Choice, A factor in love?

[27x]

Consider romeo and juliet. Juliet was merely 14, and her parents ridiculed her for not having married earlyer and had children. Romeo was 16.
Both of these people, and most of the other charactors in the story, of romeo and juliet, considered sex to be the main event in love, instead of romance. After marrage and sex, however, Romance could then begin, unless the other wasn't willing to be married, or have sex.

In the bible, people have fallen in love because the other was fair to look at.

In these days, most people are very attractive, due to plastic surgery, common household cosmetics, and good personal hygene. Even though this is the case, many people fall in love with those who are less attractive. That is because romance has become an equal counterpart to sex, and people chose either one.

Some may consider this to be a change in society, but I disagree.

Physcal, emmotional, mental. These have been the three parts of love.

In the beginning, physical was the only strong factor. In the bast few centuries, the physical and emmotional where the strong factors.

In the bast couple of hundred years, all theree have been dominent.

At the same time as these factors where changing, the IQ of the avridge person was slowly increasing.

I sugguest, that because of our increased intelligence, and sophistication of mind, that choice, has become a new factor, however, it is still a very small factor.  

[Smab]

Well In Romeo and Juliet's time and a long time before it marriage was seen moreso as means to connect families, bring wealth to the family and carry on the family name. Love was just something that hopefully came along with time.

Also in some cultures(ancient Greece for one) it was believed that if you looked bad then you had a bad soul, so if you're going to spend your life with someone and have kids with them then you'd want a good person, and thus you'd want a good looking person.


I think in our current society physical appearance is only valued slightly less than before, perhaps because of how easy it is to change your appearance. But I think moreso it's because of how now with our social networks we're likely to either completely meet someone and get to know them before seeing them (like here, on Gaia if you don't post your picture) or even just hearing about someone before you meet them causing a predisposed opinion of them.
And I think even though before marriage was based almost entirely on looks I think that even then if they did fall in love with that person(or another, affairs were big) it was because of their personality. Marriage decisions were mostly just "this guy comes from a good family, isn't hard to look at and I get along with him alright. He'll do, let's go get married"

..I ended up rambling there. Long story short, back then marriage =/= love.  

[27x]

Smab

Well In Romeo and Juliet's time and a long time before it marriage was seen moreso as means to connect families, bring wealth to the family and carry on the family name. Love was just something that hopefully came along with time.

Also in some cultures(ancient Greece for one) it was believed that if you looked bad then you had a bad soul, so if you're going to spend your life with someone and have kids with them then you'd want a good person, and thus you'd want a good looking person.


I think in our current society physical appearance is only valued slightly less than before, perhaps because of how easy it is to change your appearance. But I think moreso it's because of how now with our social networks we're likely to either completely meet someone and get to know them before seeing them (like here, on Gaia if you don't post your picture) or even just hearing about someone before you meet them causing a predisposed opinion of them.
And I think even though before marriage was based almost entirely on looks I think that even then if they did fall in love with that person(or another, affairs were big) it was because of their personality. Marriage decisions were mostly just "this guy comes from a good family, isn't hard to look at and I get along with him alright. He'll do, let's go get married"

..I ended up rambling there. Long story short, back then marriage =/= love.

I agree. Infact Juliet's father instructs her to marry Peter, because he is from a good family. However that doesn't change the fact that MOST people, not all, wanted to marry those who where sexually attractive, even though they would probably be forced to marry them anyway.

I also think your example proves that the further we advance, the more we are able to chose to ignore our feelings of love.  

[Purete]

But you haven't said a thing about love. Love isn't romance, emotion, or sex.  

[27x]

That is exactly my point. The more our society advances, the more complicated love becomes, and it is no longer just about sex, romance, or emmotion.

Secondly, I am not sure what you mean. Could you please explain your basis for saying that something like emmotion is not part of love?  

[Purete]

Sure I can. And it's "emotion," by the way, kid.

All you have described is lust. Of course, just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean you're lusting for them, and just because you actually love someone and conicidentally find them attractive doesn't mean you don't really love them.

However, a love based on attractiveness or feelings (emotion, whatever you want to call it) is not a true love. It's just lust.

Here's why...

Let's say I loved you. For your looks. Let's say, in good humor, that I think you're the finest thing walking the planet. Then let's say you loved me back, for my looks. Now let's say we get married. And for what else but looks? Alright...we somehow manage to stay married for oh, say 10 years. (Although 51% of American couples get a divorce before they reach that benchmark.) Well...after 10 years you're not lookin' so hot anymore. You've got some premature balding going on, and have put on some weight, as often occurs as the years go by. Likewise, I'm not all too appealing any more. I've got some bags under my eyes, and also put on some weight. Well, all we had for eachother in the first place was attraction, and now that that's gone, because attraction is not eternal, what do we do? Do we stay in a lifeless and loveless relationship? Well, this isn't love. And I'm not satisfied with you. You don't look good any more. Or I just lost attraction for you. We never got along much anyway. What, you thought I liked your personality?

Okay, well let's say none of that happened. Now let's just say that I love you because you make me feel good. You make me happy, I feel like I love you, and so we become involved. For perks, let's say I make you feel good too, and you have feelings for me, and emotions for me. Well now we're in this relationship, and all is well. Perhaps we are lucky enough even to be attracted to one another. It doesn't change anything, we've already seen how that works. Now let's say one day you're acting like a jerk. Or I am. It doesn't matter. Eventually one of us is going to hurt the other's feelings. And when that happens, I might, even temporarily, feel as though I don't love you any more. Or as though you don't deserve my love because of how you've treated me. So, I dump you. Sorry. You shouldn't have hurt my feelings. Sucks for you.

Those long examples were probably not necessary...but they were entertaining. =)

The moral of the story is; appearances and emotions change, therefore a love based on either of those is subject to change. And a love that is subject to change is not a true love, because a true love is an unconditional one. Feelings and looks place conditions on love. They say, "I love you, as long as I feel like I love you." Or, "I love you, but only for as long as I'm attracted to you." Feelings are fickle and unreliable. And looks are not constant.

As the Bible says, beauty is fleeting and charm is decieving.

Unconditional, true love says, "I love you no matter what. No matter what you act like, no matter how I'm feeling emotionally, no matter what you look like."

And that kind of love takes choice. It is an active and neverending choice, to love that person every day, even if you don't think they look good, even if they hurt your feelings, even if you don't feel like loving them that day.

Choice isn't a part of love. Choice is necessary for love.

In fact, I think that arranged marriages can be some of the greatest examples of real love. Two people who know nothing of each other, may not get along, may not find one another to be attractive. But often times they choose to love each other regardless, because it is their culture and because they know that they must. You never hear of arranged divorces. Love is making it work, even when you don't want to. (Not that I agree with relatives choosing a mate for you.)  

[27x]

Purete

Sure I can. And it's "emotion," by the way, kid.

All you have described is lust. Of course, just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean you're lusting for them, and just because you actually love someone and conicidentally find them attractive doesn't mean you don't really love them.

However, a love based on attractiveness or feelings (emotion, whatever you want to call it) is not a true love. It's just lust.

Here's why...

Let's say I loved you. For your looks. Let's say, in good humor, that I think you're the finest thing walking the planet. Then let's say you loved me back, for my looks. Now let's say we get married. And for what else but looks? Alright...we somehow manage to stay married for oh, say 10 years. (Although 51% of American couples get a divorce before they reach that benchmark.) Well...after 10 years you're not lookin' so hot anymore. You've got some premature balding going on, and have put on some weight, as often occurs as the years go by. Likewise, I'm not all too appealing any more. I've got some bags under my eyes, and also put on some weight. Well, all we had for eachother in the first place was attraction, and now that that's gone, because attraction is not eternal, what do we do? Do we stay in a lifeless and loveless relationship? Well, this isn't love. And I'm not satisfied with you. You don't look good any more. Or I just lost attraction for you. We never got along much anyway. What, you thought I liked your personality?

Okay, well let's say none of that happened. Now let's just say that I love you because you make me feel good. You make me happy, I feel like I love you, and so we become involved. For perks, let's say I make you feel good too, and you have feelings for me, and emotions for me. Well now we're in this relationship, and all is well. Perhaps we are lucky enough even to be attracted to one another. It doesn't change anything, we've already seen how that works. Now let's say one day you're acting like a jerk. Or I am. It doesn't matter. Eventually one of us is going to hurt the other's feelings. And when that happens, I might, even temporarily, feel as though I don't love you any more. Or as though you don't deserve my love because of how you've treated me. So, I dump you. Sorry. You shouldn't have hurt my feelings. Sucks for you.

Those long examples were probably not necessary...but they were entertaining. =)

The moral of the story is; appearances and emotions change, therefore a love based on either of those is subject to change. And a love that is subject to change is not a true love, because a true love is an unconditional one. Feelings and looks place conditions on love. They say, "I love you, as long as I feel like I love you." Or, "I love you, but only for as long as I'm attracted to you." Feelings are fickle and unreliable. And looks are not constant.

As the Bible says, beauty is fleeting and charm is decieving.

Unconditional, true love says, "I love you no matter what. No matter what you act like, no matter how I'm feeling emotionally, no matter what you look like."

And that kind of love takes choice. It is an active and neverending choice, to love that person every day, even if you don't think they look good, even if they hurt your feelings, even if you don't feel like loving them that day.

Choice isn't a part of love. Choice is necessary for love.

In fact, I think that arranged marriages can be some of the greatest examples of real love. Two people who know nothing of each other, may not get along, may not find one another to be attractive. But often times they choose to love each other regardless, because it is their culture and because they know that they must. You never hear of arranged divorces. Love is making it work, even when you don't want to. (Not that I agree with relatives choosing a mate for you.)

Well, when a king grew tired of his no longer pretty bride, he would usually have her killed, frame her for scandal and divorce her, or just stay married to her, and find another bride. In the same way, if a man who wasn't a king was no longer attracted to his partner, he would usually have sex with his slaves for children. Someone who didn't have slaved was usually very poverish, and over the years of working side by side with his never really pretty bride, grew very fond of her, and died happily. She on the other hand, may or not have been happy, depending on weather he abused her or not.

The fact of the matter is, when nobles married people just because they were attractive, they usually didn't limit themselves to one partner.

On the other hand, people who worked for a living lived in close quarters with their families, and were able to bond with them.

The reason we think people who are only attracted to eachother can't have good relationships are just side effects of how most people live. Firstly we are far too busy, and spread appart to spend time together, and when we finish our work all we want is time alone with our friends. Secondly we sit on our butts all day, and eat untill we have sixteen chins.

The whole idea of sexual attraction was supposed to be:
1.Humans will like to reproduce.
2.After a hard day of work, humans can bond with eachother and release stress.

We still seem to reproduce but after that, we seem to give up on everything we held ourselves accountable for before.

My point is, you and I can't fall in love just from attraction, because our minds are too complex, and our livestyles are alot different from the kinds people lead hundreds of years ago. Secondly, if somone loves someone emmotionally, and physically, that is indeed love. I think what you are getting at is that somone may have feelings for someone and not love them, but there are big differences between the two, and by that I mean love is a battlefield, kid.  

[Purete]

That is indeed not what I was getting at.

Having attraction and feelings for another is not love. It's what the world would have us believe is love. But it isn't love. It's like.

Getting along with someone, having passionate feelings for them and being attracted to them is liking them. Loving someone requires you to love them in SPITE of something. For it to be love, it has to be at least a little difficult.

For instance, I love my boyfriend very much, because I make a conscious choice to treat him with love and respect him and honor him every day. BUT, I don't like him all that much. What I mean by that is that, although I am coincidentally attracted to him, we wouldn't be friends if we weren't dating. Outside of a loving relationship, such as a friendly relationship, we couldn't like eachother.

Love is going beyond what someone looks like or how they make you feel.

Love is constant, looks and feelings are not.

I don't know if you are religious, but if you have spent any substantial amount of time in church services you would probably be familiar with this concept. The idea of "unconditional love" is often accredited to God. However I feel that it applies to all people of all beliefs because it is the most commendable love. In Hebrew it is called "agape," or, "I love you in spite of..."

That's where people get love wrong. If your "love" says, "I love you because..." it isn't love because it is based on a factor that is subject to change. Real love says, "I love you in spite of..."  

[27x]

Purete

That is indeed not what I was getting at.

Having attraction and feelings for another is not love. It's what the world would have us believe is love. But it isn't love. It's like.

Getting along with someone, having passionate feelings for them and being attracted to them is liking them. Loving someone requires you to love them in SPITE of something. For it to be love, it has to be at least a little difficult.

For instance, I love my boyfriend very much, because I make a conscious choice to treat him with love and respect him and honor him every day. BUT, I don't like him all that much. What I mean by that is that, although I am coincidentally attracted to him, we wouldn't be friends if we weren't dating. Outside of a loving relationship, such as a friendly relationship, we couldn't like eachother.

Love is going beyond what someone looks like or how they make you feel.

Love is constant, looks and feelings are not.

I don't know if you are religious, but if you have spent any substantial amount of time in church services you would probably be familiar with this concept. The idea of "unconditional love" is often accredited to God. However I feel that it applies to all people of all beliefs because it is the most commendable love. In Hebrew it is called "agape," or, "I love you in spite of..."

That's where people get love wrong. If your "love" says, "I love you because..." it isn't love because it is based on a factor that is subject to change. Real love says, "I love you in spite of..."

I understand now. You have a kind of romantic movie kind of love.You've been convinced that Romeo couldn't have loved Juliet if unless it was forbidden, and that the pricess couldn't have loved the frog unless there was a curse.

In spite of, is a very strange way to look at it, because there are always things about people that you won't like. It's impossible to not love someone who is imperfect, so I geuss in that reguards you proved me wrong, like if you had said, "it's impossible to jump without falling down again."

But yet again I think you'll try to tell me that I'm still wrong, and yet again have to show me the true meaning of love, and I'm sick of it. I'm sure that once you find someone who you truely love, and you lose them, you'll feel alot differently.  

[Purete]

Well, even though you still don't understand what I mean, I guess it's no use.

And by the way...I have lost someone I loved. And it doesn't change my conception of love.

You started this topic wondering if choice was a factor in love. I'm just telling you that true love is a choice.