|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 8, 2009 19:04:20 GMT
EK you have just described perfectly the situation that most fathers find themselves in when they first hold their newborn baby. It also perfectly describes the romantic period of a true relationship. Yes. But there's no competitive element with a child. The Mother will feel the same, so it's another thing the couple do together. (Also ensures the father does not see the child as a competitor for the attentions of its Mother - rather important, in nature...) However, for the mother it's not such a bomb shell, and also normally occurs earlier in the pregnancy. Equally, it doesn't ensure that the father doesn't see the child as a competitor, rather it ensures that the father is less likely to dismiss the child. What stops the father seeing the child as a competitor is the mother sharing the tasks of raising the child with the father, and not devoting herself completely to the child to the exclusion of the father. I included Arabia, myself, and that includes Egypt. Interestingly enough, you'll find a lot of Egyptian myth that romanticises and encourages incest (At least amongst the ruling classes) but none that encourages a romantic view of polygamy. Polygamy arises in any culture where the number of one sex available greatly outnumbers that of the other (Usually the result of warfare or disease). It is usually a matter of arrangement, not romance. Mormonism is an excellent example of this (And a Western one, yet!). In tribal societies, owning many women can be somewhat akin to owning many horses - a sign of wealth and prestige. Again, it has nothing to do with love or romance. in such societies, women are often bought and sold - and valued at less than a really good horse would be. You are trying to add love in places it would only rarely have existed at all, I'm afraid. And you're trying to say that love happens more than rarely in monogamous relationships?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 8, 2009 19:33:20 GMT
Hostorically speaking, of course it does. When was that ever in doubt? True romantic love is the ideal, but the vast majority of people throughout time have had to settle for rather less.
Plenty of people have built strong and lasting relationships on mutual respect, admiration and the kind of deep and abiding affection that grows over time between people who like each other a great deal. But there's plenty more who have had none of that.
If you look at the majority of societies throughout history, their mating patterns are based on arrangement, expediency or coercion. In many of them, neither party gets a real say in who they marry. In the majority, the idea of marrying outside of one's own caste or social strata is anathema and the pool of available partners is limted by travel or expectation.
Even today, a large proportion of the world marry through arranged marriages. Others marry because of unexpected pregnancy or because they are madly in lust and/or mistake strong liking for love. Far too many expect love to be the great cure-all and result in ultimate happiness in and of itself - which it doesn't, of course. Others marry for status or money. For others, it is a business arrangement.
True romantic love shatters and reshapes the world for those who feel it. But it's incredibly rare and most people have to settle for less. They always have.
So if you think I'm saying monogamy is some grand guarantor of love, I WILL laugh at you! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 8, 2009 20:10:05 GMT
let's say that the chances of finding love is like the chances of rolling the highest possible number on 2 100 sided dice. That would put the chances at 1 in 10,000.
If you then said what's the chances of finding love in 2 partners at the same time - That would be the same as the chances of rolling the highest possible number on 3 100 sided dice - which would be 1 in 1,000,000. Certainly a lot rarer than finding a single love, but hardly impossible (which is what you seem to be trying to say).
Personally I don't think either needs to be that rare, but the way our society is structured, it's a lot easier to find 1 than the other, because most people that might find the other will stop when they get to the first one.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 8, 2009 20:19:24 GMT
I think you are comparing the possible but rare with the impossible. And no percentages will give you that.
Kinda like: the possibility of being bitten by a wolf is one in a thousand, therefore the possibility of getting bitten by a werewolf is one in ten thousand.
It's a false equivalence.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 8, 2009 20:40:33 GMT
If true love is possible, then why does it have to be 1 true love. After all, the existence of true love doesn't rely on the existence of magic, and it has been shown to already exist, so where you are trying to compare something that is real, and has shown to be real with something that requires the presence of something that has already shown to not exist (or at least not be around in sufficient quantities to provide that sort of effect).
True love has already been shown to exist, and it is a logical extension of saying that it's possible to find 1 true love, to saying that it's possible to find 2. If it's possible to find another after you have lost the first (which has also been documented by many people), then logically it must be possible to find them both at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 8, 2009 20:53:43 GMT
IS it though? Love exists in potentia only until it is realised.
It is an absolute fact that there are creatures that can fly under their own natural power in the world. Does it therefore follow that you or I could do so?
As I noted earlier, love demands emotional exclusivity. Whilst it is certainly possible to love two or even more people sequentially, two at once would seem rather less possible. One cannot fill a jug to the brim, then pour in the same amount of liquid again without first emptying the jug.
By contrast, of course, many measures may be poured into the same jug if they are smaller measures - such as affection would create.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 8, 2009 22:33:04 GMT
IS it though? Love exists in potentia only until it is realised. It is an absolute fact that there are creatures that can fly under their own natural power in the world. Does it therefore follow that you or I could do so? As I noted earlier, love demands emotional exclusivity. Whilst it is certainly possible to love two or even more people sequentially, two at once would seem rather less possible. One cannot fill a jug to the brim, then pour in the same amount of liquid again without first emptying the jug. By contrast, of course, many measures may be poured into the same jug if they are smaller measures - such as affection would create. But there you and I differ, I don't believe that love demands emotional exclusivity, as if it did, then all other forms of love would be precluded once you found true love. However, I do believe that it requires full emotional commitment from all parties for it to grow rather than wither. As anything less will cause it to diminish. When another love is added, the biggest problem that threatens the existing love is negative emotions, the only real way round this is honesty and communication.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 8, 2009 22:58:00 GMT
You are once again confusing all meanings of the word 'love' as being the same thing, which they are not.
Full emotional commitment, though, certainly. Now how is it possible to give full commitment to more than one person at a time?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 8, 2009 23:24:22 GMT
with a great deal of trust, love, understanding, hard work, and compromise from all parties involved (as in a single person relationship some times things come up that mean 1 person needs more support than normal, and so the others in the relationship need to realise this and provide accordingly. After all while people are fully committed to a relationship, the relationship doesn't need all of that commitment all of the time, and adding partners means that you decrease the amount of time that you are not needed to be committed to a relationship, and if something comes up then it will need to be fitted into the relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 9, 2009 0:35:13 GMT
If you are not emotionally committed all the time, are you really in love?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 9, 2009 9:41:01 GMT
YES!!! Otherwise how could love survive a 6 month separation due to - say war? Or how could someone that loved someone else function at work? - After all if your fully committed all of the time, then you don't have any time to devote to other things. Being fully committed means that you will drop everything if the other person NEEDS you (and I don't mean just misses you and wants a hug). It means that you will cancel other things if they are having problems, you'll be there when times are tough.
It doesn't mean that you will spend every waking moment thinking about them, it doesn't mean that you will kowtow to their every whim. It also doesn't mean that you will give up your friends (though sometimes scheduling them in to your life becomes more problematic).
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 9, 2009 10:54:10 GMT
Um... dude... emotionally committed! NOT chained together! IE your heart always lies wherever the other person is, even if they are a thousand miles away with no prospect of a quick return.
Of course you can still do other things, both mentally and physically.
|
|
mobbie
Chaosite
Lalala
Posts: 906
|
Post by mobbie on Nov 29, 2009 12:13:24 GMT
Just figured updating you on what really happened in the end wouldn't harm, and after so many of you caring for it it's the least I can do.
Yes it ended, we are not together anymore. We realized that we can't, like it or not, it's just not possible. Even so we are still drawn together by our feelings for eachother, if we can't love eachotehr we still want to be there. This saying, yes we still sleep next to eachother (this being a pretty strong test to your will to stop, to control your emotions for the sake of not hurting eachother in the future) and we are very comfortable falling asleep hugging eachother.
I know this is pretty awkward and must surely be pretty difficult to understand without having seen us together, but we are just very close and nothing more, we both want the other to find a girl/boyfriend in the future are MOVING ON (not at a running pace tho, if you get me) is healthy for us.
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Nov 30, 2009 1:34:33 GMT
That you reached a common decision and found a way to be comfortable with each other is good news. If trying to move on and not being involved romantically is the decision that you want to stick to definitely, then I hope you will be able to continue to work towards breaking the tie that prevents you both from finding love elsewhere and will still keep a close fraternal relationship. Hugs and fingers crossed for you!
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Nov 30, 2009 10:32:34 GMT
u'll be alright.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Nov 30, 2009 15:33:41 GMT
I admire your (and her) determination Mobbie! Hats off to the both of you, and good luck moving on! Like Jang said, you'll be alright.
|
|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Dec 1, 2009 3:59:29 GMT
That's good that things are at least better now.
|
|