it's good to remain unattached for
    a while longer, but this could very well be what's right for her.
    Sometimes you just meet the person you know you want to spend the
    rest of your life with.  When it's that right, it doesn't take
    long to figure it out.  And with that sort of commitment, they
    can iron out the rough spots.
    
    Paula

    Just so people don't get confused - replies .44 and .45 were moved
    from a separate topic to this one.
    
    				Steve

    re: .44
    
    That's a hard one to call.  Personally, I don't believe in "love
    at first sight" - for *me*.  I've never had it happen and sincerely
    doubt that it ever will.
    
    As for others, well.........  depends on them.
    
    I have a friend named Teri that has been married for over seventeen
    years.  She has two beautiful daughters and the marriage is as strong
    as a steel girder.
    
    She met Roger on a Friday.  On Saturday they were engaged.  Monday
    they eloped.  She was seventeen, he was twenty one.
    
    I wouldn't have done it, but I'm impressed by this exception!
    
    Carol
    

    Sigh....  I wanted to avoid this subject, but I may as well admit
    WHY I started this note over a year and a half ago.
    
    At the time, I had just fallen in "love at first sight".  It was
    wonderful, it was exciting.  I had never known anything like it
    before.  We had met at a party at a friend's house, and were
    inseparable from the moment our eyes met.  Within the week, we
    were talking about marriage.  Within two months, we were engaged
    and planned to be married about eight months later. 
    
    This note was written about two weeks into the relationship.
    
    So what happened?  Miles.  2700 of them.  I lived in New Hampshire,
    she in California.  No problem, she said - she was already thinking
    of moving to New England.  So we had it all planned that she would
    move in the summer.  But when the time came, she got cold feet.
    Not to our relationship, but to moving - she couldn't do it - and
    didn't know if she ever could.
    
    I couldn't move to California - not without leaving my son behind -
    something I was NOT about to do.  She wanted me to wait - for an
    indefinite time.  I couldn't.  So with tears in our eyes, she
    gave me back my ring.
    
    Looking back on it, we were insane.  By the time of our engagement,
    we had actually been in each other's company a total of about
    fourteen days.  The rest was phone calls and letters - lots of both.
    To this day I have doubts we would have made it in the long term,
    but I'll never know.  I still love her.  I always will.
    
    The experience has changed me.  Never again will I enter into
    a long-distance relationship (see other notes on THAT subject!)
    And I will be very hesitant about making early commitments before
    actually getting to KNOW a woman as a good friend.
    
    I didn't learn these lessons perfectly - in a later relationship I
    again tried to commit to too much too soon, and I got hurt again.
    Next time for sure?
    
    
    What does this say about the situation in .44?  I dunno - you can
    point to a million differences in detail from my own story.  But
    I would be scared - making a commitment of a lifetime together
    when you've only known the other person for a few weeks is extremely
    risky.  Yes, it CAN work out ok, and it sometimes does.  But
    it often doesn't. 
    
    That they are waiting a while to actually marry helps - it prevents
    them from making the situation much harder to back out of too soon.
    If this were a couple I knew, I'd give them my support, but would
    try to make sure they knew what they were really getting into.
    
    I believe in marriage and in lifetime commitment - that's what I
    go into it believing.  I understand now that it doesn't always
    work out the way you would like it to, but the dedication is there
    from the start.  If this couple believes similarly, they may well
    be fine.  And if they aren't, there's not an awful lot you can do
    about it without alienating them from you.
    
    
    I can't believe I'm actually writing this....  but if it helps someone,
    it's worth it.
    
    					Steve

    re: .48
    
    At the risk of being labelled a "typical "B" code" my friends
    in Materials, thanks for sharing that one, Steve; in my book
    it takes major guts to put personal pain like that out on the
    table for all to see, particularly when there's no real way
    of knowing everyone who makes up that "all".
    
    
    Steve
    

    re: LAFS
    
    I personally wouldn't have believed it possible. . .
    
    . . .until I laid eyes for the first time on my '73 red-sunburst
    Gibson Les Paul custom. . .happy sigh!
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  An' no freakin' comments from the peanut gallery (yeah, 
    especially you MUSIC noters - you  know who you are) about "Les 
    Pauls made before the Civil War just aren't *real* Les Pauls".
    
    She's mine (and I'm hers) and it was, is, and ever shall be love
    at first sight.
    
    And yeah, I have a Strat' too (yeah, post-CBS, so what?); I never
    said I was monogomous. . .
    
    Steve (savin' my nickels & dimes for that Robin custom. . .)

    re: .44-.48
    
    i am normally an optimist...i easily over look the dark side of
    things and remember only the good....
    
    but, i can't say that holds true with relationships...  i am afraid
    that i view short term/high intensity relationships with a critical
    eye.  both on myself (and my feelings), and on the partner.  
    
    steve, (.48) i admire you for your note.  it says much of what i
    would like to say...so i won't repeat you... 
    
    in 1963 i married a woman i'd known for just 2 months.  our marriage
    was terrible...we divorced, remarried, fought, i left (several times),
    sought counselling.... and i have wonderful children to show for
    it... nothing else.  the marriage ended a few of months ago...
    at long last.
    
    after that i met a really nice woman.  again, i got involved in
    a fast, furious relationship (this time a long distance one).  i
    was unabel to control *me*!!  and i ended that relationship, very
    badly, and people got hurt.
    
    now, i am trying to protect myself from doing that again... i know
    i will succeed, but i *don't* know if people won't get hurt in the
    process.  
    
    so, my vote is against fast involvements.  we barely have time to
    know ourselves, much less how another feels.  it's risky business,
    at best.
    
    tony who_doesn't_want_to_*stay*_single_but_is_very_nervous_about_it
    

    
    My advise is to find a job that will allow you to fill your 
    plate, exist only for the next code freeze or trade show, 
    and recognize that your chances of finding "true love" 
    approximate those of winning the lottery. Its a line they
    use to sell diamonds, thats all. 
    
     

    re .52
    Married your job huh? That's one way to avoid taking the risk involved
    with people relationships. 
    
    I disagree that "true love" is a line used to sell diamonds. I also
    think that the true love concept is some what of an illusion, as
    it connotes a perfect love situation, such as found in a fairy tale.
    
    You don't "find" true love, it develops. It needs to be nurtured
    and developed between two people. People that think they will *find*
    it are the ones disillusioned because their search is never ending.
    
    I don't believe in love at first sight. I believe you can develop
    an almost instant attraction to someone and love may evolve from
    that. But I think in a short term intense relationship, other
    emotions are carrying the relationship. The elements that make up the 
    reasons you are in love with someone take time to build up, ie feelings
    such as caring and trust. I don't believe it is possible for them 
    to spontaniously exist. 

    Gail

The following topic has been contributed by a member of our community who
wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by mail, please
send your message to QUARK::HR_MODERATOR, specifying the relevant note number.

				





I too, fell in love with someone very quickly, over the net.  I thought
our story would be different from some other long distance romances I had
heard and read about.  

Some 2,000 separated us.  I fell in love fast, found myself flying to meet
her and be with her... We had so much to share, so much in common, while
in other ways, quite different.  

I finally got her a job in my area, after personnel told me it would never
happen.  She moved here and we were so proud at having overcome so many
obstacles.  We were on our way....

But this area got to be too much for her.  She grew up in one place, and
missed her friends and family and her familiar surroundings.  I could not
compete with all of that.  She wanted me to move back with her.  I could
not, for like Steve, I too have a beautiful son here, and I also refuse
to leave him without his daddy.  So now it's finished.

It hurt reading Steve's note, because it was so much like mine.  I still
love her and I will always keep a place for her in my heart.  I'll never
forget all of the beautiful and fun times we had together, and all the love
we've shared.  Never.  No matter what.

I don't know if I'll ever get engaged again or not.  I don't think so.
I have had a problem of falling in love too fast in the past.  I hope I
have learned something this time.  

I would also caution anyone from *running* with a relationship, until there
have been many, many walks, together first.... 

    
    	RE: .50
    
    	True love indeed, my '71 blue-top Gibson Les Paul Deluxe.
    
    	Aren't Les Paul's great Steve?
    
    	G_B

    re: .55
    
    Amen, George!  Better still, "society" will actually *pay*
    me for blatant (borderline lewd?) public displays of my 
    lust, er, love - and after two years away thus exposing 
    myself (i.e. gigging), the sap runneth wpa high. . .
    
    Now if I could just do something about this (oh, the shame)
    bizarre attraction I have towards women. . .
    
    Steve (a.k.a. Abbie Normal)
    

                                                     
    re .53
    
    Risk is putting it all on the line to someone and
    have 'em say "huh?"... 
    
    We aren't fools. We learn after a few times that 
    not all of us were designed to be applealing.
    

       I can see in myself the fear of exactly what a few of these notes
       refered to. After my separation from someone I still love,
       regardless of what happened between us, I'm afraid of starting any
       relationship. I fear I'll "fall in love" with the first man that
       even acts like he wants me and that I'll get hurt again. The sad
       part is that at the same time I want that mad,crazy I'll follow
       you anywhere, passion that LAFS implies.

       I don't want to be an "Elinor Rigby" in a world of couples and
       LAFS seems like it'd be so easy. No working at a relationship, no
       violent disgreements, just blind accepting love. That's what we
       really want out of it I think. To be able to pretend that only this
       mad passion matters and that little things like "I can't stand it
       when you..." won't crop up. When I met Ray I was 22 and I dropped
       everything in my life to follow him. Now, I'm 38 and I find it
       hard to envision someone I'd give up my current life completely
       for by moving across country or selling my horse or quiting my
       job. And yet, I sometimes still wish it would happen. liesl

    LAFS is an easy way to get a relationship started.  You ignore things
    about the other person which bother you.  After all, how important
    are those things in the "big picture"?  If person says that there
    are things about you that s/he doesn't like then you change, since
    those things probably aren't important, anyway.  Personally, I think
    its a matter of how much of yourself are you willing to give and
    for how long to give the relationship a chance to get going on its
    own, as opposed to the starry eyed reasons.
    
    An example might be in Richard Bach's "Bridge Across Forever" when
    Richard doesn't criticize Leslie for lighting up a cigarette (even
    though he *hates* anyone who smokes).  And later on when she asks if
    she can smoke he says that he'd prefer if she didn't and she replies
    something like, "Well, I was going to quit anyway."
    
    Mind you, I don't believe in LAFS; I think its more like infatuation
    at first sight which can then mature into something more later.
    I occasionally get infatuated with people in a LAFS manner, but
    only believe it if it lasts more than 4-5 weeks.  Its sure fun while
    it lasts, though.

    in a phrase...love at first sight sucks.  
    
    since i was a teenager, i have fallen hard, and fast.  and, i think
    that every time i fell in lust...er' excuse me...love (or maybe
    it was infatuation) i hurt me, or her...or worse, both of us.  
    
    so, nobody is *making* me feel the way i do.  maybe i just don't
    know, or understand what *true love* is!  sometimes i think that
    must be the case.
    
    so, somebody tell me...how do i keep me from hurting me (and her)
    by falling in infatuation/love/lust so damn soon in any relationship.
    (it's not that i fall that way for everybody...just that *somebody*...)
    but it *still* winds up hurting.  badly.
    
    tony

    re: -1
    
    I know the feeling...I jump right in...head first but not using
    my head and sometimes I get hurt.  I just had this conversation
    tonight...thinking I should change this method, ya know, be
    logical about it.  But my friend disagreed...  He said he is
    willing to take the risk.  He's not afraid to get hurt; he only
    worries about hurting the other person.  Better to have loved
    and lost then never to have loved at all.
    
    So I felt better and suppose I will spend the rest of my single
    life falling in lust/love/infatuation too quickly.  'cause one
    of these times it will be worth it.  Besides, it's practice
    for the *real* thing!
    
    	sherry
    

    sometimes_it_hurts_worse_to_suppress_feelings_that_need_to_be_experienced
    

    If its only infatuation, then how long does it last??

    I'm not sure this will help in "going slower", but when I gave
    up "looking for love" and started concentrating on finding
    good friends, things changed quite a bit.  Funny thing - after
    more than a year of building an outstanding friendship, with
    a wonderful person, we discovered that we were very much in love.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  btw, the "discovery" was, uh, explosive enough to rival
    	  the fireworks of any LAFS experience I've ever known.
    

    
>>    If its only infatuation, then how long does it last??

    I'd like to think that a little bit of infatuation is good between
    two people in the long run. 
    
    But I think the infatuation we're thinking of fades as a relationship 
    develops.  Infatuation is gone when the real world steps between 
    two people. Reality will kill a good infatuation.
    
    I guess it all depends on what you see as reality, and when you
    see it.
    
    Gail

    the "infatuation" we are discussing has also been called limerance.
     It's that lovely, new, breathless feeling that your whole world
    is spilling over with sunshine, that hand-holding gut-wrenching
    liquid-honey-hearted urge to throw everything away just to look
    into that other person's eyes.
    
    It generally (in my experience) starts to fade at about 6 months
    (if that long), when the shine wears off the chandelier.  If it's
    really a "relationship that can last" (generally through mutual
    dedication and persistence), it will make it past the two-year-mark,
    which is the cutoff point for all my previous relationships (well,
    one-and-a-half to two-years).

    -Jody
    

     re: .67
    
    >>> It's that lovely, new, breathless feeling that your whole world
    >>>is spilling over with sunshine, that hand-holding gut-wrenching
    >>>liquid-honey-hearted urge to throw everything away just to look
    >>>into that other person's eyes.
    
     Judy,
    
        That's beautiful, especially the "liquid-honey-hearted" part.
     Too bad it doesn't last longer than 1 and a half to 2 years.
    
     - Larry

>>>    This depends, of course, on how analytical you are ...  Some people
>>>    will allow the euphoric feeling to last longer while "smarter" or
>>>    "more mature" people start questioning after maybe 4 to 6 weeks.
    
      I guess this could also be interpreted to mean "more cynical" as
    well.  Since I never last more than 4 weeks in that "infatuation"
    stage, by induction I must be both mature and smart.  And mom
    said I never would be...
    
    ;^)

    I knew a couple years ago that met and married in just 15 days.
    And the marriage lasted for 12 years until the "'til death do us 
    part" clause took effect.  I guess it works... sometimes.
    

    	After reading all the concerns people brought up about falling
    	in love too fast, I'm here to say that it's possible to fall
    	for/with the same person both fast *and* slowly (without making
    	yourself crazy from the sudden down-shift in the relationship
    	to a more reasonable speed.)  :)
    
    	My significant other and I met over the net (egads!) but we
    	deliberately refrained from getting romantic with each other
    	until a year later (when he moved out here to make a career
    	move he had been considering for some time.)
    
    	A couple of months after he moved here, we got to the business
    	of pursuing our interest in each other (and things took off
    	like a house on fire between us.)  Things went so well, so fast,
    	that it worried us (for many of the same reasons that other
    	people in this topic have mentioned about the dangers of falling
    	too quickly.)
    
    	So we slowed things way down.  We saw each other on a more
    	planned basis, had many fun evenings together, talked a lot,
    	and just generally spent months getting to know each other
    	slowly (during which time we fell for each other all over
    	again, in a way that DOESN'T worry us!)  :-)
    
    	Now, things are wonderful!  We feel very lucky about it because
    	we still have the lovely romance (but are also the absolute
    	*best* of friends at the same time.)
    
    	And it just keeps getting better every day.
    
    	Love really is grand, folks.  Fast, slow (whatever way it happens
    	for ya.)  :-)

    unfortunately, due to how we are brainwashed into desiring 
    "true love for ever and ever" most people seek it (true love) so
    desperately that they are perfectly capable of fooling themselves...
    
    i can sight cases where people were sending notes via mail and
    "fell in love" and met and were disapointed...
    or met and still "fell in love" and decided to marry and then
    hated each other 6 months later....
    
    people tend to WANT to believe that their is a MR or MS right
    out there and when they find someone even remotely close they
    also tend to go overboard....
    
    on my planet the myths about "true love forever" have been
    discarded and *legalities regarding marriage* are a think
    of the long dead past....people fall in love and stay together
    for as long as they are happy and when the relationship is over
    they, happily in a sad way, move on to other things...
    most people don't fool themselves about "love forever" nor
    do they really care how long love lasts as long as they are
    happy with their lives...
    one of the problems with deluding ourselves with "finding mr/ms
    right", along with mistaking mr/ms not-so-right for mr/ms right,
    is that, when it ends, we're all hurt and angry and nuerotic about
    it....
    
    on my planet neuroticness (good word!) is down by 99% and psychotherapists
    now have to work for a living.....:-)

    if poeple love each other they should enjoy their relationship and
    just not even worry about wether it lasts forever....

    re .-1
    
    rik, I'll accept that some love affairs don't last forever.
    But can you accept that some do? I'm sure there are people
    in HR (myself included) that are happy being with who they're
    with and are sure they'll be happy as long as they're both
    alive. I was definately NOT seeking true love when I met my
    wife. In fact, we were both in grad school in an extrememly
    demanding program and a relationship was the last thing either
    of us was looking for. But it happened. It's not as black and
    white as you always paint it.
    
    -dave (happily married and intends to stay that way)

    re: .73
    
    Rik,
    
       Like the replier in .74, I also tend to have an "idealist" view
    of marriage.  Maybe my view is strange but I think the "till death
    do us part" has some meaning.  Marriage should not be a prerequisite
    for the "true goal" of getting divorced.  A first marriage should not
    be considered a "trial" for a second or third.  I'll agree with you
    that ANYONE and I mean ANYONE not wanting to make a LIFE-LONG
    commitment should NOT get married.
    
       I'm tired of seeing marriage belittled by people (not just you)
    like Liz Taylor, Johnny Carson and a slew of others that almost
    look forward to divorce.  Can you laugh about getting married three,
    four, five times?  I guess so, people tend to, but the laughter
    should cover something that I (my opinion) feel is a definite problem.
    
       Now before I get blasted, I realize that people are human
    (thank God) and make mistakes.  Should someone stay in an abusive
    or non-loving marriage because of a weeding oath?  Of course not.
    I also realize that many (most) divorced persons are not happy about
    what happened nor are they "proud".  Unfortunately, our society
    is leaning towards showing that a first (and only) marriage is a
    near impossibility and something that should not even be attempted.
    The first sign of disagreement...get out of the marriage.  That's
    not the way it works, nor is it a healthy attitude about relationships
    in general. 
     
       Like I've mentioned in other notes, is marriage the end-all of human
    existence?  Of course not, but let's not belittle those people that
    through blood, sweat and tears makes marriages work or try very
    hard to do so.  These are the people that take the marriage vows
    seriously, these are the people that we should celebrate.
    
       Enough said.
    
       - Larry (who's not married yet and will probably find marriage a
                painful yet overjoyous experience)
                                                            
                              

	 Rik,

	 yes, you are entitled to you view on marriage however
	 pessimistic (oops...realistic) it is...  I, too, believe that
	 marriage is "til death do we part"... Maybe that is why I'm
	 not married yet.

	 I (JUST MY OPINION) feel that those people that look at
	 marriage as "just a relationship for a while" aren't serious
	 enough about the commitment involved.  What about children,
	 what about the other people you can hurt when once it gets "a
	 little rough" you quit?

	 Marriage is a SERIOUS SERIOUS SERIOUS commitment...one to
	 last a life time...if you don't want it to last a lifetime,
	 then why bother getting married...live with the person or
	 something.  It seems to me that so many people today get
	 married because they don't want to be alone, or can't support
	 themselves otherwise, or just want something "different."
	 I'm not saying that getting married for these reasons is
	 wrong... but its wrong for ME... I guess I'm just an
	 idealist... I want to find the man of my dreams...and ride
	 off into the sunset with him and never come back...

	 Also, someone mentioned that infatuation wears off...  I
	 don't think it does....I guess I had better clarify that...
	 Infatuation to me is the looks and the touching and the
	 craving each other...  If you love that person, that
	 infatuation doesn't need to go away.... BUT...infatuation
	 does need that basis of love to endure...  Call me an
	 idealist again, but 30 years into my marriage, I want to look
	 into my husband's eyes and be lost all over again....
	 

	 kathy (who doesn't even have the remotest idea who her knight
		in shining armor will be, but is still waiting...)
	     

	 PS:  Larry, you're too young to think about marriage!  :-)
	      :-)     :-)    :-)
                              

Poor rik...  

All alone on his own little planet... 

just like "The Little Prince"...

too bad there aren't more people on his planet...

all the best rik, I'm root'n for you!

Jim.

    I always thought you two guys were soul mates...

    
    Re .73
    
    This one touches on something I've believed for a while - what is
    the definition of "love"? Don't want to open a rat-hole here but....
    
    If the only acceptable definition of "love" is the "this is the
    real thing and it's gonna last forever" then I feel a lot of people
    could get disappointed as this sort of love seems to be relatively
    rare. But it's the one everyone is looking for 'cos it is the "marriage
    forever commitment" type of love.
    
    I reckon that true love has as many different flavours as people
    have personalities - there's love that lasts for an hour, a week
    or a year, but it's "true love" nonetheless. I just look for whatever
    type of love comes along, and thank god for it at the time it's
    happening.                                                   
    
    Any other views on this?
    
    Abigial
    

My reply .80 was returned to me by a moderator as being too abusive
of .73's author, SALEM::SAWYER. Rik himself --in an Email message--
has also objected to my 'attack' on him. While I had no intention of
attacking him (and apologize for any wording that could have been
construed as an attack), I am highly critical of his opinions
concerning marriage. I will re-worded said reply below and hope to
put my point across with no one taking further offense. Here goes:


RE: .73

Have you heard the story about that scientist who pulled a wing off
a fly and said: "Fly, jump!". The fly, indeed, jumped. 

The scientist then pulled the second wing off the fly and said:
"Fly, jump!" and the fly, indeed, jumped. 

He then pulled the third wing off the fly and said: "Fly, jump!" and
the fly, indeed, jumped. 

He finally pulled the fourth wing off the fly and said: "Fly, jump!"
but the fly no longer moved. 

The scientist then wrote in his little experiment book: "When all
four wings are fulled off a fly, the fly goes deaf". 

Apparently, the author of .73 has had a marriage that did not work
out. He, therefore, wrote in his little experiment book that there
is something intrinsically, basically, inherently wrong with the
marriage concept itself.

$ SET FLAME /SIMMER

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE WHO MEASURE THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD BY
USING THEIR OWN HIGHLY PERSONAL (SOMETIMES EXTREMELY LIMITED)
YARDSTICK. In that context, I object to .73's assertion that all
the millions and millions of happily married people all over the
globe are poor, 'brainwashed' freaks, who don't know how lousy their
lives really are. 

He can even cite cases where people briefly fell in love, only to be
later disappointed! Wow! Big deal!

I have been successfully and happily married for many years. Even
so, I would never assert that all divorced people are miserable
failures (even if I wasn't afraid my sister would kill me). 

$ SET FLAME /OFF 

'Nuff said. 

-- Ron

    re - .last
    
    Ron,
    
    Will you lend me your own highly personal yardstick so I can see
    if there's a difference?
    
    :-)
    
    Carol
    

    
>    Will you lend me your own highly personal yardstick so I can see
>    if there's a difference?

Ahhh, but if I did that, it would no longer be my very own, highly 
personal, yardstick.

The whole trick is to evaluate (not judge) the world with an open 
mind and keep one's very own, highly personal, yardstick for one's 
very own, highly personal use...

-- Ron

>	 Then of what use are all these notesfiles in which people
>	 ask us to "display our yardsticks"...?  (Notice I did not use
>	 the word...."use")

No one would take offense to your "displaying your yardstick" (why
does this sound obscene?  :-) ). Of course, anything we post here,
as well as almost anything else we do, is going to be coloured by
our personality, personal traits and various 'yardsticks'.

What I was so energetically objecting to, was the passing of 
judgment, by one person, on other people, based on that particular
person's particular idiosyncrasies.

I am not referring to anyone contributing to the H_R file, but the
world out there is full of such a person, in many shapes and forms.
These are the "do gooder"s, the "know it all"s that condemn anyone
who has the temerity to live his/her life disregarding their
dictates. They call any unmarried woman who lives with a boy friend
'a slut'. They call anyone who sleeps late on Saturday (or Sunday,
or Friday) and misses Temple (or Church, or Mosque), 'a sinner'. 

Close H_R? Why? We don't have people like that here...

-- Ron 

To get back to the subject of Love At First Sight (LAFS?!?)...

There seem to be quite a few forms that LAFS can take:

	o Lust (I want your body)

	o Infatuation (You're the be-all and end-all of my
		existence - may I gaze into your eyes forever?)

	o Mistaken Love (I'm looking for the perfect partner 
		and you're the one (even though I don't really
		know you yet)!!)

	o Actual Love (I'm a very, very lucky person...!)


I guess that it's pretty hard to know at the time what you're feeling
(e.g. you may think it's the real thing, but...).  Fortunately, all of
these can end in a wonderful, satisfying, relationship, although for all 
of them it helps to get to know and understand the other person first 
(even with "mistaken love" - although the pressure of trying to make the 
relationship something it isn't yet can be hard to overcome).

I don't know if I can say that I've experienced "Love at First Sight," but
I have experience something similar - Just Knowing.  When I met my SO, I
was consciously trying to avoid becoming involved with anyone.  Yet the first
time I met him, I just knew that we would have a long, significant relation-
ship together.  There were no fireworks, and no bolt from the blue, just the
knowledge that "this is the guy I've been looking for."  I didn't even think 
of love, because I knew that if things were going to work out between us, 
they had to proceed slowly.  In fact, if I hadn't been so sure that things 
would work out, I probably would have tried to force feelings into the 
relationship that we weren't ready for.

I can't say at this point this is the love of my entire life (although I'm
not ruling it out :-).  I guess that some people feel comfortable saying that 
pretty quickly, but I really don't think it's a great idea.  If this is the 
love of your life, what's the rush?  If you're meant to be together for a 
lifetime, then you'll be together for a lifetime - why not let your feeling
develop and mature for a while?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, I do believe in Love at First
Sight, but I don't think that it's a good reason to rush out and make a
lifelong commitment to another person.  Taking the time to develop a 
friendship is too important.


Sarah

:Note 205.74 
:SCOMAN::WCLARK

:    re .-1
    
:    rik, I'll accept that some love affairs don't last forever.
:    But can you accept that some do?
    sure...but can you accept that it doesn't matter?
    can you accept that one person having one love affair for life
    is not any more special than one person having a number of 
    love affairs?
    
 :    I'm sure there are people
 :   in HR (myself included) that are happy being with who they're
 :   with
    ok....they are happy now...
    but will they be happy in 1 year? 2 years? 5 years?
    
 :    and are sure they'll be happy as long as they're both
 :   alive.
    if they are SURE that they'll be happy as long as they both
    live then they may be in for a rude awakening....
    no one...no one...no one...knows how long love will last...
    and i'm SURE it doesn't matter...
    
    
 :    I was definately NOT seeking true love when I met my
 :   wife. In fact, we were both in grad school in an extrememly
 :   demanding program and a relationship was the last thing either
 :   of us was looking for. But it happened. It's not as black and
 :   white as you always paint it.
  you read me wrong...
    i do not (any more...i modified my stance...is ok?) paint it
    as black and white...
    
    	look...2 people in love forever is a very good thing.
    	1 person having multiple love affairs in life is a very good
    thing.
    	i do NOT think that 2 people in love for ever is a bad thing...
    as you SEEM to be indicating....
    i DO think that it really doesn't matter how long love lasts as
    long as people are happy with their lives...
    
    and people can be very happy with 1 love, more than 1 love, few
    loves, lotsa loves....
    it doesn't have to be....love forever with 1 person

    :    -dave (happily married and intends to stay that way)
but what if...tomorrow...she leaves you?
    or you want to leave her?
    or you are both unhappy with each other?
    wouldn't it be wiser to end the relationship?
    
    rik...happily single and intends to stay that way until he meets the
    next person with whom he chooses to travel and will stay that
    way until he or she is ready to move on and it's ok.
    
    

    To me it would have been wonderful to have been in love forever
    and to me that would have been ten times better then having been
    in love the 99 times that I have been.  This is said in retrospect
    and at a time when stability is important to me....
    
    to be continued see my new note

    
    re: .87
    here we go again,  eh joyce?

99 times?
    i'd kill for 99 loves!
    :-)
    or die trying...:-)
    
    i've never been very stabile....
    and stability is less important to me now than it ever was....
    but we're all different and as long as we're happy with our
    respective choices it's all ok!
    
    i hope you find the one love of your life and live happily ever
    after!!
    and i hope i find those 99 lovers!...
    
    i got another 95 to go!!
        

    rik, I didn't say they were all lover's!  ;-)
    
    But seriously, rik reread your notes....I have no problem with your
    philosophies but over and over again I get the feeling that you
    need to have consensus in your ideas.
    
    There are good marriages!  There are marriages that last forever!
    
    In a course years ago while we were doing some goal setting strategies
    it was suggested that we aspire for KO's job.  In so doing we would
    always be working towards a goal and we wouldn't have to set new
    ones.

    
    re: there are good marriages!...that last forever...
    
    again...agreed!...and i think that's wonderful for those
    people....
    
    but there are many people who don't have 1 relationship last
    forever....and many of those people have found that they 
    have been very happy with the different relationships....
    
    i'm currently in between relationships (and busier than ever!)
    and very happy!.....
    
    so...do we agree that if people are happy with their lives
    it doesn't matter what types of or how long their relationships
    lasted?....
    
    :-)
    rik

    Rik,
    
    You and I have found ourselves in a society which tenaciously hangs on
    to the myth of everlasting love.  Hollywood sells it because it makes
    for nice movies.  Madison Ave pushes it because it sells products.  The
    recording industry, the publishers of books and magazines, and every
    other mass medium pushes "everlasting love" because it gives people
    cozy feelings to think that love is like a giant block of titanium
    alloy; impervious to corrosion and long lasting.
    
    Reality can be a nasty thing.  The deluded believe that the love we
    feel in a relationship should be made of the same material as a
    parents' love for their child; our parents' love for ourselves. 
    The reality is that it isn't so.  The unconditional love which lasts
    for all eternity is the (rare) exception, not the rule.
    
    Don't knock yourself out trying to talk people into giving up their
    false sense of security or their hope for a piece of that "eternal
    bliss".  People don't listen to reason when it threatens their
    delusions.  
    
    It's like trying to reason with someone who is disappointed after
    losing at a lottery.  The best you can do is say, "Go ahead, buy
    a ticket, but don't quit your job and order that Ferrarri until
    the numbers come up."
    
    No one listens, Rik.
    
    Kris
     

RE: .89


>    ... it was suggested that we aspire for KO's job. In so doing
>    we would always be working towards a goal and we wouldn't have
>    to set new ones.

Interesting idea. Aldous Huxley, in his essay 'Comfort', talks about
the magnitude we should set for our goals. He recounts the story of
the youth that aspired to read the whole of 'The Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire'. A formidable task, indeed, but when he was
finally finished, his life suddenly became devoid of meaning... 

On the other hand, many of us wouldn't touch KO's job with a ten
foot pole (I am referring to the actual work, not to the
compensation :-)  ). And, there is nothing wrong with an occasional
resetting of one's goals. 

-- Ron 

Rik, and others...

First off, let me say that yes, I agree with your point that, as long as
someone is happy with his/her life, it doesn't matter about the relationships. 
I respect your right to be happy with whatever style of relationships you
desire.

And Kris' response:

>>    You and I have found ourselves in a society which tenaciously hangs on
>>    to the myth of everlasting love.  Hollywood sells it because it makes
>>    for nice movies.  Madison Ave pushes it because it sells products.

I agree.  There is a lot of emphasis on "love," and "everlasting love," and a
lot of romanticism.

However, I don't think that the reality is always that love doesn't last, but
that it isn't quite as magical as Hollywood makes it out to be.  Keeping a
relationship is HARD!  You've got to WORK at it!  There is no relationship that
I know of that just sticks around without maintenance.

[* Quick point:  I am by no means claiming that all failed relationships are
due to lack of effort.  Plenty of them just plain don't work, and are better
off terminated. *]

>>    Don't knock yourself out trying to talk people into giving up their
>>    false sense of security or their hope for a piece of that "eternal
>>    bliss".  People don't listen to reason when it threatens their
>>    delusions.  

I don't think that the sense of security some people feel in their
relationships is wrong, or false.  I also don't think that most people search
for "eternal bliss."  I think that people search for similar things in their
long-term (i.e. possibly permanent) relationships as they do in their jobs:
enjoyment, stability, function.

I am "happily married."  For me that means that I have a well-functioning
relationship, that has its good points and bad points, but that has the means
to overcome most if not all of the problems presented to it, and that is not
based on any false conceptions of each other or each other's expectations.  We
work at our relationship; we examine our own motives for doing things, discuss
our interactions with each other, and accept each others feelings and opinions
as valid.  It occasionally takes effort, but it works.

I expect to keep my job, and to work at that.  Very similar situation. 
Certainly things may happen that would cause me to lose it, but I don't go
around every day thinking "Well, I may lose my job, so don't let me get
attached to it."

I am happy for you, Rik, as I am for anybody that feels happy with their lives,
no matter what they have dealt with.  I am not sorry for you; there's no need
for that.

I am saddened by the attitude in a few of the recent notes, though, that seem
to me to say "You folks out there who think you are happily married, and feel
secure in your marriages, you are only living a dream."  Marriage isn't a
dream, it isn't a delusion, it isn't easy, it doesn't always work, and it isn't
always the right thing for every person or couple.  However, I don't see any
reason to "talk people into giving up their false sense of security."

I've been through several relationships, and I was hurt when they ended, but I
enjoyed the feeling of security I felt when they were still active.  I don't
think any purpose would have been served by someone trying to impress me that
the relationship might (or would) be temporary.

						Brian

    Kris in your last note you said something to the effect that rarely
    does love last forever.  What do you consider 'rare'?  If I know of
    10 people personally that are still in love and they are in their 50's
    does that dispute your observation?
    
    In my opinion love often lasts forever and I have seen enough examples
    that I wish it had happened to me.
    
    The fact that it didn't does not destroy me, I know that it is also 
    possible to have many loves and I have and I will but that does not
    mean because it did not happen to me or that it is impossible.
    
    In this dispute that we periodically have I don't feel anyone
    disagrees with rik, I only want to reiterate that love forever is
    possible if you are lucky and want it to happen badly enough!
    

re:Note 205.93
POOL::WIBECAN 

:I respect your right to be happy with whatever style of relationships you
:desire.
and i yours!

:I am saddened by the attitude in a few of the recent notes, though, that seem
:to me to say "You folks out there who think you are happily married, and feel
:secure in your marriages, you are only living a dream." 
    well...i admit that, a while back, i had that attitude...
    however, i have modified my stance...i now feel that many married
    people are very happily married and am glad for them!
    but...there are those who only pursue "love forever" for what i
    consider to be the wrong reasons...
	wrong reason = because they've been taught that
    they can't be happy otherwise....!
not that it's any of my business!!!...:-)
        
    so....love forever with one person is nice!
    love affairs throughout ones' life with many different people is nice!
    and everything inbetween is nice....as long as each individual is
    happy with their life and how they live it....

    						Brian

    note:....it seems to me that over the past year most of the
    people in this conference have become more tolerant  of the
    varying points of view and lifestyles regarding love and
    relationships...
    many of us, having started far to the left or right, have moved
    a bit closer to a more tolerant middle ground that allows for
    more possibilities...
    is good!
(having been guilty of a lack of tolerance...(thanks ron, marge :-) i feel
    pretty good about working towards being more tolerant...)

        rik

'definition of love forever'

Are we all talking about the same/right thing here?  I personally know of at
least a dozen people whom I will love forever.  They may not be a large part of
my life now, and they may not ever be, but I will love them forever.

Perhaps it is when we start start putting love in a box, and saying love should
be this ..., you should do this ... that love dies.

Jim.

:Note 205.96
:YODA::BARANSKI
:                         -< true love never does die >-
well... i dunno...maybe...maybe not....who really knows?
    
:Are we all talking about the same/right thing here?  I personally know of at
:least a dozen people whom I will love forever.  They may not be a large part of
:my life now, and they may not ever be, but I will love them forever.
Very nice!
    I feel this way, too, about a number of people...including all 3
    sexes!
in fact, i'm so much more aware of my love for them and my desire to
    keep them in my life that i work harder to maintain contact with
    them.
        
rik

re: .97
    
    >    I feel this way, too, about a number of people...including all 3
    >    sexes!

    Wait a sec, Rik...First, people aren't animals (mentioned in another
    note), and now there are THREE sexes???  What biology class did you
    take in school?
    
       Always curious,
    	    /larry
                  

RE: .94

>    What do you consider 'rare'?  If I know of
>    10 people personally that are still in love and they are in
>    their 50's does that dispute your observation?

Is that all? just ten couples? 

Of all my close friends (people I have known for more than, say,
fifteen years), ALL but two are living happily, much in love with
each other. To me, all these couples, in their forties and fifties,
are the norm. 

The exception are the two couples that are no longer together. One,
separated several months ago and will probably get a divorce, have
had very unique problems for years; in other words, their whole life
was 'out of the norm'. The other is a much sadder tale. The wife
left him after over 20 years of marriage. He committed suicide
(successfully. He succeeded in everything he did) within fifteen
minutes. Obviously, not a run of the mill situation, either. 

Why do some people find lasting love so rare? Why do many (or a
vocal few - I am not sure which it is) actually denigrate it?

Personally, after having tried both the single life style and the
'extremely married' one (admittedly, much longer in the latter), I
find that, on the whole, I have been much happier in the long
lasting relationship, even though the single life was faster paced
and more exciting. Being single can be loads of fun, but it has
nothing on married life. Your mileage, of course, may vary. 

-- Ron 

    My intent in .93 wasn't to talk anyone into doubting that they're
    happy in their marriage.  And I didn't post it to belittle love.
    The point of the note was an attempt to thrash what I consider to
    be dangerous misconceptions regarding love.  These include the belief
    that:
    		-everyone should be in love, 
    		-that love heightens your existence,
    		-that love should last forever and should forever be 
    		 those giddy tingles you felt that first time you touched, 
    		-that you're missing out on something if you're not
    		 in love
    
    How many people expend how many countless hours either lamenting
    the loss of love or pursuing shadows and whispers of love when they
    could be working towards enriching their own lives as an individual?
    
    How many people have trashed their own lives, or lost their self
    esteem, or shattered their peace of mind because their own love
    life ended up being less than the myths or the lies about love.
    
    Our society is infested with these cultural lies:
    
    	-If you're female and don't look like a Cover Girl you're
         undesireable
    
    	-If you're male and don't own an airline you're undesireable
    	
    	-Your perfume, soft drink, brand of beer, car and deodorant
    	 will determine how much fun you can have on a weekend
    	
    	-If you're not in love there's something wrong with you or your
    	 breath
    
    
    The whole message is: if the shoe doesn't fit you don't buy it.
    
    
    Kris

"that love heightens your existence ... that you're missing out on something if
you're not in love"

Why do you not believe that this is the case?  Definitions of love aside,
assuming *any* positive value for love: Life + Love > Life {- Love}.  So,
if you hold the above to be false, small wonder people think that you are
denigrating or belittling Love.

Of course a twisted, sick 'love' could have a negative or zero value.  People
who don't think love is such a big deal probably haven't had very good
experiences with it. 

Having said that, it seems like your real nit is people's reactions to having or
not having love.  People should approach having or not having a love
constructively, rather then pining away, or throwing themselves at the first
available target. 

I find that too many people are satisfied with having a label like, love,
marriage, good times, etc, and not wanting to be bothered to work on making the
actuality that that label is supposed to represent good. 

Jim.

:Why do some people find lasting love so rare? Why do many (or a
:vocal few - I am not sure which it is) actually denigrate it?

    hope you don't mean me!....
    i don't denigrate it!
    i think love forever is every bit as nice as having multiple
    loving relationships in life!....
    
    if 1 person dies at 99 and had one 75 year long loving relationship
    then...great!
    and if another person dies at 99 and had 10 wonderful and loving
    relationships then...great!
    
    my question would be....
    why do so many people denegrate people who choose to go from
    one relationship to another?
    rik

    re: .102

>    why do so many people denegrate people who choose to go from
>    one relationship to another?

     Because relationships take time to develop, to grow, and it takes a
     lot of energy, spirit, time, love, and much more to have it come to
     fruition.  These are my feelings anyway.  Yes, one may have many
     loving relationships in their life.  Taken to an extreme, however, it
     can mean jumping from one "relationship" to the next where in fact,
     the relationship is a misnomer since what we're talking about then are
     "flings".  That's fine for some people, and I'm not one to judge
     harshly on that lifestyle, but it doesn't work for me. Contrary to
     what others may think, I believe that that lifestyle takes as much an
     emotional "toll" on a person (if not more so) than a small number of
     long-term relationships.

     I don't wish to denigrate you or others who have a different way of
     looking at things then me, but I do wish you could find another way of
     presenting your "case" w/out it seeming that you are bashing lifelong
     commitments (ie marriage).  

            Larry

    re: .101
    
    >>> Definitions of love aside, assuming *any* positive value for love:
    >>> Life + Love > Life {- Love}. 
    
    But the same could be said for any human activity that has a
    positive value.  Life without friends, or music, or even
    skydiving, could be said to be less than it would have been had
    one enjoyed that activity.  
    
    It doesn't follow that that activity is right for everyone, or
    right at all times and places.  It doesn't follow that a life that
    doesn't include love, or friends, or music, or skydiving, is worth
    less to the world or is less worth living for the person in
    question.  
    
    What about people who devote themselves to helping others, or to
    serving a cause?  Do you think the local nun who recently retired
    after a lifetime of counselling troubled teenagers thinks her life
    would have been enriched by romantic love?  I doubt it. 
    
    Life isn't long enough to do everything that might enrich our
    lives.  We have to make choices, leave behind some things in order
    to pursue others.  If some people choose to leave behind romantic
    love, that doesn't leave their lives empty and valueless, only
    different than mine.
    
    --bonnie
    
    p.s. Hi Jim, how ya doin'? 

.100>	-that love heightens your existence,
    
    	How sad it must be to believe this is a dangerous misconception.
    
    	A solitary path is fulfilling and thoroughly enjoyable for many
    	people, I believed in it for many years.  But it seems like some
    	people repeatedly hold this choice/situation/position up in the 
    	noting community and insinuate denunciation of everyone and any-
    	one who actually enjoys loving another person, and who actually
    	has a healthy and wonderful time experiencing that love.
    
    							   Carla
    

:REFINE::STEFANI


:     I don't wish to denigrate you or others who have a different way of
:     looking at things then me, but I do wish you could find another way of
:     presenting your "case" w/out it seeming that you are bashing lifelong
:     commitments (ie marriage).  

:            Larry
once again i am offended!
    I HAVE!
    the last replies i've made to either this or other topics
    regarding love forever and marriage have been sans...
:    presenting your "case" w/out it seeming that you are bashing lifelong
:     commitments (ie marriage).
i may have (and probably did) bash lifelong commitments in the past
    but i do not anymore and have not for quite awhile...
    
    do yo not think it is time to forgive the sins of the past?
    is it not time to forget what i said 9 months ago and start
    judging me by what i'm saying now?
    
    look.....saying..."i don't care how long love or relationships
    last"....is NOT...bashing lifelong commitments!
    
    rik
    

:.100>	-that love heightens your existence,
    
:    	How sad it must be to believe this is a dangerous misconception.

    well...it may be sad for you....and it may be sad for lots of people...
    but i don't think it's sad!....
    and many people i know (who don't NOTE though most are deccies)
    feel similiarly....
    
    just like we don't have a right to judge you and marriage
    and love forever as "negative" things...or to bash love forever...
    you don't have a right to bash the alternative!....
    (yes, i know...you  weren't bashing it....but you ARE assuming
    that the alternative is a sad and negative thing...)
    
    many people think it's sad that so many people can't live
    happy, contented, fulfilled and loving live's without a mate....
    but if they say that they are accused of "bashing"....
    
    please...i know i'm working real hard to accept and respect
    your desire for "love forever"
    please...try to work towards accepting and respecting my non-
    desire for the very same!
    
        
    							   Carla
    

.107>	just like we don't have a right to judge you and marriage
.107>	and love forever as "negative" things...or to bash love forever...
.107>	you don't have a right to bash the alternative!....
    
    	If you're talking to me, I never said anything about marriage 
    	or judgement OR love forever.  Where did you derive that from?
    
.107>	(yes, i know...you  weren't bashing it....but you ARE assuming
.107>	that the alternative is a sad and negative thing...)
    
    	I suggest you re-read my note.  I never ASSUMED nor "bashed"
    	anything, and in fact said that the alternative was what I'd
    	chosen and enjoyed for many years.
    
.107>	please...i know i'm working real hard to accept and respect
.107>	your desire for "love forever"
    
    	Show me where I used the word "forever" in my last note.
    

Bonnie...  Good to see you...

Indeed, the same can be said for any aspect/activity in life.  Sad to say, too
little time/money/energy to experience every thing/ every one.  There are so
many things that one can spend their life doing, that it's hard for me to
imagine a life not worth living, given the freedom to do what they can.

Jim. 

	 Since I, myself, straddle this road often...loving the
	 solitary, but loving to be loved.....I suppose you could say
	 that I understand both sides of this...

	 and all I can say is....

	 

	 Both sides are saying that its okay to be one way but they
	 feel more comfortable the other way....

	 So, if you're all basically saying the same thing, why are
	 you arguing?

	 /kath

    re: .110
    
    Well, Kathy, we're really not saying the same thing.  Each party is
    trying to come across with a different viewpoint yet trying to be
    tolerant of opposing views.  As you point out, this "tolerance" doesn't
    always happen and it's very difficult to remain objective if you feel
    your lifestyle is being "attacked".  OK, maybe I'm making too much of
    this but back at my old part time job I would listen to my coworkers
    describe what "hell" marriage can be and that you should really enter
    it with the caution that chances are it won't work out.
    
    I can't be completely judgemental since one woman's husband run
    off and another was recently divorced and remarried.  Yes, bad
    marriages can exist, but because they do, you still shouldn't enter one
    with the mindset that it probably won't work.  If that happens, your
    marriage never stood a chance to begin with.
    
    	- Larry
    
    P.S.  Apologies to Rik who might think that I'm equating love with
    marriage, I don't mean to.
                                             

    
:    P.S.  Apologies to Rik who might think that I'm equating love with
:    marriage, I don't mean to.
 no apologies necessary.
    people can equate love with marriage if they want to....
    people can think anythingthey want to and do whatever they want
    to....as long as they try hard not to hurt other people, i guess.
    
    people can be prostitutes, johns, married forever, polygamous,
    monogamous, married for periods of 2 years or less, married
    and divorced a zillion times, gay, gay with adopted children....
    
    and it's ok by me!
    
    i just don't like seing the nasty stuff that we seem to get into...
    i don't like the intolerance with which many people SEEM to take
    my views....or kris' views...or...different points of views..
    i'd like everyone to work harder to be more pleasant and tolerant
    with each other....
    
    it SEEMS as though, as long as people say what is expected...
    the norm!....everyone is happy...
    but if a different point of view is expressed it's considered
    bashing or...?something negative....
    
   i don't recognize any more value in one marriage that lasts forever
   than in remaining single forever or having many different relationships.
    
    isn't that tolerant?
    isn't that "valuing differences"?
    but it SEEMS as though many people in here ONLY want to hear...
    "marriage forever with one person is the best and all other
    things are not as good and people who don't have one marriage
    forever should feel sorry for themselves"
    and i think that is rather intolerant and awfully negative
    and judgmental.
    
re: .111 Kathy...
    twas wondering the very same thing all last night and this morning...
    
    i THINK some people want to hear;
 "marriage forever with one person is the best and all other
    things are not as good and people who don't have one marriage
    forever should feel sorry for themselves"
    and i think that is rather intolerant and awfully negative
    and judgmental.
   
and anything short of this is considered insulting and bashing...
    
    but i could be wrong
    

    re: -1
    
    "I" do feel that marriage to one person is more valuable than to
     have many relationships in a lifetime.  This is MY opinion, and
     MY values.
    
     IMO, most people equate love and marriage because society and
     upbringing try to make us believe this.  I feel that being married
     to one person for many years would have to entail a *very* special
     relationship.  I also have encountered through most of my friends,
     that their reasons for not marrying are strictly because of fears
     (ie divorce, not the right one, etc.)  
    
     I'm not trying to *bash* what you are saying, but I am saying that
     I believe this, and I'm sure a lot of other people do too (again,
     IMO).
    
     TB
    

>               <<< Note 205.112 by SALEM::SAWYER "but....why?" >>>

>    but it SEEMS as though many people in here ONLY want to hear...
>    "marriage forever with one person is the best and all other
>    things are not as good and people who don't have one marriage
>    forever should feel sorry for themselves"
>    and i think that is rather intolerant and awfully negative
>    and judgmental.

    
>    i THINK some people want to hear;
> "marriage forever with one person is the best and all other
>    things are not as good and people who don't have one marriage
>    forever should feel sorry for themselves"
>    and i think that is rather intolerant and awfully negative
>    and judgmental.


	 that's not what I've read at all, rik....Many people, like
	 Larry, for instance, have said that they believe in true love
	 and that they will find it....BUT that its okay that you
	 don't...

	 And Kris, for instance, is saying that just letting love ride
	 along and when its over you move on and its just as
	 good...BUT that its okay for you to desire true love if that
	 is what you wish...

	 So, see...the way I read the entire argument, is that there
	 are two opposing views, both being valid FOR THAT PARTICULAR
	 PERSON.

	 No one in here has condemned your views, but merely stated
	 that your views are not right for them....and conversely
	 Larry's views (et al) are not right for you....

	 So, there's really no argument, you know?  What's right for
	 you is right for you and possibly wrong for someone else and
	 vice versa....

	 I believe everyone in here realizes that you have a very
	 different perspective on life than they do...which is fine,
	 and I really think its great that you can express your
	 opinions so clearly...but both sides have fallen into the
	 trap of "since you aren't like me, you don't agree with me"
	 which is wrong....everyone DOES agree that what is right for
	 you is fine and dandy....but its not necessarily right for
	 them.

	 Perhaps the problem is not that everyone is judging each
	 other harshly, but the fundimental problem that happens quite
	 often in notes is that everyone is a little defensive here
	 and is just expecting to be shot down, so when you read an
	 opposing note, you don't get the true content.

	 /kath