Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    RE:  -1
    
    >>>      I want life the way we wish it was and not the way it is. Why
    have we created the myth of love without the means of living it? Why
    can I cry because I want love and yet ignore someone near me who needs
    it because they don't fit that love object my mind has created? Is a
    love object different than a sex object?  

    First problem is, how does one define love?
    
    Second and Third questions:  Perhaps we do, somewhat, define "love
    object" with "sex object."  Usually, (repeat usually), we are first
    attracted "outwardly" towards a person and THEN we get to know them.
    However, sometimes, it is *possible* to get to know someone "inwardly"
    first, (as thru the net), and *love* that "someone" as we feel,
    somehow, a part of that person's life.  And we may mistake this with
    that burning love that you describe, ONLY because we WANT it!!  And
    when finally meeting the person in the flesh, we may be surprised... or
    not.  We may fall out of the love that we *thought* we experienced, or
    may continue to love that person even more. 
    
    I may catch hell for this, but I think that the kind of love you're
    referring to may be sexual.  The type of love you're describing reminds
    me of Rhett Butler picking up Scarlet and taking her upstairs to the
    bedroom!  Myself... I can't look at just any woman and feel that way.
    I don't think any man can.  The same is probably true for a woman.
    If we could, we'd really be in a mess! 
    
    As Spock would say, "Love is not logical."  There are just too many
    variables, and really... love doesn't make much sense.  Perhaps when we
    feel "compelled or drawn" to someone, we simply call it love, much like
    when we have a sore that won't heal, the doctor calls it a cancer. 
    
    I think most of us feel the type of love you're describing at some point
    in life.  It just doesn't stick. 
    
    Regards, Dwight
       

	 I think liesl and I read too many smutty romances! 8^)  How
	 can they write that stuff and then not expect us to want it
	 in real life?  I want someone that is going to sweep me off
	 my feet, the searing touch, the heavenly kiss.  And then live
	 happily ever after like this in the books.  It's not fair, I
	 wanna be in a story-book life. 8^)

	 Well, it will never happen, however.... 8^(  But I have come
	 the realization that I am the kind of person that needs a lot
	 of affection like that...there are men out there who
	 can't/don't give affection and there are men out there that
	 love to give and receive that kind of affection.  THAT, my
	 dear, is where I start.  You can never have the story-book
	 love, but you can find someone who can give you at least some
	 of the qualities that come with that story-book love.

         It's also very hard, when you haven't experienced true love
         like I haven't in a long time, to put into perspective
         exactly what love is.  I know I tend to idyllize it because
         it's been so long since I truely experienced it. Will I know
         it when it comes along?  I don't know... Will I reject it
         because it doesn't measure up to my ideas of how wonderful
         and perfect it should be?  I hope not... 
	 
>      What does liesl want? The hell if I know. I think I'll go read a
>      poem. liesl

	 Can I borrow that poem, liesl?  8^)  On second thought, I
	 think I'll go sew, I do my best daydreaming while I'm
	 sewing... 8^)

	 kath

    It may be my youthful optimism but I feel that anything is possible,
    even story book romances....If you want to work for them.
    
    Hell life is what you make of it.  If you want a story book romance
    then it is possible.  For example...
    
    He's from a grimey city in the North East.  She's thousands of miles
    away in the mountains of the west.  By a twist of fate, the two's
    paths cross.  The energy that errupts from the meeting is powerful.
    The attraction is even more so....They feel the compulsion to be
    together.   They long for each other's touch...They can't stand
    being away from each other...Finally it over powers them and they
    run away, riding off into the sunset....living happily ever after...
    
    
    Naw....that would never happen....
    
    Romance, is a dream....but dreams do come true...It takes time and
    a little effort.  You just have to not be afraid to give your dreams
    a chance.  Take the risk...if you long for a story book romance
    then you have to look for one and never give up.  People write these
    novels because they have imaginations, and they have thoughts and
    dreams of life being like that.  You folks that read them, enjoy
    and wish for those dreams.  It looks to me if you get two of those
    type of people together then you can have your "story-book" life.
    
    After all life is nothing more then a story....it doesn't start
    untill you open the cover...
    
    The Rebel...

re -1
>    It may be my youthful optimism but I feel that anything is possible,
>    even story book romances....If you want to work for them.
 
    Never read any of those books (by the way, how do these stories usually
    run?).  For what little I know, "story book romances" are precisely
    the ones that you don't need to "work for them" by definition.
    
    :-) :-)
    
    Eugene   
                                

    
    	...here, here!!!, 740.4!!
    	
    	I understand what 740. is asking, as I have wondered it myself,..
    	but I couldn't agree with your response more.
    	
    	I've also wondered why everyone EXPECTS to meet their soulmate
    	usually by the age of 35ish?,....I'm 26, and ya,..I HOPE to
    	meet them,..but what if our paths don't cross until we're
    	in our 70's,...will it be any less sweet?
    
    	...maybe I'm just an ultimate romantic...
    
    	Tina

    
<    I may catch hell for this, but I think that the kind of love you're
<    referring to may be sexual.  The type of love you're describing reminds
<    me of Rhett Butler picking up Scarlet and taking her upstairs to the
<    bedroom!  Myself... I can't look at just any woman and feel that way.
<    I don't think any man can.  The same is probably true for a woman.

      Rhett and Scarlet deffinately qualify. Of course it's sexual, but
      it's more than that. I wouldn't want it to be just any man -
      that's the point. If just any man would do there wouldn't be a
      problem. 

      I'm an emotions junkie. I love that thrill of silver excitment
      running through my veins. I crave it. I have wild highs and
      devastating lows. Love is the ultimate elixir of emotions.
      Then my machine self takes over and I become moderate for a time.
      My time of moderation has lasted too long, sigh...lost in a world
      of clusters and DCL syntax. Cause and effect. Type in a command
      and something happens.

      kath, here's a poem by eec just for us techie types. So we can
      remember there is something beyond computers and logic. liesl

      since feeling is first
      who pays any attention
      to the syntax of things
      will never wholly kiss you;

      wholly to be a fool
      while love is in the world
      my blood approves,
      and kisses are a better fate
      than wisdom
      lady i swear by all flowers. Don't cry
      -the best gesture of my brain is less than
      your eyelids' flutter which says

      we are for each other: then
      laugh,leaning back in my arms
      for life's not a paragraph

      And death i think is no parenthesis

(This is probably 'way too personal: NOTES makes that far too easy.  But what
the 'ell...)

We met dancing.  Our styles fit flawlessly, our bodies balanced perfectly.  We
both knew we had to get to know each other from the first moment, and we knew
it was mutual.  Magic was in the air; though neither was completely sure the
magic could be trusted.  But OK, I'll admit it: the bit where we see each other
across the crowded dance hall and everyone else vanishes while we meet in slow
motion and dance was actually the SECOND time we met (and we didn't let them ALL
vanish, since contra dancing isn't a whole lot of fun with just two people; but
they did all kinda fade into the background; maybe we were just so deep in each
other's eyes that we didn't notice 'em much).

Talk about "soul searing kisses": the electricity in our first kiss should have
shorted out the whole city (OK, so it was only Concord, MA... but it's the
thought that counts).

From the moment we knew each other, we knew we would fall in love (yeah, we
talked about it: man, what excitement and anticipation!)

From the moment we were in love, we knew we wanted to be together forever.

There's also the pragmatic side (maybe this crosses over to the note on "loss
of innocence")... we've each been through a failed marriage before, and we're
both rather cautious about another long-term commitment until we know each
other well enough to be really SURE. If we'd met each other 10 years ago, we
might be already married (gee, we've known each other almost 2 months now!)

You should see our love letters (sometimes we have to go 4 or 5 days between
dates, y'see).  Talk about "sappy" romanticism: hell, I can actually find
Hallmark cards that say exactly how I feel!

Once, I met a woman who had the potential of being a good friend.  The match
was "pretty good"; gradually I fell in love, eventually she reciprocated, and
later we were married.  6 years later we were divorced.  There wasn't any magic;
I'd decided it couldn't happen, you see, so it wasn't worth waiting for.  It was
time to do the best I could without it.  I thought that's how life was.  What
more could you ask for than a friend with whom you could feel comfortable?  So
I overcame my doubts and fears and charged ahead.  I WORKED at making it work
(I'm not sure that she did); but eventually it fell apart.  I sorted through the
wreckage of my emotions and tried to learn why.  I didn't find the answer in the
shards, but in two untouched jewels that had never quite fit in the relationship
to begin with: communication and magic.

Now, I believe in magic again.  Everything we've felt has been strong and
mutual... and it's so unbelievably easy to talk about it, share our feelings.
I feel everything I'd ever imagined in my most romantic teenage fantasies.  Both
emotionally and physically, it's impossible to conceive of being any more
satisfied; the match is 100% perfect.  Intellectually, we complement and
challenge each other in ways that will keep our relationship not just
satisfying, but EXCITING for a lifetime.

So how did all those romantic poets and novelists get their ideas?  They must
have been peeking over my shoulder!  :-)

I don't imagine there can be many "perfect matches" in the world for any given
person, and the probability of meeting one has to be pretty tiny.  Unless there
IS something to "destiny".  But there really IS magic in the world... so maybe
destiny isn't too hard to believe in...

Since my divorce, I've dated a bunch of women through the SINGLES conference; as
someone already commented in this topic, it seemed to give a way to meet the
"inner person" before being distracted by the outer person.  But I also knew I
didn't want JUST an inner person.  I knew, by then, that I wanted some magic, a
spark, ROMANCE.  I just wasn't sure it could happen.  The physical, emotional,
and intellectual sides have to ALL fit together.  I very nearly fell in love
with two women over the net (almost purely intellectual contact): one I disliked
in person; the other I liked a lot, but the spark wasn't quite there.

Is a love object different from a sex object?  You may consider it semantic
nitpicking, but I think it's important to point out that we're not talking about
an OBJECT, of any type.  We're talking about a web of attractions and feelings
between two human beings, far too complicated and wonderful to be characterized
in such simple terms.  There are thousands of "connections" between two people
which all need to be there, all need to match.  Even "sex" isn't just a single
connection... it's a pretty complicated web all by itself.  But if it answers
the question more directly, I think that some degree of sexual attraction HAS to
be a part of the kind of love we're talking about.

Storybook romances CAN exist.  They don't require much "work".  It's like a
good job: if you have to work very much at it, something ain't right.  I'm a
software engineer precisely because 99.9% of what DEC wants me to do to earn my
pay is pure FUN.  Sure, my "soulmate" and I will both have to make adjustments
to our lives, probably some drastic ones; but almost none of it will be "work"!

	/dave

    Re: .4, others...
    
    I've been in mad, wild, tempestuous love.  I've been in quiet,
    soul-warming, someone-there-when-you-need-them love.  The former
    is about the only thing you get over a distance, and my experience
    with it has not been good.  Nor of anyone I know.  It's a lot of
    fun while it lasts, and you should get as much pleasure from it as
    you can, but the odds of it lasting more than a few months are
    mighty slim.  But don't let that keep you from trying...
    
    I will agree, though, that being "madly in love" is a delightful
    feeling and can really make you feel good about yourself and the
    world.  If you can accept the idea that it may not last, you'll
    do well.
    
    My standard advice is to "keep your eyes and your heart open."
    
    				Steve

    
    	Ah, Chemistry! The reaction that goes beyond objectivity. The
    subjective "feel" that you get for someone "from across the room".
    "I like her's; She likes mine" Our what? Doesnt matter - probably
    couldnt describe it in objective terms anyway!
    
    	When I "feel the heat with somebody", there's really no
    consideration of "forever" at the time. What does "forever" have
    to do with "Chemistry"!?! Am I under the illusion that formulas
    (and the reactive mixture therof) will stay invariant with time? 
    
    	Not me!
    
    	Does chemistry make someone "special", seperate them from "all
    the others"? Sure does! Like Steve said, "It's a lot of fun while
    it lasts, and you should get as much pleasure from it as you can".
    But to bank your entire sanity on the matter is something for the
    (what's that word? - oh yeah) 'innocent' to grow through. "Us" mature
    folk realize that springtime chemical reactions are transitory in
    nature, quite likely as it is "sposed" to be.
    
    	This realization, however, does not preclude "Us" mature folk
    from wanting it none_the_less! Perhaps we have just learned to cling
    to what we might find a little less tightly, using only arms, instead of 
    both arms and legs... :')
    
    	 Personally, I'd *love* to have a springtime lover! Nothing I
    know of can compare to that wonderful look of approval given through
    eyes_in_love_with_me. No word in the English language can make me
    as excited as the word "Yes" (or other affirmative). I always smile
    the most when I'm passionate...It's when I'm the most fun, too!
    
    	But, alas, I have this analogy, that considers a matchstick.
    There's the head of the match and the stick. A little activation
    energy, and FOOOOOM! - Fireworks! The stick part burns on for a
    while. Then there's nothing left. So, what do you do? Stack 'em
    end to end, obviously!
    
    	After a while, that gets trite, at best. You begin to look for
    something different, in terms of the "dynamics" or whatever. Springtime
    and it's ensuing passons start to mean a little less to you, this
    year. While you want it and you feel motivated by desire, you know
    it's really "something else" that would be best for you right now.
    You quietly try to accept that, while the whole world seems to be
    going "gush-gush".
    
    	Joe Jas  
    

         RE: .11
         
         That was truly wonderful!
         
         RE: The topic...
         
         	*in* love = out of control
         
         I don't *do* "out of control".
         
         My loss? Perhaps. But an acceptable method of loving
         none-the-less. I do not feel that my love for those
         that I care to love is any less intense...or any
         less real. And "desire" and "infatuation" still have
         their wonderfully exciting places in life...but *in*
         love "connotates" to me a dependence upon another
         for fullfillment and validation that I am unwilling
         to offer. And, as pointed out in previous replies,
         a transitory thing. 
         
         Maybe I am just too much of a bitch? [grin]
         
         Melinda

      I hear all of you who are talking from the "sane" side. There's
      even a part of me that totally agrees. It's just that I want that
      rush right now. I'll be willing to give up on "happily ever after"
      for a little here and now. Living for the moment and all that
      jazz.

      I want to feel again (even briefly) what I felt at 17 with my
      first real making_out_in_the_backseat_boyfriend. Should I not want
      that just because I'm an adult and should know better? I can't
      quite decide if I'm a romantic cynic or a cynical romantic. I know
      that reality doesn't favor the survival of a *hot* affair. But it
      doesn't mean I don't want to feel that way. To use a poem slightly
      out of context "do not go gentle into that good night, rage,rage
      against the dying of the light" - isn't giving up on romance a bit
      like a piece of you dying?

      In La_Traviata Violetta sings of love as "sorrow and rapture, pain
      and delight". How true. liesl

'Why isn't love the way it should be?'

How about...

Because we're afraid...
Because we're lazy...
Because we're busy with something/someone else...
Because we haven't met 'the right person'...

"Romeo & Juliet" love is definitely not "happily ever after" love. :-)
With the possibility of the ultimate in love, you open yourself up to the
possibility of the worst kind of love.

What a lot of this 'happily ever after' stuff is is that you want someone
to take care of you.  You want to know that you will get the love you want.
Well folks, people don't come with garuntees :-(

'how can they write that stuff and expect us not to want it?'

You've just run into the feminine version of pornography conditioning.  You are
being conditioned to accept only an ideal which does not exist in real life.

RE: 'what if you don't meet your soulmate untill you are 70?'

In my opinion... I call that tragic.  Already at 30, I ask myself 'where
has Y been all my life?' :-)

Jim. 

>With the possibility of the ultimate in love, you open yourself up to the
>possibility of the worst kind of love.

	 With the ultimate love, I don't think you can feel the pain
	 when it is over....i went through the ultimate love once...it
	 lasted 8 months and it was wonderful...as long as you realize
	 that all good stories end....it's a "live for the moment"
	 relationship.
	 
>What a lot of this 'happily ever after' stuff is is that you want someone
>to take care of you.  You want to know that you will get the love you want.

	 No, not anything real....a fantasy....a storybook romance
	 where you don't need to worry about anything else...yes, the
	 more i think about it, the more I think you can have
	 it...take care of me?  No, I want someone to take care OF!
	 
>You've just run into the feminine version of pornography conditioning.  You are
>being conditioned to accept only an ideal which does not exist in real life.

	 Ahhhh, but anything can exist if you want it to....I *DO*
	 believe that ideal exists out there!  Why should you say
	 something does not exist just because it is perfect?

	 kath	 

         Oooops! I left a wrong impression?
         
         I'm all for "rush" and good times...[those of you
         who have had the {ahem} pleasure of meeting me, please
         make your snide comments through MAIL!!!]
         
         I just refuse to call or accept it as *love*. I was
         [guilty!] playing a bit of semantics...in a semi
         serious sort of way...I just see the [hmmm]
         phenomenum[?] you describe as *lust* [or a facsimile
         thereof] not *love*.
         
         Wonderful! Exciting! [sigh]...but not what I would
         choose to build a lasting love relationship on..in fact,
         something that I actively *avoid* building lasting
         love relationships on...lust [infatuation? sex appeal?]
         is an important part of my love relationships, but
         is not something that defines or limits those
         relationships...it is [in my mind only] too fleeting
         a beast...subject to whim and frenzy...my lovers
         and friends need to have more stamina to put up with
         me than that! 
         
         [I am making my stance a whole lot clearer here,
         aren't I?] [chuckle]
         
         Maybe, my thoughts on this topic tie in to my 
         thoughts on the note about *inocense*...? Perhaps
         my vision of "abandone" in this regard is linked
         to visions that do not speak of romance but of
         servitude...and dependence.
                             
         I was not really suggesting that anyone else should
         not seek this kind of *love*...just that I choose
         not to...an opposing opinion as it were...not an
         argument.
         
         Melinda       

<         Maybe, my thoughts on this topic tie in to my 
<         thoughts on the note about *inocense*...? Perhaps
<         my vision of "abandone" in this regard is linked
<         to visions that do not speak of romance but of
<         servitude...and dependence.
                             
      This is interesting to me as I wonder about that myself. I
      remember being quite affected by the movie The_Story_of_O. The
      movie delt with S&M in a sexual way but I saw a correlation with
      mental games too. I see some of that in my personality (not like
      in the movie so put your whips away ;*}) I think women in general
      are socialised into a form of masochism with all the emphasis on
      how you must nurture everyone but yourself. 

      I do have to agree with Jim about the mythical romance being a
      woman's version of pornography (at least in a general sense). It
      fits right in with the servitude/dependence role. We're trained to
      want that sort of love. Besides, it's ever so exciting to be swept
      off your feet. Passion is the drug I desire to rouse my soul from
      the mundane life. To bad it can't be forced, I'm surrounded by men
      but none that set the flame to the candle at both ends. Perhaps
      that's just my superego keeping my id in check. 

      Below is a quote from Lord Byron's poem Don Jaun...Not for the
      liberated to be sure...liesl

            "Man's love is of his life a thing apart,
            'Tis woman's whole existence; ...
            Man has all these resources, we but one,
            To love again, and be again undone"
      

    I don't think that mythical romance is strictly "women's pornography"
    in that I also find it terribly attractive.  But like Jim said, after
    you have a series of bright flames that burn out, you start to
    realize that you're left cold.
    
    I believe that it is possible to find a "best of both worlds" kind
    of love - exciting yet lasting.  The passion need not be any less
    than you might experience in the "wild and crazy" type of love, but
    it will be mixed in with the comfort, closeness and sharing that
    will help the love last a lifetime.  That's what I am looking for.
    
    However, I also know that this is something that everyone has to see
    for themselves, and I don't for a second regret any of the
    tempestuous flings that have come my way.  Each has given me pleasure
    and allowed me to see the world through new eyes.  I know how good it
    can be - I'm working to make it that good in the long run, and I
    now understand that to do that requires more than just "sparks".
    
    				Steve

      I mis-spoke when I used the word pornography to describe the books
      I am refering to. I should have said erotica. Pornography implies
      a disapproval that I did not intend. I do agree that both men and
      women find both visual and written material erotic. I also would
      like to set the matter straight that I am not refering to romance
      of the Barbra Cartland variety. I've never read any of those and
      can't comment on them. My tastes lean more towards the romantic
      fantasy one finds in the SF section of the bookstore or a good
      Jane Austin novel (not big on sex but lots of romance).

      I understand what you're saying Steve but if I can only have one
      or the other I'll take passion any day. I lived a lot of years
      with the constant work variety of love and it got me nothing in
      the end. But, to prove I'm not a total cynic when it comes to
      constancy and devotion I've found a Shakespear sonnet that makes
      even that a matter for sighs and romantic gazes. Sonnet 116.

      Let me not to the marriage of true minds
      admit impediments; love is not love
      Which alters when it alteration finds,
      Or bends with the remover to remove.
      O, no, it is an ever-fixed mark
      That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
      It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
      Whose worth's unknown, although his height be
      taken.

      Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
      Within his bending sickle's compass come;
      Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
      But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
	If this be error and upon me proved,
	I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
       
      As I read it again it occurs to me that WS knew passion no matter
      how it was disguised. liesl

"I'm surrounded by men but none that set the flame to the candle at both ends.
Perhaps that's just my superego keeping my id in check."

Perhaps, even though you really want it, you are not really ready for it
yet, and you are still protecting yourself from it?

I'm sorry to say that for the most part, Shakepeare is a foreign language
to me...  I hope someone will paraphrase...

Jim. 

<Perhaps, even though you really want it, you are not really ready for it
<yet, and you are still protecting yourself from it?

      That may well be true Jim. After writing these notes I also had a
      flash on the "be careful what you wish for" theme. Guess I just
      need to sit back and hope I notice when the time is right.


<I'm sorry to say that for the most part, Shakepeare is a foreign language
<to me...  I hope someone will paraphrase...

      Ah Jim, he does use a bit of outdated English. The book I have
      gives some translations of the obscure parts. However, the basic
      theme is that a person who is really in love with another is not
      swayed by changes in the other person. That's the love is not love
      if it alters when it alteration finds.

      The part about time is somewhat obvious - it means you'll still
      love the other when they grow old.

      The real mystery line is about the bark and the star - that's
      refering to sailing ships that sight their course by the northern
      star. They can measure it's height to find out where they are but
      can not measure it's worth because it's priceless to them. They'd
      be lost without it. Just so, you can not measure the worth of love
      for it is priceless. liesl

    Jungian stuff suggests that love (wild, impetuous, etc) is a means
    rather than an end.  It is a result of projecting an unacknowledged
    part of yourself (your animus, if u r female) into another person,
    usually of opposite gender.  The underlying feeling is joy at realizing
    (making real) a new part of your potential self.  When one has matured
    and experienced more of oneself, ones need to project your/my/ones
    unrealized potential is lessened.  In other words, having difficulty
    in finding someone to "fall in love with" may be an indicator of
    a high level of maturity.
    

Thanks Liesl.

RE: -.1

That's depressing!

Jim.

    The problem with the stuff of romances is that they are not like
    the real world.
    
    (Trashy Romance version)
    Antonio and Daphne, under a beautiful, starlit spring sky, alone
    at last, after an eternity of gazing at the moon, then into each
    others eyes, interlock their lips in a long, soul searching kiss.
    Daphne feels a strong passion for this tall, hansome man - the man
    of her very dreams, who is making her feel as if she were 16 again,
    and this was her first love,  After the first kiss, they repeat
    for a second kiss, this one even more passionate than the first.
    They stroll down to a secluded are of the beach, where they make
    love like neither of them have ever before.  Daphne finally feels
    like a real woman.
    
    Compare to real life:
    John and Mary are watching TV on Mary's couch.  Gingerly, John puts
    his arm around Mary.  She responds by getting up and getting another
    beer.  When she comes back, she puts her arm around him too.  During
    a Tide commercial, they look at each other, and John takes the step
    of a first kiss.  Mary is thinking "Oh My God!  I haven't brushed
    my teeth since I had that big lasagne dinner.  What will he think?"
    After this kiss, during the Chevrolet commercial, she excuses herself,
    and goes and brushes her teeth.  In her rush, she leaves toothpaste
    on her face.  John pretends not to notice.  They sit back down on
    the couch, and resume their embrace.  Mary's arm falls asleep. 
    Cautiously, John begins to (deleted due to corporate policy), as
    his beeper goes off, and John finds he has to go in to work.  He
    quickly leaves, saying "I'll call you tomorrow."  Mary goes into
    the kitchen and eats some pretzels.
    
    Perhaps if they wrote more of the 2nd kind of romance, we wouldn't
    be wanting things that we can't have...not as exciting, but
    obtainable...
    
    Elizabeth
    

    	Hmm...  While I know the 2nd scenario happens far too often, I also
    know that something closer to the first *is* obtainable.  I myself have
    created situations more like the first (although parts of the first are
    *obviously* ridiculous!).  I'm just a "hopeless romantic"!  (As one
    person told me though, "There's always hope for a romantic".  ;-) )


    	I must confess though that there was a time when I believed in the
    first situation, simply because that's what I'd read and heard from
    others close to my age.  You're right Elizabeth, they *should* write
    stuff more like your 2nd situation.  The former blows our expectations
    of what love should be like *way* out of proportion.  It's only been
    with time and experience that my expectations have come more into line
    with reality.


    	If you expect to see stars and hear bands play when you're "in
    love" (as I did), then you're always going to be disappointed.
    However, I'm a romantic enough to believe in the "magic" that happens
    between two people if the conditions are right.  It's a fine line to
    walk, isn't it?


    Brian

    I also enjoyed your note, Elizabeth.  Perhaps those stories are
    not written in paperback books very often, but you certainly do this
    them a lot on television and in the movies.
    
    I think that most people have situations as in example #1 at some
    point.  I've had a few.  Sometimes when I didn't want or expect
    them.  Seems like that's when they just pop up.  And I'm not so
    sure that we would want them to last... at that "plane."  Wouldn't
    it get boring?  Wouldn't we lose sight of what the "love high" was
    really all about?  
    
    Perhaps it's best that they come at unexpected times, like cold
    water in the face, to pick us up at times in our life when we need
    that special feeling.
    
    I hope to have more.  And for those of you that haven't had your
    "moment in the sun," don't worry.  You will.  Just don't focus all
    your energy on it happening tomorrow.
    
    Regards, Dwight

                           
    	There are two kinds of motivation that often work in opposition.
    There's negative motivation by fear, and positive motivation by
    desire. Desire motivation is what we use to "get what we want" in
    our lives; if it's the sceanrio in story #1, we'll simply set the
    controls for that target. If desire isnt that great, oh well, I
    guess story #2 "will do".
    
    	Fear motivation is usually a manipulative device. It is negative
    and can be lumped in with motivation by guilt, shame and negative
    contexts. It's what stops the possibility of us to "get what we
    want", usually accompanied by a strong sense of self doubt and a
    low feeling of esteem. Many of us dont believe we *deserve* a situation
    as portrayed in story #1, and would actually be "afraid" if the
    possibility came up. We'd say "thanks but no thanks" but would actually
    be "scared to death" to move toward it.
    
    	I believe the two usually hang in balance. When desire exceeds
    fear, things happen. When fear exceeds desire, things are halted.
    I know my desire is on the rise, and when I'm feeling well about
    myself, well enough to feel I actually deserve what I want, it'll
    be an easy matter to just "let it happen" :')
    
    	Right now, I'm tending more toward "shooting myself in the foot"
    when I'm given an opportunity for what I want. 32, and I'm still
    "too scared" at times...
    
    	Woosie.
    
    	Joe Jas

    re:  the two scenarios.
    
    I'd like to say I've experienced the first...I've FELT like I've
    experienced the first scenario but then, of course, there's the
    question of "was it experienced reciprocally, also?".
    
    That's the tough part.  Making sure both sides love as equally as
    possible.  It's hard loving someone who doesn't love you, and it's
    equally difficult being loved by someone you don't love.   It's
    like they said in "The Princess Bride".  True love like that comes once
    in a thousand years....(or somesuch)....
    
    -Jody
    

    Actually, I've come to something close to #1, once, then lost that
    SO forever, due to something outside of both of our control.  But
    I still remember, and still think about it.  Oh well, scenario #2
    had to do.  Still, I hope to find something more like #1 again,
    and also hope that I don't have to wait 1000 years for it.
    
    BTW, I do some writing, but haven't sold anything yet.  This is
    *not* my usual style!  I'm usually more into hard SF.
    
    Elizabeth

    Miscellaneous notions dept:
    
    It seems to me that most people I know have felt at least some
    variation on scenario #1 and, by most accounts, it's all that
    the writers hype it up to be and more.  So perhaps to some extent,
    the writer is simply reflecting reality.
    
    However, if I find a "lie" in the romance novel/fairy tale view
    of the world, it's in that perfidious phrase ". . .and they lived
    happily ever after."  I mean the whole danged book is about the
    trials and tribulations of the couple trying to get together (so
    to speak); chapter upon chapter is spent on overcoming zillions
    of obstacles that lie in the path of "true love".
    
    And then, once they finally "make it" (in whatever sense you choose),
    the next 40 or 50 years of their lives is reduced to living "happily
    ever after".  Which ain't to say that people don't stay together
    for 40 or 50 years - some do.  And it's not to say that such people
    can't be or aren't happy; I'm led to think that staying together
    over that great a length of time requires a major dose of happiness
    (or some really dynamite symbiotic neuroses).
    
    What the fairy tale novels would have us believe is that once the
    star-crossed lovers are finally brought together (after say three
    or four hundred pages of obstacles), the rest of their lives will
    be spent in that wild-impetuous-kiss-that-sears-etc. state.
    
    But the truth is that it's good that Romeo and Juliet checked out
    early; neither would've made good reading 20 years later.  I mean,
    who wants to read about Romeo's thinning hair and thickening middle,
    Juliet's cellulite and ma jhong parties, their 2.3 rotten kids, 
    the mortgage, and, of course given who they were, can you imagine 
    their in-law situation?
    
    Besides, medical research that I've just made up proves that the
    human body is incapable of sustaining a state of romantic giddiness
    for more than three years or one national election, whichever comes
    first; it's just too much strain.  The facial muscles start to lock
    in a state of grinnus idioticus, the eyes develop twinkle syndrome
    (which leads to contusions from bumping into things because the
    sufferer sees stars all the time), and the leg muscles begin to
    atrophy from walking around two feet off the ground all the time.
    It's not a pretty sight.
    
    Of course, knowing that "happily ever after" is a crock, is not
    even a little help when Spring rolls around.  If it were, I would
    have long ago sold my second car: it's a 1970 Mustang convertible
    with a back seat which is just waiting for the right victi, uh,
    Juliet.
    
    Shades of "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights"
    
    Steve

    Re .32, I would have thought you might be too tall for doing that
    sort of thing in a car?  No?
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .33
    
    Depends on the car. . .
    
    1966 VW Beetle = "Ack!  Erf!  Uh, excuse me. . .is my knee in your
    ear?   And if so, whose foot is *this*?
    
    1970 Mustang *convertible* = Kowabunga!
    
    Steve

    	Hey, I used to drive a 66 Bug during my high school years and 
    	let me assure you there's _plenty_ of room!
    
    							Carla
    

    re: last few
    
    Nothing beats a full size pickup... Ah memories..
    
    Dave

    
>    Nothing beats a full size pickup... Ah memories..
    
I guess you've never owned a van. :^)

Pete

    
    
    RE:.37
    
    Ahhh...you beat me to it...[van]
    
    Melinda

    I use to be a commuter van driver.

    Anybody else ever own or date anybody who drove a Barracuda?
    
    (Used to like looking out that weird back window at the stars.)
    (I think there must've been a lot more back roads in central Mass.
    in those days!)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I still fondly remember my '70 Barracuda...
    with the glaspak mufflers...
    
    Gene~