Over- like vs Love☺

[Aspychata]

So during a horrible meltdown on the planet is truly the best time to tackle the most perplexing humiliating exasperating humbling emotion called l over-like you or not? A person who's opened me up to different viewpoints has simply stated love is a Hollywood storyline. There is truly no love. So l am left to grapple with the huge defuntional aspect that l apparently am incapable of love because it truly doesn't exist. So of course being on the spectrum- l need to understand this Hollywood con. Am l just experiencing various levels of like with some being more extreme in nature that might possible culminate in love or is it just a extreme comfort in familiarity?

Which side of the road are you on? Extreme like or love is a true emotion?

 

[Raggamuffin]

If love were a Hollywood storyline it wouldn't have had centuries of literature and art dedicated to it. I guess to deny it, you try and defuse the potential hold it might have over your life. I think assuming you don't need another person to help you feel complete can help you feel empowered - but the price could be lonliness, or bitterness.

I held a similar mindset for a while. I was single, had a string of unsuccessful relationships and I presumed love didn't exist because of past experiences. To assume it wasn't real helped justify where I was at that moment in time. True, literature can idealise it somewhat - but I guess an ideal is down to interpretation. You could look at life and see nothing but the bad, or you could try and see the good in life, no matter what it might throw at you.

Love feels like an illogical enigma that we try to define through logic. At the end of the day, if something evokes happiness, pleasure or joy - isn't that enough?

Life and love are what you make it.

Ed

 

[Mindf'Elle'ness]

Of course there's love (unless you are Japanese...apparently they don't have a word for it). Love is what keeps us wanting to help each other. Without the unconditional love moms have for their babies (of all species), we wouldn't continue to proliferate.
If someone says there is no love...
a. they haven't felt it (very sad)
b. they are incapable of it (messed up brain chemistry)
or
c. they've been hurt so badly that they've adopted such a wide berth around it that it just ceases to exist to them anymore (survival mode)
d. ??? (other possibilities)
In any case, I would move with caution around this person because if they can't or won't feel love for you, they're probably ok with hurting you
e. Hmmm, maybe they're just trying to get a reaction out of you...maybe test the waters

 

[Giraffes]

I believe i the greatest love of all ie 'yourself' from that point of existance comes acceptance of others, not at the ill effect to others but the joy of seeing others and the less solid perception of 'good' and 'bad' people, i agree with Raggamuffin love is a feeling and is given to others not so we can get acknowledgement and stuff back but because we want to.

 

[Aspychata]

Of course there's love (unless you are Japanese...apparently they don't have a word for it). Love is what keeps us wanting to help each other. Without the unconditional love moms have for their babies (of all species), we wouldn't continue to proliferate.
If someone says there is no love...
a. they haven't felt it (very sad)
b. they are incapable of it (messed up brain chemistry)
or
c. they've been hurt so badly that they've adopted such a wide berth around it that it just ceases to exist to them anymore (survival mode)
d. ??? (other possibilities)
In any case, I would move with caution around this person because if they can't or won't feel love for you, they're probably ok with hurting you
e. Hmmm, maybe they're just trying to get a reaction out of you...maybe test the waters

So appreciate your comments. Think it's good to evaluate this. Think it could be we on the spectrum aren't truly wired for it but would never admit it. Hollywood conned thousands of woman signing up for slave labor being married to ungrateful men who knew it was cheaper to get married then live with Mom. I do meet a lot of men who are looking for a housewife and will say l luv you if that's all it takes for a snowjob.

Maternal instinct is very strong, we are wired for this. Is it love or wiring? But l always like your views, and l am glad you join the forum.

I respect this person's privacy so l choose not to discuss them but more the possibility that we could be conditioned to think love does exist.

 

[Raggamuffin]

I guess being different makes you realise that fitting into public expectations or social norms isn't as easy or desirable. I decided to be honest with people before even dating and stated I never want marriage or kids. That's a deal breaker for a lot of people, thankfully I met someone who shared my beliefs.

Control freaks aren't good - but when I look at things from their perspective, I know that feeling out of control is terrifying. I can only assume some people try to control everything because it helps them feel grounded. Obviously being controlling over everything and everyone isn't going to be a fruitful experience.

Much like someone who is clingy in a relationship. They might be scared of the other person leaving whilst inadvertently causing them to leave through their behaviour.

Ed

 

[Thinx]

Maybe what they were getting at was that it's never all roses, the other person has aspects we find difficult and definitely don't love, and after a honeymoon period of the benign psychosis we call love, we experience a rockier time when we are not sure if we can make our differences work?

However, for many, beyond that testing time, lies a future where what we call love is certainly present, some of the time, or as a bedrock. It's not a reasonable or reasoned thing, is it, love? And maybe it happens for different people, differently?

Also, if someone thinks differently from me about what love is, or even whether it is, then that's OK, for me. It doesn’t stop me loving them. As long as they want me, and need me, I don't mind if there ain't no way their ever gonna love me, because 2 out of 3 ain't bad...

 

[Aspychata]

Maybe what they were getting at was that it's never all roses, the other person has aspects we find difficult and definitely don't love, and after a honeymoon period of the benign psychosis we call love, we experience a rockier time when we are not sure if we can make our differences work?

However, for many, beyond that testing time, lies a future where what we call love is certainly present, some of the time, or as a bedrock. It's not a reasonable or reasoned thing, is it, love? And maybe it happens for different people, differently?

Also, if someone thinks differently from me about what love is, or even whether it is, then that's OK, for me. It doesn’t stop me loving them. As long as they want me, and need me, I don't mind if there ain't no way their ever gonna love me, because 2 out of 3 ain't bad...

Like this different perception, never thought about it like that.

 

[Darwin]

That’s interesting.

While “like” and “love” overlap (we say, “I love/like cake,”) “love” is more extreme. That’s true when we use it with stuff like cake, pets, etc. But it has a very different meaning when we use it with other people, especially with those of the opposite sex. It’s not the same as “like.” The difference between “like” and “love” is the same one between “friend” and “spouse.” As children, we liked many people, but the desire to actually love mostly started when we were around 14 years old or so, and it often involves sexual pleasure even if it were a homosexual relationship.

Psychologically speaking, “love” is almost always prioritized. It’s not merely happiness. It’s as if we exist just to love.

I think we should also include the love and caring of parents to their children to the definition of love because the relationship and the amount of caring parents give to their children are different than that parents would give to their friends. Relatives, especially siblings, might love each other, too.

There is no universal definition of “love”, because, I believe, what men call “love” is different than what women call “love.” If it were the same, men would find other masculine men (muscles, etc) attractive. That’s not true (except if someone is a homosexual). I actually don’t respect masculine men, and maybe even hate them. And I am sure you, women, also are not turned on by feminine behaviors or looks.
And when it comes to personalities, men tend to like submissive women, while most women would find submissive men unattractive.
Even on individual basis do we disagree on the definition of “love“ and criteria for attractiveness. For example, I love the introvert, shy type of girls. Other men would probably prefer the extravert ones, probably because it is easier to gain their trust.

 

[Aspychata]

That’s interesting.

While “like” and “love” overlap (we say, “I love/like cake,”) “love” is more extreme. That’s true when we use it with stuff like cake, pets, etc. But it has a very different meaning when we use it with other people, especially with those of the opposite sex. It’s not the same as “like.” The difference between “like” and “love” is the same one between “friend” and “spouse.” As children, we liked many people, but the desire to actually love mostly started when we were around 14 years old or so, and it often involves sexual pleasure even if it were a homosexual relationship.

Psychologically speaking, “love” is almost always prioritized. It’s not merely happiness. It’s as if we exist just to love.

I think we should also include the love and caring of parents to their children to the definition of love because the relationship and the amount of caring parents give to their children are different than that parents would give to their friends. Relatives, especially siblings, might love each other, too.

There is no universal definition of “love”, because, I believe, what men call “love” is different than what women call “love.” If it were the same, men would find other masculine men (muscles, etc) attractive. That’s not true (except if someone is a homosexual). I actually don’t respect masculine men, and maybe even hate them. And I am sure you, women, also are not turned on by feminine behaviors or looks.
And when it comes to personalities, men tend to like submissive women, while most women would find submissive men unattractive.
Even on individual basis do we disagree on the definition of “love“ and criteria for attractiveness. For example, I love the introvert, shy type of girls. Other men would probably prefer the extravert ones, probably because it is easier to gain their trust.

Totally interesting take. I actually find senstive men easier to be with because l don't have to explain every nuance to them. They have the perception to pickup on this. I also think they are more sensitive in when it comes to intimacy. So l actually think men should not state this as a feminine aspect, like don't gender label this attribute. But as always, l appreciate hearing your ideas because this is defintely an emotional topic. This is interesting, l might be seen as submissive however, l am simply not into power plays. Like l don't feel the need to doiminate because l feel secure in myself but l may also be seen as submissive which isn't true.

 

[clg114]

Well, I am in the love camp. I have been married to the woman that I love for most of my adult life. We have very large family and I love them to, however my wife always comes first. We are very rarely apart. I always put her needs ahead of mine. I can not imagine life without her and she feels the same way. I was 24 when we got married and I am 74 now. That is what I call a love story.

 

[Darwin]

Totally interesting take. I actually find senstive men easier to be with because l don't have to explain every nuance to them. They have the perception to pickup on this. I also think they are more sensitive in when it comes to intimacy. So l actually think men should not state this as a feminine aspect, like don't gender label this attribute. But as always, l appreciate hearing your ideas because this is defintely an emotional topic.

I did not say sensitivity was one of the feminine traits that women don’t like, and I am sorry if that’s what it seemed. I know that women like sensitive men, but I think that there are limits. For example, you probably wouldn’t like someone that cries whenever his boss shouts at him, but men would be fine with that if a woman did it (although I think you probably would be, too, because of the abusive relationship you have had before, so all you would care about would probably that he understands and respects you emotionally). Or maybe some women would like such a guy. But I’m sure that there’s not a universal definition of love; however, it is felt, and it is a very peculiar feeling that we would do anything to experience.

 

[Mindf'Elle'ness]

That’s interesting.

While “like” and “love” overlap (we say, “I love/like cake,”) “love” is more extreme. That’s true when we use it with stuff like cake, pets, etc. But it has a very different meaning when we use it with other people, especially with those of the opposite sex. It’s not the same as “like.” The difference between “like” and “love” is the same one between “friend” and “spouse.” As children, we liked many people, but the desire to actually love mostly started when we were around 14 years old or so, and it often involves sexual pleasure even if it were a homosexual relationship.

Psychologically speaking, “love” is almost always prioritized. It’s not merely happiness. It’s as if we exist just to love.

I think we should also include the love and caring of parents to their children to the definition of love because the relationship and the amount of caring parents give to their children are different than that parents would give to their friends. Relatives, especially siblings, might love each other, too.

There is no universal definition of “love”, because, I believe, what men call “love” is different than what women call “love.” If it were the same, men would find other masculine men (muscles, etc) attractive. That’s not true (except if someone is a homosexual). I actually don’t respect masculine men, and maybe even hate them. And I am sure you, women, also are not turned on by feminine behaviors or looks.
And when it comes to personalities, men tend to like submissive women, while most women would find submissive men unattractive.
Even on individual basis do we disagree on the definition of “love“ and criteria for attractiveness. For example, I love the introvert, shy type of girls. Other men would probably prefer the extravert ones, probably because it is easier to gain their trust.

I like to say I love a guy, but it doesn't mean I'm in love with him. I told a guy I was breaking up with yesterday that I love him. For the sole reason that he's in a bad way, and reacting bad, but I still care and want the best for him even if I just can't be with him anymore. Otherwise, I could have possibly said I was in love with him (if circumstances had been different...because he is definitely loveable). Does that make sense?

 

[Mia]

Before the concept of 'love' there were and still are arranged marriages. Previously two or more people living together in the same tent, structure, cave, along with the extended family or tribe or group. Massed together to protect themselves from others, weather and animals.

Physical attraction between two people very often led to children. And in order for those children to grow up and take care of their parents when they could no longer hunt or gather. Parents fed and protected their children until they were capable of reciprocation.
It was in the best interests of the tribe, for it's continuation that people came together to have children.

Now, there is the idea of a choice of mates. And love now is the criteria for choosing them. Yet without the media influencing people, the love poems, the stories of lost and found love, the marriage vows, people would likely live together for a time. Then go their own separate ways when the 'honeymoon' period was over. Moving on to someone or something else. Without love as a valued concept, couples would not come together permanently to have children and to raise them. Society as a whole would become individualistic, it would be uncontrollable by governments and religion and societal structures.

So, it's in the interests of societies to maintain order. And 'love' is one of those concepts.

 

[Aspychata]

I like to say I love a guy, but it doesn't mean I'm in love with him. I told a guy I was breaking up with yesterday that I love him. For the sole reason that he's in a bad way, and reacting bad, but I still care and want the best for him even if I just can't be with him anymore. Otherwise, I could have possibly said I was in love with him (if circumstances had been different...because he is definitely loveable). Does that make sense?

Makes total sense. Because it can be complicated if there is truly the emotion of love.

 

[Mindf'Elle'ness]

Here's to being in love!

 

[Aspychata]

Before the concept of 'love' there were and still are arranged marriages. Previously two or more people living together in the same tent, structure, cave, along with the extended family or tribe or group. Massed together to protect themselves from others, weather and animals.

Physical attraction between two people very often led to children. And in order for those children to grow up and take care of their parents when they could no longer hunt or gather. Parents fed and protected their children until they were capable of reciprocation.
It was in the best interests of the tribe, for it's continuation that people came together to have children.

Now, there is the idea of a choice of mates. And love now is the criteria for choosing them. Yet without the media influencing people, the love poems, the stories of lost and found love, the marriage vows, people would likely live together for a time. Then go their own separate ways when the 'honeymoon' period was over. Moving on to someone or something else. Without love as a valued concept, couples would not come together permanently to have children and to raise them. Society as a whole would be chaotic, it would be uncontrollable.

So, it's in the interests of powerful societies to maintain the status quo. And 'love' is one of those concepts.

Sometimes things actually become better with time but l have no idea if this is love or we just check off all the correct boxes, likeability, great attraction, similar temperament, same food interests, same levels of passion......

It almost reminds of a computer program coding and if this value is true then goto next value- if that value is true- then goto the bedroom. Lol But is this love or just an excellently written program that Hollywood decided to create entire industry around it- divorce attorneys, family law court, expert medical witnesses?

Do know that out of every one out there, l still am very drawn to them, but their comment made me examine my personal belief system.

 

[Aspychata]

I did not say sensitivity was one of the feminine traits that women don’t like, and I am sorry if that’s what it seemed. I know that women like sensitive men, but I think that there are limits. For example, you probably wouldn’t like someone that cries whenever his boss shouts at him, but men would be fine with that if a woman did it (although I think you probably would be, too, because of the abusive relationship you have had before, so all you would care about would probably that he understands and respects you emotionally). Or maybe some women would like such a guy. But I’m sure that there’s not a universal definition of love; however, it is felt, and it is a very peculiar feeling that we would do anything to experience.

I am always grateful for your comments and enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Darwin]

I like to say I love a guy, but it doesn't mean I'm in love with him. I told a guy I was breaking up with yesterday that I love him. For the sole reason that he's in a bad way, and reacting bad, but I still care and want the best for him even if I just can't be with him anymore. Otherwise, I could have possibly said I was in love with him (if circumstances had been different...because he is definitely loveable). Does that make sense?

It does. It depends on what exactly your definitions of “love” and “in love” are. I don’t differentiate between the two, but some people do. From the context, you probably loved some qualities he had but they probably weren’t enough for you to love him the kind of love you want to feel in a relationship. He was just “loveable” as you described. It reflects that you have mixed feelings about him. I think that we all can experience that. I would probably love someone who looks attractive, but when talking to them and finding out our personalities do not match, I would break up but would still love them—just can’t be in a relationship with them.
There are many “criteria.” My explanation is that, in such situations, that guy met some of the criteria but his “score” wasn’t enough to pass. (You need to loosen it a bit! I mean, you could have given him an E instead of F!) JK

 

[zurb]

What Hollywood calls love is actually infatuation (and/or lust). Infatuation is a feeling that comes and goes. Love isn’t a feeling. It comes from a decision. It is what you DO. Check out the books on the 5 love languages.