Love is a delusion

I read what I posted like twenty times and I failed to locate anything that may have sounded like "name calling"??? I apologize for any of my comments you have interpreted as "telling you what to do".

I admit, I could have stayed away from the upper case fonts and the exclamation points but outside that, I see nothing resembling name calling.

Another observation...you seem angry. It almost sounds like a "boy screwed up" your reality.

Curious though...how old are you?

I also looked for ad hominem remarks. Couldn't really find them.

I thought We were to get along in this forum? It seems We Have misinterpret the meaning of "True Unconditional Love" here.

We Have a right to disagree, however Learning to accept some one's point of view creates a Love for Our fellow Man/Woman's opinions!

Matt

I think a lot of the replies here were very patronizing. If the OP believes taht, then so be it. It's a philosophy, a serious view on the world. I don't agree with the OP 100% (but on parts) but I can imagine how fristrating the first handful of comments would be.

Zuriel wrote:I read a story last night about a guy who did not believe in "love". As the story went, he put forth extreme effort to disprove that love existed. Then one day, he met a woman who, like himself, believed love did not exist. Thus the two began their lives together. They were extremely happy, never judging, never jealous, never fearing. This "confidence" stemmed from the idea that they truly "expected" nothing from each other. They would "give" their lives to each other in amazing ways. One day, while away on a trip, the man discovered that he missed the woman. He decided he had fallen in love without even realizing it. He could not wait to get home and share his "discovery".

This is when it all fell apart...when he returned home, he spoke with the woman he had fallen in love with. He told her how he felt. This was the fatal mistake. Love, which existed only because each was reponsible to themselves, was now being loaded up with expectations. He made her responsible for his happiness. His "expections" that his happiness was because of her was what destroyed the loving bond they shared.

Moral of the story...we are each responsible for our own happiness. We can each ONLY give love. Through this "giving" we experience the ultimate happiness...the ultimate LOVE...Gettig love from others is not possible...it's not the nature of love...Love is truly a one way emotion...an outpouring of our souls and energy to the world around us...sharing...

Nullity, this may be why you feel love does not exist...you may be trying to "get" rather than "give"????

That was quite interesting If I do say so myself. It is very hard for people to wrap their minds around that! However, I can see a level of truth in there. Very deep!

Love is not a social construct. Its natural. If you think this sounds like you haven't experienced love.

If love is such a delusion, then I've been depressed since last night all over sex.

-sarcasm

nullity wrote:No, I am not angry. I just study history, and no where in the history of any culture, and society in the world marry someone for "romantic love" before 1000 years ago. Being funny is just an indication of how smart the guy is, and a sign of good genes.

Well, sure, there is biology to consider.

May I ask: You say you've studied history and no where do stories of "romantic love" appear before 1,000 years ago. How good were the records kept before 1,000 years ago?

Also: Couldn't it be that, during our evolution from cavemen to present, we were pressed to tend to other things more urgently? We lived in caves, for crying out loud. In the wild. Not coddled and protected as we are now, with the eases of modern life. Does that count toward why you think we did not talk so much of love, before 1,000 years ago?

Also, being funny maybe can indicate whether someone is smart; but it does not necessarily mean they are wise.

Peace.

love and happiness start from within. No from other people.
If we find love for ourself and happiness with ourselfs, we don't need anyone. We find relationships to share what's inside.

Statistics suggest we were never intended to be a species that pairs for life, but Nature played a trick on us when it made us dependent for so many years. In the lower animals, where the young are independent the second they're born, the parents usually eat, mate, reproduce and die within days or weeks.

The duration of dependency in our species seems actually to have increased along with our average lifespan. Whereas once people were out breeding and earning in their late teens, it's now increasingly common to see people in their 40s still living with parents; or parents providing support until the day they die.

As far as Nature's concerned, we need only to reproduce, teach the offspring how to survive in the world, and then our duty's done. In some religious cultures men then leave the householder role and go off to meditate in caves, giving post-menopausal women what by that time is a very welcome break from sexual duties.

But we're no longer a natural species. We're so badly perverted by our culture that most of us no longer recognise a natural instinct in ourselves, much less in others. We've created films and TV shows and advertising and lord knows what that show a laughable standard that we've accepted as real and desirable. Just an example: look at the ads on TV or in magazines and see how ecstatic the models seem to be over a cup of coffee, a pair of trousers or a supermarket trolley. Then, if you need to refresh your memory, look into any supermarket and see how people really look when they're selecting their week's groceries.

It doesn't add up but we've bought it.

And what does this have to do with love? Just that love has been sold to us the same way, and we've traded real love with the appearance of love. Provided our partners look right and seem to make the right moves, we're not that keen to scratch the surface and find out who's really there. That leaves us all as actors following scripts we write ourselves, based on what we see on TV or elsewhere.

In the cave days no one thought about love. They didn't have much conversation back then, and certainly no idea of the psyche and all its ways. You saw someone of the opposite sex, you mated, you hunted or nurtured, you died. There wasn't time for the introspection we all do now.

Now, as then, every one of us is simply looking for survival -- but now we want action and pleasure as well, because everyone else seems to have it (except we're all acting, don't forget) and if we haven't got what everyone else appears to have, we feel miserable. Being miserable worries us.

The idea of power we've been sold is a lot of money or a lot of 'good' relationships, preferably both. That's why we have a 14-year-old boy on this forum trying to decide which of two or three girls he wants to have "a serious relationship" with. That's also why people in their 50s will go to extraordinary lengths to look younger and to appear happy and 'successful', when inside they're terrified of losing power. Again, look at the ads. The group we all idolise are late teens to late 40s. They're the ones who appear to be getting all the prizes... and over a lifespan, that 20 years is all too brief.

So much needless self-torture, so many people feeling forced to act a part that never fitted and never will.

I'm not cynical about love but I am cynical about any one person's chances of finding a love that will satisfy them... unless they first learn to love who they are and block out the overwhelming message that another person or another product will give them what they want.

Hi,

The theory that is exposed in different ways in this thread seems to be supported by my feeling in life. I am referring to the theory that in short words means that people are not meant to be dependent on each other in a couple/marriage relationship and not for a lifetime.

I have been with my girlfriend for 5 years and we have a 3 years old daughter. We are still together but the last 3 years, the feelings and attachment have crumbled away beginning from we gave birth to our daughter. I am a person who is not very dissociated from my instincts and needs.

I believe that the crumbling of the attachment is caused by two reasons, that both support the theory spoken about

1) She is quite dependent on me and expects me to be responsible for her happiness and love

2) The moment we gave birth to my daughter I instinctive redirected my love to my daughter and focused on raising her and my sexual focus was directed to other females. I also felt the strong instinct of making more babies with other woman's but not with my girlfriend. Please accept the fact, that my girlfriend is physical attractive even after the birth, so that was not a reason for my distraction

However my question is basically, why am I so clearly feeling my instincts the way I describes, why doesn't everybody else not feel the same. And if they do, why is the entire world focusing on Marriage and the society providing beneficial conditions for married couples.

You probably ask me why we are still together when I started feeling that for 3 years ago, and probably is the reason for the crumbled away relationship that is probably soon to end. Well - I see how much my daughter loves when the three of us is spending time together, and I am fighting to not take that happiness away from her. Fighting against my feelings. And then I am wondering if there is something wrong with me - something I need to fight down.

You probably also ask me how she is feeling about this. Well she has always wished for a family and despite our empty relationship, she want us to continue fight for it.

br B

Brian1980 wrote:Hi,

The theory that is exposed in different ways in this thread seems to be supported by my feeling in life. I am referring to the theory that in short words means that people are not meant to be dependent on each other in a couple/marriage relationship and not for a lifetime.

I have been with my girlfriend for 5 years and we have a 3 years old daughter. We are still together but the last 3 years, the feelings and attachment have crumbled away beginning from we gave birth to our daughter. I am a person who is not very dissociated from my instincts and needs.

I believe that the crumbling of the attachment is caused by two reasons, that both support the theory spoken about

1) She is quite dependent on me and expects me to be responsible for her happiness and love

2) The moment we gave birth to my daughter I instinctive redirected my love to my daughter and focused on raising her and my sexual focus was directed to other females. I also felt the strong instinct of making more babies with other woman's but not with my girlfriend. Please accept the fact, that my girlfriend is physical attractive even after the birth, so that was not a reason for my distraction

However my question is basically, why am I so clearly feeling my instincts the way I describes, why doesn't everybody else not feel the same. And if they do, why is the entire world focusing on Marriage and the society providing beneficial conditions for married couples.

You probably ask me why we are still together when I started feeling that for 3 years ago, and probably is the reason for the crumbled away relationship that is probably soon to end. Well - I see how much my daughter loves when the three of us is spending time together, and I am fighting to not take that happiness away from her. Fighting against my feelings. And then I am wondering if there is something wrong with me - something I need to fight down.

You probably also ask me how she is feeling about this. Well she has always wished for a family and despite our empty relationship, she want us to continue fight for it.

br B

You're not the only male I've come across who has had the 'instinct' to just up and make another baby with another woman right after producing one. I can't tell you how many men have a habit of knocking women up and then just leaving, refusing to pay child support or even really be a part of their children's lives. Some of them even brag about how many babies they have by different women, like it's an accomplishment. It's quite low and disgusting, and there are times when I wish I could just round them all up and punch every one of them in the face. If you have no plans to give in to that urge, then I commend you for that.

The fact that you are both trying to fight to stay together for the sake of your child is also a bit surprising, considering society nowadays tells couples to put themselves first before anyone else. If you ask me, this mindset of always putting ourselves first (unless we're dealing with abusive situations) is just plain selfish. At the same time, even couples who get along well often split once they have a child. I'd assume that's because the majority of the attention has to now be given to the child, so they can't spend as much time together. Honestly I don't think many people think long and hard about any of these things concerning raising a family.

It seems as though you've been sort of 'pushed away' because your girlfriend is dependent on you. I don't know if that would change if she did some self-realization of her own, but when I read that, it kind of saddened me because I can kind of relate on her part lately (though I have no kids nor do I ever want any). :/

Love is not a "feeling." It is a way of life.

nullity wrote:No, I am not angry. I just study history, and no where in the history of any culture, and society in the world marry someone for "romantic love" before 1000 years ago. Being funny is just an indication of how smart the guy is, and a sign of good genes.

Ok this might be a little pedantic though as time frames go the 1600's was not a 1000 years ago so your original post and your claim to study history are somewhat as slanted as your views on Love or do you disagree?

Love the other 4 letter word. Yeah love can get you. That does not mean love is something you shouldn't strive for. We all get hurt by love at least once in our life. The choice is, do we allow pain and resentment to prevent us from love and being loved again?