Musings

[sharen]

I've just been watching tv and it got me thinking about our cultural expectations regarding relationships. We're all conditioned to a certain extent by our social surroundings, and in the west, it's very much that we 'deserve' love and our life is a search to find that person to fulfill it.

So we 'deserve' to have boyfriends/girlfriends and be 'loved' by them. Eventually after we've had our fill of 'love' from that direction, we find the person that we want to spend the rest of our lives with and they 'fulfill' that need permanently.

No wonder we suffer so much as a culture in this area.

It just got me thinking because the things that we've told are our 'right' are actually the things that will work against us to damage the fulfillment of that need.

If love in its essence was essentially not a character issue, we could follow this pattern and walk away, but because that told that 'romantic love' is real 'love' we can manipulate or wheel and deal emotionally to gain it, and think we have the real thing. Yet it's only the icing on the cake. And it simply can't sustain a long term relationship.

And I know this isn't something that most christians haven't already heard, but I think it's interesting that our thinking regarding our 'right' to love as a culture, is so real to us. Specifically since if you went to your local graveyard and raised everyone from the dead and sat them down - how many would actually tell you that they achieved it?

And/or met their expectations or hopes?

I'd say very, very few. And out of those very few - I would almost put money on the fact that the ones who had experienced the most were the ones who had given the most based on character (true love.) In marriage anyway. Those who had been the most honest, the most caring, the most ethical, the kindest, fairest ect. All the things that we all hear about in relationship books and sermons, all the things that our consciense tells us is right, but we can tend to ignore when romantic feelings cloud the issue. In otherwords those who give, get and those who take, lose.

The only time that I think that falls to the ground is in the case of abuse. Where one is under anothers thumb and keeps swallowing the lies and manipulation of another because of their own conditioning or generational issues.

So real love, is exactly what we instinctivly know it is, and trying to gain it by cheating - ie, teenage dating, dating for fun, sleeping around, marrying someone for convenience or advantage etc will all rob us off it. True love can only flourish on a foundation. And that foundation is what we always knew it was. Truth.

 

[sharen]

PS. The main spanner in the works in the above I think is the age old lie that men are the answer and women are the problem thing.

So women putting up with way more garbage then they should from men and men dishing out way more because they think it's justified and the women take it.

Varying in degree of course from culture to culture, but the same basic record playing over and over.

But still, God is fair. Eternally. And if you be a doormat you can expect to get walked on. (Co-incidently, if you rob respect, you lose it from the people you take it from.)

So it evens out to a certain degree in cause and effect. Hence the 'truth' part.

Lies enslave and the truth sets us free. So equality can only ever really work, and thus create satisfaction in a relationship when we walk in the truth. A different standard can not be held for each partner. Or both are going to miss out one way or the other to varying degrees.


(Why we need God, because only he's got the full truth.)


PPS. Another lie (that seems to be more popular then it really should be in a culture (our oh-so-advanced culture) is that it's ok for women to get away with certain things because they're weaker (or dumber) or something. So women can put down men, whine, nag, cling/blame, be irresponsible and be generally annoying. And that's ok because of all the bad treatment that so many get from men. It's a stupid idea that comes purely out of bitterness. 'Equality' is not the right for one party to walk around with a chip on their shoulder.

I hate seeing this because it does so much damage. You can only work together and pool your strengths as a team if you respect each other for who you are. It doesn't work otherwise.

 

[Destiny70x7]

Saw your profile, so I guess getting a little challenge wont upset you

since you talk from a cultural point of view, I'll talk from a psychoanalitic point of view:

Well you're wrong, ever since we're rised by the union of a man and a woman, we get constituted by the gaze of our parents, unconsciously wishing for what they have, wanting to be the holder of the parent of the oposing sex attention, later on as we mature we get an edipical promise, we learn the rules of the game: your mother (father for the girls) cant be yours, but someday if you align/stablish an alliance with your father (mother for the girls), you'll become capable to get someone like your mother (father once again for the girls).

and that's the genesis of the need for love, to have that special someone for yourself of your own.

those in absence of desire for a partner probably possess a larger fear that blocks their most basic instincts.

now, imagine life if humans had no sex drive, we would had gone exctinct long time ago

So there ya go, I tried to be as brief as I could, my view on why we seek love, not related to culture, but to the most basic instincts of survival and the development of the ego.

I hope it was clear

 

[David777]

Brief perhaps.

"that's the genesis of the need for love" and "unconsciously wishing for what they have (parents)"

Let's look at what you said, Destiny70x7. According to your "psychoanalitic point of view".

You are saying that the beginning of the desire for a partner stems from the desire of an individual for their parent.

If this is what your saying, this is a most remarkable "point of view" to hold.

I have to disagree. Love itself has only ever been witnessed in the sacrifice Jesus made for those incapable of love. That is the very definition of Love. A good definition to use as the
primary definition on which to build anything. Whether Life or Love or Relationship. Even for the purpose of Pyschology.

Love between a husband and wife is conditional love. If in fact it is love, I have not been able to decide yet. Thirty years of cojutating.
Still cojutating.

Witnessing couples going through divorce would make anyone wonder if there was any Love in the initial relationship. Have you witnessed a divorce. A horrible experience. So much hate. How can someone hate someone that they originally were in Love(?) with. What a paradox. Or should I say, what an Oedipal paradox.

The love of Jesus was unconditional Love.
Human Love(?) is conditional.

If the desire for the parent is what inspires love.
Would it then follow that divorce is primarily based on a wrong choice of partner? Not in fact for financial strain or any other reason?

The viewpoint you hold seems simplistic.

I never married, why? I love my freedom.
Will I ever marry, no, why, see above.

You have to work at a relationship. That work is a life long effort.
When marriage is successful, it's because both people are putting the other first. This is simple but true. Not really anything to do with their parents.

 

[Destiny70x7]

we're talking about love betwen a man and a woman here and the hypothesis of the topic creator that culture makes us think we deserve love just because we exist, we're not talking about Jesus love (even when it's the main theme of the boards, it's not the topic of this title)

no offense mate, you bringed yourself to the topic, so you just became part of it, you say you "love freedom", but I am 100% sure that it's not the real reason, as that is always an excuse/secondary beneffit

it sounds more like affraid of comittment, affraid of delivering yourself and opening your feelings to another human being, affraid of getting hurt, affraid of failure etc.

most part of the time people who "like" being single it's because unsolved issues which usually lead to fear or other emotions, extreme cases of narcisism (this is the most common nowdays) where they arnt capable of putting affection on other person that is not themselves, extreme cases of repression etc.

and please read more carefuly i did NOT said that's the genesis of love (as in the affection one gives to the other) but I said, that's the genesis of the need for love, as in why we seek a partner and the specific characteristics of him/her.

about married couples, well, dysfunctional couples begin with unconscious dynamics and agreements that we call "colussion", as long as this colusion remains on the couple they will remain togheter, the origin of the colusion is, as usual, unsolved issues, couples that have a base on a pathologic colussion are destined to failure unless they undergo to therapy. as these individuals usually see their partner as the holder of the solutions to their problems while it's just the oposing of it.

and trust me, the point of view I hold is more complex than you think, if you think it's simplistic then it means I did a great job simplyfing it for you to understand :shade:
I just tried to keep it easy to read/understand otherwise you would had me here typing for weeks

and if you're just dismissing it just because you think it's simplistic, ever heard of "the simplest answer is usually the correct answer"?

and please avoid "doing quotes" on other peoples beliefs ok? it's disrespectful, and the only reason I did so on you it's so you see how disrespectful it looks like.
my english might not be the best so I cant explain theory as I would love to, but doesnt mean Im not capable of.

 

[sharen]

Well you're wrong,

I am?

I almost hesitate to answer your post since it struck me as being deliberatly arrogant and offensive, but since you insulted David777, I decided to respond since I think that at this point it's unlikely that he will post in this thread again.

ever since we're rised by the union of a man and a woman, we get constituted (?) by the gaze of our parents,

This phrase doesn't make sense.

unconsciously wishing for what they have, wanting to be the holder of the parent of the oposing sex attention,

I disagree. I think a child wishes to hold the attention of both parents, equally. And a child doesn't subconciously wish to 'have' what their parents have in terms of emotional commitment or else all children would start dating from 3 years on. As soon as they could talk they would start 'imitating' their parents relationship with play dating. Children usually reject that until they approach their teens. Girl germs, boy germs etc. The desire to couple with a child of the opposite sex would automatically be par for the course if the theory you are quoting was correct.

later on as we mature we get an edipical promise, we learn the rules of the game: your mother (father for the girls) cant be yours,

Nobody wants to marry their father or their mother. Your reasoning is very odd. And since you wrote in response to my post - Saw your profile, so I guess getting a little challenge wont upset you - I assume challenging your statements won't bother you either.

but someday if you align/stablish an alliance with your father (mother for the girls), you'll become capable to get someone like your mother (father once again for the girls).

Someone needs to 'align' or 'establish an alliance' with their father or mother to be capable of getting someone 'like' their mother or father? I'm sorry but this is so illogical I wonder that you even wrote it in the first place, let alone decided you were in a position to attack the above poster in his response to your statements.

Could you back these kinds of blanket statements with at least some proof or examples of case studies if you're going to accuse someone who disagrees with your ideas.

and that's the genesis (origin) of the need for love,

The origin of love according to you. Well you're entitled to your opinions if you can actually prove them. So far you've provided nothing but ridiculous sounding blanket statements.

now, imagine life if humans had no sex drive, we would had gone exctinct long time ago

Which is a stand alone statement that doesn't back up anything you've said so far.

So there ya go, I tried to be as brief as I could, my view on why we seek love,

Actually you just said I was wrong. You didn't prove why, or state that the above was simply your opinion.

but to the most basic instincts of survival

I was talking about love. And so supposedly were you. The quote about sex was supposedly to prove your point even though it was totally unrelated.

and the development of the ego.

And since when has the ego got anything to do with your reasoning.

We desire to have our parents as a permanent mate, but when we discover we can't marry them, we form an alliance with them so that we can find a mate like them and that develops our ego?

I disagree.

The only reason I can think of that you wrote in this thread at all was to sound clever.

It's not appreciated.

(And rather illogical when actually broken down into points.)

Your attack against David was rude and unprovoked. He disagreed with you. There was no need to insult him in return.

Please don't continue to post in my thread unless you can learn to be polite and respond to the subject matter constructivly.

If not, I'll report you to the moderators.




.

 

[David777]

Thanks Sharen

I had not noticed that Destiny70x7 had replied.
We all have opinions on different subjects.
I liked your answer Sharen. To the point.

I am very used to people disagreeing with what I say.
Especially when Jesus Christ is mentioned.
The author of our love. He created us in love.
He want's to perfect our love.

Love can exist in the spiritual realm. But, I am afraid
the flesh does not understand real love.

Baa,baa.