Is it really love if it's unrequited? page 4

[jojohaligo]

... what happens when two people were in love, and one person falls out of love with the other? The other still loves them, but the love is now unrequited.

Does this mean that the love is not real?

This makes me then ask yet another question. It it necessarily something we define as "romantic" love? What I mean is, is "romantic" love the only kind of love between two people? There must be couples who love each other very much, where one stops loving the other, but for the one who still loves the other it might be something more than how I define romantic love.

[Derpamix]

What about people who make you feel intense hate? Are they also your soul mates? (Actually, I think yes, but I have unusual views on these things).

I remember that quote, but I don't know if I agree. I think true love is something that lasts... a bond that cannot be broken. (A two way one, for those who are still thinking in stalker terms )

Agree with you about Limerence, but perhaps it's just a sub category of unrequited love? Forgot about that term... I actually wrote a script about it before!



LOL

I think so, mostly because love and hate tether on a really thin line. I've felt both, and have had both alternate between the same person more than once. I think you can only really hate someone who invokes lots of different feelings in you, what people think of hate now is just really a distaste of any particular individual. I know, that for me, it takes an awful lot for me to hate someone; so much, that I think I've only ever hated someone that I loved. And I've found myself both hating and loving them at the same time, it's really a fucking cocktail of emotions.

Limerence is, yeah, it's just you don't really care about the reciprocation of love, and it's an obsession like what's in Les Mis.

jojohaligo brings up what my opinion was on the topic in her last post.

[Lewis]

Well... if that were the case, wouldn't unrequited love go against everything you deem real? Surely "love" that had no possibility of actualisation / actualiZation would be detrimental to genetic replication, and therefore not congruous with our evolved brain chemisty?

Because, of course, what is important is what we glean from Musicals (!) ... and pseudo-science that misses the point.

It would never be worth trying to see what the philosophers have to say. Nor should we interested in what Wagner, whose Tristan and Isolde is perhaps the most intense meditation on erotic love in our art -- but, golly, it's not a musical -- has to say in dramatic (and musical) form. Nor would it be worth considering what, for example, Dickens in Our Mutual Friend had shown.

This, I'm afraid, is where we, as a civilization, are headed. Triviality posing as knowledge.

[eKatherine]

There are plenty of people who obsess about food in the same way stalkers obsess about the person who is the object of their fixation. But no matter how much we love chocolate, it can never love us back.