Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 10:46:15 GMT -5
Interesting thread! I personally believe that there is no such thing as an accident. We meet who we meet and love who we love because we need something from them. A bonding site is open, they fill it. We need a lesson, they teach it. No accidents there. It's all good on the path to better. The lessons might not be easy (are they ever?), but even in my SM, my H has taught me so much about myself. I didn't think I was worthy of love when I met him. I "loved" him because he couldn't love me, because I didn't love myself. Now, I've grown to actually like and love who I am and now I'm ready for someone who likes and loves me too. I won't fall in love with just anyone. He'll be the right fit for this next stage/lesson of my life. I agree with bballgirl that there is a basic foundation and chemistry needed for love and that there are lots of someones we could fall in love with, not just one right fit. It may be hard to find even one of those someones, but there is more than one. And, I agree that love is work. Marriage is work. It requires all of this: bballgirl said: "The process the layers that maintain, that build the desire, that cultivate a relationship: Spending quality time, doing things together, caring conversations, cultivating the intimacy, doing nice things for each other, a man who is insightful and emotionally intelligent."
Falling in love is the easy part. It's maintaining it - which both people have to participate in - where the hard and most important work lies. I recently read a great quote (in The Meaning of Marriage*) that goes something like this: When you marry, you don't just marry one person. You marry lots of people - who that person is today, in 10 years, in 20 years, in 30 years. There needs to be a basic spark and a deep admiration and respect for who this person is and who they will become in order for long term love to work. And you have to always be willing to change and grow with this person. For me, it comes down to loving someone's soul. To love it, you first have to know it. Take the time to build the deep emotional/soul bond. Long-term love (and oodles of sex!) will flow naturally from that. * Although this book comes from a Christian angle, the principles apply to anyone. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is revolutionary advice on making marriage work. We have a marriage culture in crisis and need all the advice we can get.
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Jan 21, 2017 12:34:33 GMT -5
@elle I love that philosophy of you don't just marry one person. I totally agree with that. I'm not the same woman I was when I met my ex at 18 and married him at 21. Now I'm 45 I'm a completely different woman and a lot less inhibited and much more confident about myself and my sexuality. I think a person who is emotionally intelligent, insightful, and trying to live an authentic life will have curiosity, a zest for life and constantly be seeking improvement of themselves. In the case of my ex he stopped that somewhere in this thirties to the point he neglected himself and when one person in the relationship is growing and the other isn't then all you do is grow apart.
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Jan 21, 2017 22:04:25 GMT -5
Fiery said: "Could it be that we've been looking at the experience of "love" in all the wrong ways? And that we expect quite a lot by the Universe in waiting for that cosmic incident, where all the stars and planets are rearranged so that we can meet our destined love? I believe that by freeing ourselves from such a notion, that "love" is such a rare accident that happened to us once, with that former lover or with the one we married, and by reassuring ourselves that we can definitely "create" love instead of waiting to be thunderstruck by it,& would make the decision of coming out of a toxic relationship a hell of a lot easier... " Without that last part of the last sentence, you sound exactly like my couples' counselor. He would want to "create" that love again. There has been much talk on this board about desire, loss of desire or general lack of desire from the get-go. I will leave the latter alone and concentrate on the two former. If desire was there in the beginning, and you KNOW it, but it got lost... is it also a lot to ask of the universe to keep one thunderstruck with desire? To play devil's advocate - what other areas of my life have improved since I am not having sex three times a day like I did in the beginning of my marriage? To be honest, I am not sure how I took care of my infant in year one of our marriage even when it slowed down to 5 times a week. I am going to go out on a limb and say that I definitely get a lot more done presently. I definitely parent less accidental children I kid, I kid. But really. I didn't physically desire my husband in the first two years I knew him. I didn't think about it. I was dating someone else. We broke up, saw husband out, we talked for a couple of hours and I was turned on by the quiet guy that started sharing. I don't know what he would have said about that, but I know he did desire me in the beginning. We are doing a lot in counseling. In particular, I went from *star* emotionally intelligent wife, working hard to understand all aspects of our marriage while stating I am okay with however this turns out, to being called out on my own shit. In short, if I see a joke, I take it. I don't think it's malicious and he never calls me out on it, but apparently I have hurt his feelings many times over the last decade - not knowing he didn't always appreciate my particular wit. This morning, I woke up to him hugging and cuddling me. We sat in bed and talked about four or five random subjects. It was nice. It wasn't hot, or desirous. It didn't lead to anything... But it does take a hell of a lot of love on both of our parts to have made it to a civil and open place considering what we've put each other through. And I will own my part. Today, I believe relationships have levels of toxicity. Desire hides a lot of poison all people carry with them and I don't think I believe that the intense desire lasts for most people. I don't know if we will make it - I kind of feel like we won't just based on statistics - but I do know that I love him and I know he loves me, even if all the early magic has left the building. It's easier working it out even if the outcome is separation, through love. And who am I kidding? Tomorrow I might think something else.
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Feb 2, 2017 3:03:31 GMT -5
I agree with bballgirl that there is a basic foundation and chemistry needed for love and that there are lots of someones we could fall in love with, not just one right fit. It may be hard to find even one of those someones, but there is more than one. And, I agree that love is work. Marriage is work. This is kinda the gist of my thinking, though perhaps it didn't come out that way. There is the "infrastructure" of marriage... the scaffolding and mechanical workings of a functional machine. These don't vary a lot if you pick spouse A or Z; they're the core "marital skills / tools". Then there is the chemistry. That's what breathes life into the marriage. I think that not only are there many people out there who offer this excellent chemistry match, but it's also something that can grow over time where nothing existed before. As example, I've known people who weren't attracted initially, maybe for years, and eventually developed that bond / chemistry and started dating / got married. I don't think chemistry can make up for gross deficiency in the fundamental "marital infrastructure". (That tends to be very dysfunctional and volatile once the infatuation wears off.) History has shown that marriage can be functional (albeit cold and dispassionate) when the structure is there but the chemistry is lacking. Of course, the perfect storm is to find someone who is available, with excellent chemistry, and a solid structure. The "available" part is where it gets harder over time. Which leaves one to question... among the "available", which is better to use as a filter: marital skills, or chemistry? My suggestion is that divorcées have a track record, whether it shows they are good or awful at being a spouse. That actually holds promise to be a pretty good filter, then only exploring chemistry with viable prospects. (Which may or may not develop, but if it does at least it's with a realistic candidate.) First time around, most of us chased the chemistry first, and took a big gamble that the marital skills would emerge. Next time around, the odds might be better if the selection process was reversed.
|
|
|
Post by thebaffledking on Feb 3, 2017 18:58:53 GMT -5
So through the eyes love attains the heart:
For the eyes are the scouts of the heart,
And the eyes go reconnoitering
For what it would please the heart to possess.
And when they are in full accord
And firm, all three, in the one resolve,
At that time, perfect love is born
From what the eyes have made welcome to the heart.
—Guiraut de Borneilh (12th c.)
|
|