TRUE love between a man and a woman (or gay/lesbian, etc.) can not exist.

[science_is_my_god]

Hello all. I have had several friends go through some exceptionally nasty relationships before (I have as well). I always used to believe in true love, but recently I am not so sure.

First, I suppose one must define "True love."

By my book, I guess it would have to be the unconditional love by both parties. Unconditional meaning that no matter what different parameters are thrown into the equation, the couple continues to love each other. For example, a guy loses his job and is broke, or a woman that gets paralyzed from the neck down.

That being said here are two major reasons why I question the idea of "True love."

The first side of the coin would have to be biology. Good old mother nature. Deep down we usually crave sex. It's just the way it is (I suppose mostly directed at men but there are some wild women out there too ). Now I understand that some people can learn to control these urges, and live happy monogamous long term relationships, and I understand that some would like to believe that you can still love someone and have an affair with someone else (although I disagree.)

Now the second point. Most people enter relationships to get something in return. Whether it's red hot love making, a roof over your head, money, or even just an adventurous lifestyle. And many will claim that they still love their partner even under these circumstances, but I feel that what they actually love is what is provided for them or what they get out of the relationship itself.

So you know, I kind of tend to view "True love" kind of like the traditional "God." Everyone wants to believe in its existence, and it may be unpopular to state the contrary, but it is a valid point to try to grasp what things are like and how they can be explained without it.

Any thoughts?

P.S. I am not trying to invalidate anybody's feelings here. I understand "regular love" is a very real human emotion. I am just trying to grasp the external variables that would cause people to feel this way.

 

[Koldo]

Hello all. I have had several friends go through some exceptionally nasty relationships before (I have as well). I always used to believe in true love, but recently I am not so sure.

First, I suppose one must define "True love."

By my book, I guess it would have to be the unconditional love by both parties. Unconditional meaning that no matter what different parameters are thrown into the equation, the couple continues to love each other. For example, a guy loses his job and is broke, or a woman that gets paralyzed from the neck down.

Does "true love" even exist in any other way ?

 

[Vendetta]

Good overview. I don't believe there is a universal concept of love. I personally as a science reduce the feelings of love to neurological firings in higher areas of the brain. But "true love" to me is paradoxical since trueness seems to be absolute and this is usually followed by intuition. I think true-ness and love are just intuitive feelings that are shared and are apparent to both people as absolute feelings but as you have stated with your friends things aren't always true and absolute.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

All relationships are multi-layered, dynamic, and ever-changing. Any relationship that isn't, isn't much of a relationship.

 

[bain-druie]

I think that it's as difficult to define true love as it is to define any existential concept. When you define it by saying it means people unconditionally love each other, you're using the word to define itself, and thus not really saying much.

For instance, what would depict unconditional love? Do you mean loyalty? That would be exemplified, taking your example of a quadriplegic, by her spouse staying with her to care for her, or at least to provide said care, and providing continual affection and concern. Is that enough to prove true love, or are there other parameters that must be satisfied?

For my part, I have seen this depth of loyalty, and I admire it. I do consider that an example of true love; selfless affection for another person regardless of their ability to reciprocate what is given.

However, some would put unrealistic expectations on the spouse in addition to this, such as celibacy. If your concept of true love would require that the spouse not only stay, and provide care and affection, but also never love anyone else (or sleep with anyone else), that's also possible, but not likely. It is also, I would argue, rather unfair. I know I wouldn't live up to that; not for anyone. I could provide the loyalty, I hope, but let's be real.

But then you have to ask also, when we love another person, what is it that we actually love? Do we ever truly know or understand another person?

I don't believe we ever even truly know or understand ourselves; therefore it's impossible to expect that we plumb the depths of someone else's soul. In that case, is it not more accurate to say that we love the *idea* of the other person that we have created in our own minds? If so, are we not merely loving ourselves in the shape of the other?

Perhaps. None of these are things that can realistically be answered in any definitive sense, IMHO. They're still deeply interesting to discuss, though. Good topic.

 

[Felidae]

Ahh. I have been through a relationship with true love.. twice. True love isn't hard for me. I love unconditionally, and I swear by truth anytime. I have also had my two relationships (that matter) where it was possible to love someone, absolutely, but have sex with someone else, my boyfriend of the time accepting and even loving this. I am, of course, bisexual. When I am in love with a man, I agree to give up the part of me that loves women. I do prefer men anyway, so that's not difficult. I can have sex from lust and from love. From love means infinitely more than from lust, but does not mean one is more pleasurable than the other. Also, I have been in one relationship (lasting 7 years) where my bf of the time liked me to be with another man when he was present. Please, no extreme judgements from those who don't agree. Arguments, discussions fine, but don't judge me just for this. I am fine with who I am, wouldn't have it another way.

However, both relationships ended.. one because he didn't want to anymore (fell in love with another), another because I broke it off, long distance.

I also separate spiritual love and physical love. Sometimes they are as one, but for example, the quadriplegic. I would be able to love someone like that forever. I fall in love with mind, not body in the first place. But the body needs certain things too, and in this case, a quadriplegic can not ask his or her spouse to forego physical pleasures forever. True love is letting your own preferences go sometimes. So, in that case, let your spouse be with someone else is what I'd want. Not ideal, but what else can you do? We're human beings, with desires, with wants, with needs. I'm no saint.
I'm someone who loves someone for their mind, spirit, soul, but the body wants something too.

True love exists, but I don't believe in ONE true love for one person. True love comes along many times in someones lifetime, two for me as of yet, could be more if I'd have been open to it, will be more in the future.
​

 

[Darius1121]

I see no need for sex in my life, nor do I see any reason to bring a child of my own into a world where being different is a crime.While I can see that many would disagree with me on this one,they can not change my mind. In this though, you have to decide for yourself. I chose not to have sex, others chose to. On the biological level, It is proven that if your mind choses to prevent biological urges, you will not have them. While I can still care about other people on the general friendliness/Friendship level, I have not feel sexual attraction. A rather good thing, since my first experience with such was abuse from the age of 8 to the age of 13, causing an extreme aversion to be touched in any way,shape or form.

 

[Warren Clark]

Hello all. I have had several friends go through some exceptionally nasty relationships before (I have as well). I always used to believe in true love, but recently I am not so sure.

First, I suppose one must define "True love."

By my book, I guess it would have to be the unconditional love by both parties. Unconditional meaning that no matter what different parameters are thrown into the equation, the couple continues to love each other. For example, a guy loses his job and is broke, or a woman that gets paralyzed from the neck down.

That being said here are two major reasons why I question the idea of "True love."

The first side of the coin would have to be biology. Good old mother nature. Deep down we usually crave sex. It's just the way it is (I suppose mostly directed at men but there are some wild women out there too ). Now I understand that some people can learn to control these urges, and live happy monogamous long term relationships, and I understand that some would like to believe that you can still love someone and have an affair with someone else (although I disagree.)

Now the second point. Most people enter relationships to get something in return. Whether it's red hot love making, a roof over your head, money, or even just an adventurous lifestyle. And many will claim that they still love their partner even under these circumstances, but I feel that what they actually love is what is provided for them or what they get out of the relationship itself.

So you know, I kind of tend to view "True love" kind of like the traditional "God." Everyone wants to believe in its existence, and it may be unpopular to state the contrary, but it is a valid point to try to grasp what things are like and how they can be explained without it.

Any thoughts?

P.S. I am not trying to invalidate anybody's feelings here. I understand "regular love" is a very real human emotion. I am just trying to grasp the external variables that would cause people to feel this way.

I would have to agree to the broadest extent.

 

[Vendetta]

Ahh. I have been through a relationship with true love.. twice. True love isn't hard for me. I love unconditionally, and I swear by truth anytime. I have also had my two relationships (that matter) where it was possible to love someone, absolutely, but have sex with someone else, my boyfriend of the time accepting and even loving this. I am, of course, bisexual. When I am in love with a man, I agree to give up the part of me that loves women. I do prefer men anyway, so that's not difficult. I can have sex from lust and from love. From love means infinitely more than from lust, but does not mean one is more pleasurable than the other. Also, I have been in one relationship (lasting 7 years) where my bf of the time liked me to be with another man when he was present. Please, no extreme judgements from those who don't agree. Arguments, discussions fine, but don't judge me just for this. I am fine with who I am, wouldn't have it another way.

However, both relationships ended.. one because he didn't want to anymore (fell in love with another), another because I broke it off, long distance.

I also separate spiritual love and physical love. Sometimes they are as one, but for example, the quadriplegic. I would be able to love someone like that forever. I fall in love with mind, not body in the first place. But the body needs certain things too, and in this case, a quadriplegic can not ask his or her spouse to forego physical pleasures forever. True love is letting your own preferences go sometimes. So, in that case, let your spouse be with someone else is what I'd want. Not ideal, but what else can you do? We're human beings, with desires, with wants, with needs. I'm no saint.
I'm someone who loves someone for their mind, spirit, soul, but the body wants something too.

True love exists, but I don't believe in ONE true love for one person. True love comes along many times in someones lifetime, two for me as of yet, could be more if I'd have been open to it, will be more in the future.
​

No offense but if it was true love you wouldn't be saying you experienced it twice. Perhaps love for you is easy without conditions, however naive people (no offense) may fall in love easier than those who aren't. For me, there are many women who claim to love me however love nowadays is just a word that sounds nice. People need to figure out true-ness.and love in the first place.

 

[Felidae]

Ahh but it does depend on your definition of true love now doesn't it? For me that doesn't mean forever love, it just means that you love someone with all your heart and soul (as far as I believe in the existence of the latter), unconditionally indeed, you trust them all the way, you'd die for them. And yes, I did experience that twice. I couldn't have loved my exes more than I did, trust me.
And I love easy, yes, but my trust is hard won, and I can imagine it being even more so for the next person that I might love in my life. Even though my last ex didn't betray me like the first one. I trust the person, I have trouble trusting the relationship will last, no matter how much we love each other. People are not without flaw, things can happen that neither has meant, things that mean the end of love and trust.

And is love worth less when it comes easily? You make it sound so, but why? Does true love have to be won the hard way, does there need to be struggle for the love to be worth more? Oh and both my relationships that count weren't easy by the way, I did love and trust them all the way, but there were still things that hurt both me and my then boyfriends. Sometimes we had to fight to keep what we had. To me, that happened, but it does not make the love we had worth more.

Am I naive? Well maybe. But then it's by spirit, and not by ways of lacking experience. I've had quite a few nasty things happen in my life, and the last few years have been particularly hard. If I'm naive by spirit, I wouldn't be any other way. :angel2:

 

[Sunstone]

First, there is no reason why anyone here need put on airs by declaring one love is more "true" than any other kind of love. We're all forum friends, aren't we? So, perhaps just this once in a discussion of love we can skip the damnable formality of first claiming my love is Truer than your love.

Second, nothing is more obvious than there are several kinds of love. Helen Fischer, who is the leading scientist in the field, identifies three kinds of love involved in mating alone, let alone any loves that have little or nothing to do with getting laid.

Next, what the OP loathsomely calls "true love" and which has no more actuality or realness than any other kind of love, might less offensively be called "unconditional love". If you're Christian, you might even call it agape. Some Buddhists call it detached compassion or just compassion. Rumi called it wine and told his god, "Give me wine or leave me alone", while Krishnamurti simply called it love.

Studies done by Newberg and D'Aquili -- tMRI research -- have laid a foundation for a neurological understanding of unconditional love. In other words, the stuff is just as much based in brain structure and neurochemistry as are Helen Fischer's three kinds of love suitable to get laid by.

Unconditional love is like a breeze. If both the scientists and the sages are correct, you can no more bring it about, you can no more make it happen, than you can make a breeze happen. You can go years between breezes or you can have a quick succession of many breezes in a row.

The only thing you can do about unconditional love is do nothing to block it. Close no windows. Shut no doors. That is, don't make yourself hard and cynical just because you've been hurt before. Don't nurse or cultivate your pain. Drop your psychological defense mechanisms. Relinquish your stupid desire to be invulnerable. I mean, get real: A pavement brick is invulnerable and people still walk all over it.

None of those things will cause the breeze of unconditional love to rise. But they will prevent you from walling yourself off from that breeze, should it come. Whether you think that's worthwhile is, of course, your choice.

 

[Vendetta]

Ahh but it does depend on your definition of true love now doesn't it? For me that doesn't mean forever love, it just means that you love someone with all your heart and soul (as far as I believe in the existence of the latter), unconditionally indeed, you trust them all the way, you'd die for them. And yes, I did experience that twice. I couldn't have loved my exes more than I did, trust me.
And I love easy, yes, but my trust is hard won, and I can imagine it being even more so for the next person that I might love in my life. Even though my last ex didn't betray me like the first one. I trust the person, I have trouble trusting the relationship will last, no matter how much we love each other. People are not without flaw, things can happen that neither has meant, things that mean the end of love and trust.

And is love worth less when it comes easily? You make it sound so, but why? Does true love have to be won the hard way, does there need to be struggle for the love to be worth more? Oh and both my relationships that count weren't easy by the way, I did love and trust them all the way, but there were still things that hurt both me and my then boyfriends. Sometimes we had to fight to keep what we had. To me, that happened, but it does not make the love we had worth more.

Am I naive? Well maybe. But then it's by spirit, and not by ways of lacking experience. I've had quite a few nasty things happen in my life, and the last few years have been particularly hard. If I'm naive by spirit, I wouldn't be any other way. :angel2:

Well, I am merely stating the fact that perhaps you do love easy. Any person can appear to be "the one" but if you find yourself making the same mistakes perhaps there is a pattern of behavior and thought process you're exhibiting.

 

[waitasec]

Hello all. I have had several friends go through some exceptionally nasty relationships before (I have as well). I always used to believe in true love, but recently I am not so sure.

First, I suppose one must define "True love."

By my book, I guess it would have to be the unconditional love by both parties. Unconditional meaning that no matter what different parameters are thrown into the equation, the couple continues to love each other. For example, a guy loses his job and is broke, or a woman that gets paralyzed from the neck down.

That being said here are two major reasons why I question the idea of "True love."

The first side of the coin would have to be biology. Good old mother nature. Deep down we usually crave sex. It's just the way it is (I suppose mostly directed at men but there are some wild women out there too ). Now I understand that some people can learn to control these urges, and live happy monogamous long term relationships, and I understand that some would like to believe that you can still love someone and have an affair with someone else (although I disagree.)

Now the second point. Most people enter relationships to get something in return. Whether it's red hot love making, a roof over your head, money, or even just an adventurous lifestyle. And many will claim that they still love their partner even under these circumstances, but I feel that what they actually love is what is provided for them or what they get out of the relationship itself.

So you know, I kind of tend to view "True love" kind of like the traditional "God." Everyone wants to believe in its existence, and it may be unpopular to state the contrary, but it is a valid point to try to grasp what things are like and how they can be explained without it.

Any thoughts?

P.S. I am not trying to invalidate anybody's feelings here. I understand "regular love" is a very real human emotion. I am just trying to grasp the external variables that would cause people to feel this way.

are we talking about eros love exclusively?

 

[Sunstone]

No offense but if it was true love you wouldn't be saying you experienced it twice. Perhaps love for you is easy without conditions, however naive people (no offense) may fall in love easier than those who aren't. For me, there are many women who claim to love me however love nowadays is just a word that sounds nice. People need to figure out true-ness.and love in the first place.

No offense, but your approach to defining love seems to me nine-tenths "moralize about it", and only one-tenths "observe anything about it". I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you to adopt different opinions, but I just want to know why you feel judging love is the equivalent of making sense of it?

 

[blackout]

Well, I am merely stating the fact that perhaps you do love easy. Any person can appear to be "the one" but if you find yourself making the same mistakes perhaps there is a pattern of behavior and thought process you're exhibiting.

Why this obsession with "the one"?

Why does "real love" have to equate "the one"?

I think people limit love,
and put limits on one another
in the name of their limiting loves.

 

[bain-druie]

Well, I am merely stating the fact that perhaps you do love easy. Any person can appear to be "the one" but if you find yourself making the same mistakes perhaps there is a pattern of behavior and thought process you're exhibiting.

:foot: Why are you assuming she's making mistakes? Nothing in her posts indicates that SHE thinks so. Nothing in her posts indicates an unhealthy pattern or thought process. Why would you use a thread on a message board to make a value judgment on someone else's love relationships?

Life is a series of moments with a series of people; hopefully, it is a learning experience. Love is an essential part of it, because love can teach us in ways nothing else can.

Your descriptions of 'the one' and 'true love' indicate your view to be that 'true' love is limited to one relationship only; that idea is far more redolent of naivete than you seem to realize. It is not only possible, but likely, that we may each encounter unconditional love with an erotic component more than once in a lifetime. When you include other types of love, such as familial, it ups the ante quite a bit.

If you wish to impose arbitrary boundaries on your own life and your set of relationships, that's up to you; but don't use those boundaries to judge the relationships of others.

 

[Penumbra]

"True love" seems to be a rather vague phrase to me.

In my view, the most complete form of love for a specific mate is something along the lines of focused and yet unattached loving-compassion. Or if "complete" is not the right word, in my view it is the type of love that has the most benefits and the least drawbacks, and is highly sustainable.

It's a form of love where you are already basically complete as a person, and don't define yourself as someone who absolutely needs another person, or craves them, or needs what they have to offer, but you do have strong and sustained intimate feelings for them, prefer to be with them, and above all else, want them to be happy and fulfilled. Rather than needing someone else to be fulfilled yourself, you're already fulfilled, and wish to share that feeling with another fulfilled person. It's about finding the most value in expressing that love (rather than focusing primarily on what you can receive), because you have so much of it to express, and you love giving them a chance to express their love to you as well. It's a feeling where you love them, and you don't need them to be with you, but they'd be crazy not to be with you.

I think this fairly well-known quote sums it up well:
"If you love somebody, let them go. If they return, they were always yours. If they don't, they never were."

I feel that's a good way to approach it. Rather than clinging and desiring, just love, and if they have a similar mindset, it can be a great relationship.

It's not quite "unconditional" love, nor does it need to be. Unconditional love for everyone and everything seems to be a related and yet different expression altogether.

But this sort of romantic love instead is more focused, more trait-driven. It is conditional, because it's based on their virtues, their compatibility, their emotions, their intelligence, their sexuality, and their subtleties that lead you to want to spend time with them and to be physically and emotionally intimate with them. It's not superficially or short-shortsightedly conditional, though. It's not clingy or needy, but it's powerful, and it's unattached, and yet lovely.

 

[Riverwolf]

By my book, I guess it would have to be the unconditional love by both parties. Unconditional meaning that no matter what different parameters are thrown into the equation, the couple continues to love each other. For example, a guy loses his job and is broke, or a woman that gets paralyzed from the neck down.

Funny you should bring that up. My girlfriend's father is still with his wife, even after a stroke has rendered an entire side of her body permanently paralyzed, and made it very hard for her to speak intelligibly, after 20 years. (Her mental capacities are still perfectly fine, as far as I can tell.) There is nothing but love between those two.

 

[Vendetta]

Why this obsession with "the one"?

Why does "real love" have to equate "the one"?

I think people limit love,
and put limits on one another
in the name of their limiting loves.

I am talking about the typical attitude of monogamous couples who perpetuate the attitude that upon finding their supposed mate, they believe that its true love thus, the common phrase " I've found the one!". As far as limiting love, limitations upon abstract concepts are a consequence of human understandig and language. If you can define something without limiting it, you'd be a millionare.

 

[Vendetta]

No offense, but your approach to defining love seems to me nine-tenths "moralize about it", and only one-tenths "observe anything about it". I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you to adopt different opinions, but I just want to know why you feel judging love is the equivalent of making sense of it?

No offense but the comment wasn't addressed to you so let us stop there.