Comments | adumbreminder: Who Defines It?

adumbreminder

Who Defines It?

Jan 18, 2005 09:26

So I got to wondering, what does love mean to some people? This thought came around after seeing Rodney online. He basically doesn't talk to me anymore because we broke up. His away messages used to be full of praise for me, saying he loved me and everything was okay because he had me. He's ridiculously immature, stuck in 7th grade with petty ( Read more... )

Comments 5

valliegirl January 18 2005, 18:13:24 UTC

You're so completely smart. You've got it right on so many levels. "Love" in it's truest form is unconditional. It's beyond caring about another person, and it's beyond lust and attraction. And Love in the hands of the wrong person is the most dangerous weapon. That kind of love can be wonderful. To have someone that you live for their happiness to the point that to see them in pain kills you inside, and to know that they love you too, in that same way... It's special. And it's rare. There's many times that a person has come to love another person in that way, and the object of affection takes it, twists it, and uses that emotion to slowly kill you. And no matter what you do, you care about them and you want to see them happy, but the other person really isn't capable of loving you or anyone really. That's when love is dangerous, especially if the object of affection is abusive or sadistic ( ... )

yes! anonymous January 18 2005, 22:43:36 UTC

O MY GOD YOU ARE ALL SO DEEP
im so glad that ur all mature and adult and have such deep emotions
now your all grown up

foobarbazquux January 19 2005, 00:27:05 UTC

I don't believe in some eternal love that is "better" than the ordinary love people usually think about. What I do believe is that when you date someone, it's for a reason. Maybe they're not right for you, or they do something not so good, but that doesn't mean that the reasons you loved them are invalid. No, it doesn't end, but it does fade significantly into a simple appreciation of the times you had. The Romeo and Juliet type of love is an ideal and not a realistic acceptance of another based on true compatibility, honesty, trust, and hard work. Think of it this way, how can they have loved each other when they only talked for about 10 minutes?

Don't look down on people your age for making grand statements about how they'll love so and so forever and how they'll marry their significant other. It's normal for teenagers, but in reality the mean age of marriage is around 26 for women and 28 for men in America. If you sat down and talked to the kids, I doubt any of them really believe they'll marry the person they're with.

azuresunglasses January 19 2005, 02:54:34 UTC

I agree with you. The problem is, I don't have a problem with love. I know who I love, and why I love them. I've never had a boyfriend I've loved.
I don't think your problem is about love either. I think your problems are like mine: You need... Companionship and affection. We're not looking for love, we're looking for a person to hug and kiss and be with... You know, physical/emotional. In order to have this, we don't necessarily need love. We need...
friendship...
Etc...
(insert deep things here) I don't really have much else to say on the subject, as far as relationships go, mine fail. I'm left alone... And without comfort.
But as I said, your problems are my problems and thus I am most likely preaching to the choir.

shedidnothing January 19 2005, 17:46:07 UTC

Maya, I remember talking to you about this same exact thing, only in a bit of a different form. You mainly critizized (why can't I spell this word now?!?) my ideas on love, that it was a popularity type of thing and most of the time, made up for like popularity or whatever.

Maybe I just can't express myself.