I can't tell the difference between love and infatuation

[darby]

lol yeah sure let me just pull out these receipts here

i'm not gonna waste my time discussing something so self-explanatory

[darby]

*stays together for the kids*

[darby]

go out more, vixnix. the chances of you meeting someone better than your husband are higher than you think

[vixnix]

I guess I don't think that way anymore. I look at the people I know who are celebrating their 70th year of marriage, and I see the joy they have in their lives because if their children and grandchildren, and I remember feeling secure as a kid when all my aunts and uncles and cousins came together at my grandparents' place, and I just want different things now. 'Being in love' was a means to an end... The end for me is having a loving, happy family, having grandchildren... Holding my husband's hand in 20 years time and knowing we've lived over half our lives sleeping in the same bed. Those things are worth way more to me than the thrill of novelty and the rush of euphoria that a new relationship brings..

[darby]

love should be selfless and not a means to an end. what you describe is a biological obligation. you sound a bit like schopenhauer. congrats to you and your husband

[vixnix]

Well, it depends how you look at it, but love is a tricky thing to discuss without defining terms. Are you familiar with Dawkins's work, like The Selfish Gene?

[darby]

one of my majors in college was neuroscience, so yes. but i am not concerned with the scientific definition of love or altruism. it reduces too much

and richard dawkins is an asshole

[darby]

neuroscience with an emphasis on evolutionary psychology i should say. i did research on face perception

[reprise85]

thats awesome

im getting my BA in psychology but im thinking about a minor in biology or criminal justice

going to be focusing on biological basis of behavior either way

[Elijah Moon]

I saw a documentary on the concept of limerance when I was a teenager, and I related because I was limerant over this one girl for ages. I used the word in a poem last year, not because it's obscure, it just sounded more poetic than "infatuation".

[Elijah Moon]

So, yeah, that's what I have to say about limerance.

Also, I remember some online debate back then over whether it's distinct from infatuation.

[darby]

Originally Posted by darby

go out more, vixnix. the chances of you meeting someone better than your husband are higher than you think

ps sorry about this comment vixnix. it was rude of me to say

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by darby

one of my majors in college was neuroscience, so yes. but i am not concerned with the scientific definition of love or altruism. it reduces too much

and richard dawkins is an asshole

I don't get what you think you're talking about then...

Either you're talking about an artificial construct by which we express a deeper biological urge, in which case there is no virtue involved , and no right or wrong way to describe love, only apt ways of describing how it appears in human societies - in which case my definition of long term commitment and networks of stable relationships are a better fit than the initial, romantic stages of courtship, or the strong but fleeting emotional experiences individuals have in response to thinking about if being around others

Or

There is some metaphysical, spiritual reality, where love is more than a biochemical reaction. In which case both of the things we have individually described as being love, would be sort of subsets of a more general concept.

However you think about it though, me saying that infatuation was the means to develop a relationship strong enough to support an extended family, does not negate the idea that love is selfless. In a family you come to desire being selfless, that's a large part of what family entails...

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by darby

ps sorry about this comment vixnix. it was rude of me to say

No worries

[Trotskilicious]

she can't go out she has to baby a couple of dudes that are at least 10 years old

[darby]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I don't get what you think you're talking about then...

Either you're talking about an artificial construct by which we express a deeper biological urge, in which case there is no virtue involved , and no right or wrong way to describe love, only apt ways of describing how it appears in human societies - in which case my definition of long term commitment and networks of stable relationships are a better fit than the initial, romantic stages of courtship, or the strong but fleeting emotional experiences individuals have in response to thinking about if being around others

Or

There is some metaphysical, spiritual reality, where love is more than a biochemical reaction. In which case both of the things we have individually described as being love, would be sort of subsets of a more general concept.

However you think about it though, me saying that infatuation was the means to develop a relationship strong enough to support an extended family, does not negate the idea that love is selfless. In a family you come to desire being selfless, that's a large part of what family entails...

im not thinking about love from a scientific viewpoint at all. why is the ~metaphysical~ or emotional component of love a "subset" for you? why reduce love like that? do you think love only has to do with biological urges that lead to reproduction? if so then you're being too heteronormative here

yes raising a familiy requires being selfless but now youre talking about maternal/paternal love and that's not what this thread is about. all you're doing is trying to argue is why youre right and providing nothing insightful. youre not understanding

[Rairun]

Love isn't metaphysical at all. It's a real phenomenon that can be fully explained scientifically (though it hasn't been yet). The problem with explaining love in evolutionary terms isn't that the explanation is scientific. My issues with it are:

1. Evolutionary psychology is a very tricky field. It's relatively easy to come up with plausible evolutionary pressures to explain our capacity to love, but it's very hard to actually prove the hypothesis. A lot of those explanations are just-so stories.

2. The evolutionary explanation for any given trait only explains how our species acquired said trait, not the role it plays or should play in our lives today. I'm pretty sure we didn't develop fingers to be able to type, but if I lost mine in an accident, one of the most serious consequences would be the inability to do it.

That being said, in my personal life, I develop a crush whenever I find someone I feel I could be close friends with. I can't see a distinction between friendship and romantic love. I crave reciprocity in the sense I feel an intense desire to know them better, but I never feel the need for exclusivity, to be their one and only, or to be their priority. Once I'm confident I know them well, and I'm certain I care about them for who they are rather than my hopes for what they could be, I may feel comfortable saying I love them. Sexual attraction might or might not be involved, but it's a little beside the point. And I'm sure all of this is only possible because somewhere along the way the capacity for these feelings allowed our genes to be passed on, but it's a category error to say that now an individual acts on them for survival and reproduction.

[Rairun]

That doesn't mean, of course, that scientific explanations are reductive. It's theoretically possible to explain love scientifically in all its details. I'm just saying there's more to psychology than evolutionary psychology.

[Mooney]

[darby]

Originally Posted by Rairun

Love isn't metaphysical at all. It's a real phenomenon that can be fully explained scientifically (though it hasn't been yet). The problem with explaining love in evolutionary terms isn't that the explanation is scientific. My issues with it are:

1. Evolutionary psychology is a very tricky field. It's relatively easy to come up with plausible evolutionary pressures to explain our capacity to love, but it's very hard to actually prove the hypothesis. A lot of those explanations are just-so stories.

2. The evolutionary explanation for any given trait only explains how our species acquired said trait, not the role it plays or should play in our lives today. I'm pretty sure we didn't develop fingers to be able to type, but if I lost mine in an accident, one of the most serious consequences would be the inability to do it.

ugh is there a vomit icon

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by darby

they are not the same thing and proclaiming they are is a very unwise and immature thing to say. love isn't meant to last anyway. and marriage is inhibiting and achieves the opposite of what love is meant to be

Are you one of the people that is fucking Redbregull's girlfriend?

[bignothing]

I feel like this topic lacks pointing out the obvious difference between being "in love" and actually loving someone.

[darby]

yeah, i was kinda hoping we wouldn't need to but i agree

[dreams of glass]

you got friendzoned CW

[Starla]

I love it when someone says " let's be friends" then two weeks later ...

[Elvis The Fat Years]

... two weeks later you're swapping spit with each other and rubbing your genitals together making squishy noises.

[Starla]

No I don't like to have sex as "friends".

[Trotskilicious]

What if thats when it blossoms into more?

I want my special ladyfriend to be my BFF. Makes sense right

[Starla]

I'm talking about the guy that broke up with me a few days before xmas, so it wouldn't work anyway.

[Trotskilicious]

Im sorry starla