Make sure to read Pt. 1 before you jump into Pt. 2
NYC Robert
Hold the phone. Sart, do you know the difference
between "to love someone" and "to be IN love with someone"?
I ask because you mention both as if I
didn't clearly state what I'm discussing. Since you missed it, I stated to be
in love with someone. There is a big difference to be in love with someone and
to love a friend or family member.
There isn't much else to say on that. You clearly aren't clear on what's going on. In addition, your last points are just types of love. You mentioned romance, and commitment, but does love always have to be romantic, or is that just an effect of it? No it does not. Being in love with someone naturally allows for romance and commitment because it is the affection you want to share with that person. It would be natural for someone who is in love with someone to want to hold them, kiss them, and treat them extra special.
Your opening statement doesn't make much sense to the topic. I'll give you another chance before I go HAM. I haven't even started yet. See people this is why I must hold back...
Campbell you start off with many good points. You should help out Sart and get him on the right page! Yes, love is selfless, but selfish? Explain that. I personally don't think being in love has to be selfish because it's what you make it. No two people will ever love each other the same as the next two. Sure, they will show affection similarly, or just alike, but they won't love their partners the same. Therefore, putting "in love" in a jar like that is wrong. You are right, at times one partner of the relationship would want things such as to spend more time with the other, but that doesn't reflect selfishness, if they are able to compromise. If, however, there isn't any compromise one would have to rethink their relationship.
You cannot be in love with more than person because to be in love with someone takes a lot affection, time, and thought. You probably mean in love with one and love the other or others, which is possible because, as I stated, love is a strong feeling and care for someone. But to be in love is more than that. J. Camps step your game up.
There isn't much else to say on that. You clearly aren't clear on what's going on. In addition, your last points are just types of love. You mentioned romance, and commitment, but does love always have to be romantic, or is that just an effect of it? No it does not. Being in love with someone naturally allows for romance and commitment because it is the affection you want to share with that person. It would be natural for someone who is in love with someone to want to hold them, kiss them, and treat them extra special.
Your opening statement doesn't make much sense to the topic. I'll give you another chance before I go HAM. I haven't even started yet. See people this is why I must hold back...
Campbell you start off with many good points. You should help out Sart and get him on the right page! Yes, love is selfless, but selfish? Explain that. I personally don't think being in love has to be selfish because it's what you make it. No two people will ever love each other the same as the next two. Sure, they will show affection similarly, or just alike, but they won't love their partners the same. Therefore, putting "in love" in a jar like that is wrong. You are right, at times one partner of the relationship would want things such as to spend more time with the other, but that doesn't reflect selfishness, if they are able to compromise. If, however, there isn't any compromise one would have to rethink their relationship.
You cannot be in love with more than person because to be in love with someone takes a lot affection, time, and thought. You probably mean in love with one and love the other or others, which is possible because, as I stated, love is a strong feeling and care for someone. But to be in love is more than that. J. Camps step your game up.
NYC Robert (replying to KV Sart’s second response in Pt. 1)
Sart. This is a much better approach, but still
nothing that I can’t slap up. You’re mentioning several things, but I have to
ask. Are you arguing with yourself? Being in love does not have to always be
physical as I mentioned earlier. Because then you must ask yourself do you love
them or just the physicality? That’s a tricky situation isn’t it?
Personally I don’t think love has to be sealed with
sex. Sure, it is a part, but it should not be the all. You’re right, at times
really passionate sex can be compared to making love, but it really isn’t the
same. And for you to answer that I must ask two questions. Have you ever made
love? Have you ever had sex with someone you don’t care about? Because if you
have you wouldn’t have said that. However, that doesn’t mean just because
you’re in love with someone you two will always have deep passionate sex, or
make love. Sometimes you just want to get it in.
KV Sart
Check yourself, and while you’re at it,
read more thoroughly, cuz you misrepresent everything that I say.
First of all, as Jersey would say, you are clearly far too stuck in the game to approach this topic objectively. Clearly, you are in that crazy, irrational love, the kind of love that thinks its love is more real and supreme than anyone else's love could ever possibly be. Your approach to this topic is nearsighted at best, asinine at worst.
What you see as arguing with myself is, in fact, me trying to have a more open and inclusive sense of the discussion topic. There is no singular correct answer to the question; you speak as if you have the definitive answer.
I never said that sex was all there was to being in love (misrepresentation). I believe what I said was that sex alone does not necessitate being in love. Where I was headed was that being "in love" is likely some combination of both the platonic and the sensual. Again I say, you might actually want to read before you respond next time, cuz I didn't say anything about "making love" so I don't know what part of my response you are saying is right.
Sometimes NYC Rob, when people feel outmatched in an argument, they reduce themselves to accusing people of things that are baseless. When you debate in such a manner, you make yourself look foolish, and show everyone else that you do not have a valid point to make. Step your game up, you're better than that.
Ok, deep breath, back to the topic at hand. Despite NYC Rob's misrepresentation of what I wrote, it seems that he and I agree that there is a difference between "in love" and general love. So maybe that is what we should parse out more clearly before we can discuss whether or not you can be in love with more than one person at once.
First of all, as Jersey would say, you are clearly far too stuck in the game to approach this topic objectively. Clearly, you are in that crazy, irrational love, the kind of love that thinks its love is more real and supreme than anyone else's love could ever possibly be. Your approach to this topic is nearsighted at best, asinine at worst.
What you see as arguing with myself is, in fact, me trying to have a more open and inclusive sense of the discussion topic. There is no singular correct answer to the question; you speak as if you have the definitive answer.
I never said that sex was all there was to being in love (misrepresentation). I believe what I said was that sex alone does not necessitate being in love. Where I was headed was that being "in love" is likely some combination of both the platonic and the sensual. Again I say, you might actually want to read before you respond next time, cuz I didn't say anything about "making love" so I don't know what part of my response you are saying is right.
Sometimes NYC Rob, when people feel outmatched in an argument, they reduce themselves to accusing people of things that are baseless. When you debate in such a manner, you make yourself look foolish, and show everyone else that you do not have a valid point to make. Step your game up, you're better than that.
Ok, deep breath, back to the topic at hand. Despite NYC Rob's misrepresentation of what I wrote, it seems that he and I agree that there is a difference between "in love" and general love. So maybe that is what we should parse out more clearly before we can discuss whether or not you can be in love with more than one person at once.
J.
Camps
On some real shit, KV Sart is right. You always
be contorting people's statements and adding some shit that nobody ever said or
implied. Cut it out son. But let's cut back on the personal attacks, this isn't about us, it's about love *big hugs for everybody*.
We can all agree that love is a feeling, but that's not where our agreeances end. By now we all know what type of love we are discussing. Nobody will argue that you cannot love more than one person at a time. I love my moms and my pops, I love my siblings, and I love you guys as well. We are obviously speaking of being "in love" with another, and this is what we should be focusing on. Although if any of us find it necessary to refer back to general love to add support to your case that is perfectly fine.
What we all agree upon is that being "in love" is being romantically involved with another. I believe that being "in love" is simply a stronger and more acute feeling then loving someone (as a family member, friend, etc.). Even so, "in love" is more of a fleeting feeling then loving someone because the feeling is much more severe and susceptible to mood and emotion. But I digress.
Mr. Rob you are victim to misrepresentation again. I said that love is a selfless feeling that can quickly turn selfish. (From here on it, if I refer to "love" it means "in love.") It does not naturally lean toward selfishness, but in certain conditions it can devolve into self-indulgent feelings. I think we both agree on that point. When you feel so strongly about a person sometimes it can turn into, "you need to fulfill my needs my needs my needs," and the other party is left with a self-centered individual who only cares about how things make them feel. This may be a problem that is particular to individuals, but I think we all have the potential to misconstrue our feelings and make everything about me me me.
On sex. People assume being in love with someone entails a physical attraction and an implicit assumption that you would want to sex him/her. I agree with Mr. Sart. We can enjoy being in the presence of someone without having any type of sexual thought whatsoever. Being in love means having an engrossing infatuation with another to the point where losing this person would drastically damage your psyche, the urge to have sex does not have to be involved, although in most cases it definitely is. But this may only be the crazy type of love, and another aspect of being in love is thoroughly enjoying the time you spend together.
It got a little dicey in Pt. 2. Check back later to see where this discourse leads in Pt. 3.
UPDATE: Pt.3 is up and ready to be mentally digested.
No comments:
Post a Comment