Yes I'm way too analytical but the truth is, I think it all boils down to power, perception of value, fear of loss, hierarchy of power in society, etc.
The sad thing is this doesn't say to much about love does it at least not from the WAS point of view. They only change their mind when you decide to move on and start dating others, you take away their power of choice.
Man... does this all boil down to consumerism?!
I think that's why I'm so squicked out by the advice to date or pretend to in service of evoking jealousy, or, exactly what you describe above. What kind of relationship is founded on not wanting to be on the "losing end" of a transaction based on the perceived "market value" of a fellow human? Fine, you may snatch up a hideous (to you) Twombly at a yard sale when you recognize it because you know you can resell it to someone who WILL value it, but a marriage doesn't so much function that way ....
Originally Posted By: robx
I then read things about "love chemicals" and that people in affairs are being fooled by their brains and these chemicals, and are feeling excited & attracted to their affair partners and the feelings are new & something they need.
There seems to be quite a consensus on this (Helen Fisher, etc). I wish everyone got educated on the chemical effects of fresh infatuation at a young age, so they weren't so blindsided by it at an age where they might be reasonably expected to know better. If the WAW knew all the reasons why they were experiencing high levels of giddy sweetness with a new partner, they would also know it doesn't last, not like that anyhow.
Giving a nod to the dude whose thread this is .... Smiley, Dr. Fisher says, "Don't risk copulatin' with anyone you don't want to risk falling in love with." (my paraphrase) Sexually-induced delusions of salience can blindside the most self-aware.
Especially, in my opinion, in the wake of massive emotional upheaval and a long drought.
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
<< Yes I'm way too analytical but the truth is, I think it all boils down to power, perception of value, fear of loss, hierarchy of power in society, etc.
<< The sad thing is this doesn't say to much about love does it at least not from the WAS point of view. They only change their mind when you decide to move on and start dating others, you take away their power of choice.
Rob, I think you nailed it down right there. That's why I question if the WAS loved us at all or is even capable of it!? To me a big part of this thing we call "love" is "commitment" or a "decision" as coach pointed out in retro.
And I'm willing to bet SP's Florence Nightingale ain't the true Lady with the Lamp. SP it's OK to get angry - you are suffering trauma.
<< Yes I'm way too analytical but the truth is, I think it all boils down to power, perception of value, fear of loss, hierarchy of power in society, etc.
<< The sad thing is this doesn't say to much about love does it at least not from the WAS point of view. They only change their mind when you decide to move on and start dating others, you take away their power of choice.
Rob, I think you nailed it down right there. That's why I question if the WAS loved us at all or is even capable of it!? To me a big part of this thing we call "love" is "commitment" or a "decision" as coach pointed out in retro.
And I'm willing to bet SP's Florence Nightingale ain't the true Lady with the Lamp. SP it's OK to get angry - you are suffering trauma.
Or maybe the current human perception of love is limited, maybe we can love more than one person at the same time.
We love our kids and you can have several kids and love them all equally like a parent is supposed to love their children.
Maybe we just don't want to believe or accept that it might be possible to love more than one person in the way we love our spouses in marital relationships.
Living in limbo sucks though and we're all that mercy of our own individual thresholds of tolerance which all vary depending on the situation.
Or maybe the current human perception of love is limited, maybe we can love more than one person at the same time.
We love our kids and you can have several kids and love them all equally like a parent is supposed to love their children.
OK, now you've gone too far. You can think about a subject until it becomes absurd, and you are there.
Before marriage, one might love more than one person with no consequences. But love, by itself, is not the issue here. We are talking about marriage. Marriage is a sexual and a financial relationship, and many would argue, has nothing to do with love. (Or, as my old boyfriend used to gleefully point out, marriage is the cure for love.)
Are you advocating polygamy? I hope not. It's illegal in this country. We don't seem to have any posters from countries where it's legal. Why is that?
As for loving all the children we have and providing for them, yes, most parents can do that. But are they going around taking in the neighbors' kids and sending them to college? No, love is not that magnanimous.
wow. I go off the board for a few days and...yikes.
Me 30 H 33 together:10 years married:5 years Separated: 1/23/09 living apart 5 mos and counting "when you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on"-FDR
