Two Totally Random Things

[jbs_teeth]

1) Is it better to love or be loved?

To love, I think, regardless of the situation. Because the loving part is the part that we personally participate in, the part that we actually experience in our psyche.

2) Puppies are cute, especially mine.

Comments

[kel_reiley]

that puppy is ADORABLE
my cat is currently doing an impersonation of your puppy

[jbs_teeth]

Kitties and puppies in your icon! So cute! They yours?

Petey is actually two and a half, but he's so cute, he still looks like a baby to me.

[kel_reiley]

Petey is cute
yep, them's my boys
sunny is the cat, he is evil
jake is the dog, he was awesome

[jbs_teeth]

Jake is beautiful!

[cirrocumulus]

1) I think this is actually a strange question, because in my mind the two aren't really separable. I'll say right off the bat that I have no personal experience whatsoever in these matters, but I think that love is almost by definition a mutual feeling, if we're talking about the "true" kind of love that makes people want to stay together forever, etc. Just like you can't touch someone without them feeling your touch and in effect touching you back, I'm not sure a one-sided love can really exist. I suppose it would be easier if two people started off mutually in love, and then the love died out in one person but not the other; but even that I'm a bit unsure of. I've also read somewhere that the biggest factor in developing a crush/romantic feelings towards someone is whether or not they have the same feelings for you. Which is a bit cyclical, but such are human relations, I suppose

[jbs_teeth]

I'm lucky; Petey's already two and won't be getting any bigger (unless I keep feeding him cheese).

In re: love -- Actually, I wasn't so much thinking of Romantic love, exclusively, and you're certainly right about our inclinations to be attracted to those who seem to be attracted by us. But, love is pretty deep and pretty wide in definition, and I've certainly loved someone who hasn't loved me back (or, rather, I've loved someone romantically who loved me deeply platonically). But thinking of loving familially and platonically, I think the perception of being loved is so much more muted than being loved romantically that the feeling of loving become much more important to the relationship and your participation in it.

Maybe in the simplest terms: a child loving their doll or me loving my puppers is the core of the matter. It doesn't matter when dolls or puppies love you back; it's the loving that counts.

[cirrocumulus]

That's interesting, then, because I think I myself am almost completely the opposite. Like I said I've never been in love to much of any capacity, so I'll draw from my experience with friendship. I might like someone a lot for their personality traits, and I definitely enjoy being around people I admire and respect and find amusing, charming, etc., but I honestly take more pleasure out of being around these people when I also know that they in turn find me to be funny and pleasant to be around. I will get positively giddy if a friend that I like but have been unsure about concerning their feelings for me makes it clear that they think I'm funny and interesting (because I usually assume I'm not, basically). So maybe it's just me being selfish, but I think it just comes back to that basic fascinating rule that everyone's different. I guess there is no answer to the question of whether loving or being loved is better, because everyone might see it in a different way and have different preferences.

[bodlon]

It's better to love. A person can be full of love for all sorts of people and benefit, even if it isn't always (or ever) reciprocated.

Then again, trying to conceptualize being loved without being able to love freaks me out pretty badly.

And yes, your puppy is awesome.

[jbs_teeth]

Exactly.