Guys and Dolls.. Do you 'love'?

http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html

Lust. Romantic Love. Deep Attachment.

I just wanted to spread this, see what people thought.. A couple questions to think about if you like, and feel free to throw out your answers or other questions

1) Helen suggests that you can have different types of love for more than one person, (could be a bit complicated huh? ) but how do you feel about this? Morally fine or...? For me, I'd prefer the three to work more often together, but at least it feels like it makes sense!

2) Have you ever lusted after more than one person but because of your romantic love or attachment for another, kept your lust in check as it were and restrained yourself acting upon your lust? How did you feel? Insecure, guilty? Do you think this is more of a 'guy' thing? From my experience, it's been a little like that in the past where I've felt guilty for lusting and simply tried not to lust after anyone else apart from my partner at the time..

3) How funny do you think that it is that you can 'fall in love' just from having casual sex? Again, for me, it makes sense but still, I somehow find it amusing...

Add your own thoughts as you like.. And have a nice summer!

1) On the surface, morally fine. Things could always get sticky(ahem. you know what I mean) when the types of love being exchanged are not the same, though.

2) Yes. Its a natural instinct and nothing we do will prevent us from having "lust" for what we find sexually attractive. Guilt should only come into play when you act on it and you promised you would not. I don't think its a guy thing, I don't think it should be embarrassing and I do think we have ways of dealing with our lust that don't involve cheating on our spouses. Take a bathroom break. :whistle:

3) I think its hilarious, mostly. I've seen it in action. But I've also seen it burst into a screaming wreckage that destroyed lives, so...

This is one of those things which we'll talk about personally.

One is not responsible for one's feeling. Alberoni pointed out years before Fisher that when one discovers that one is falling in love - that person taking on a "special meaning" according to her - there are two options : do it or run from it. We are also not really responsible for how we think, since that process is getting a good dose of all the "love chemistry" which is a part of basic neural function. It is sort of like being in a smoke filled room - once you start coughing, it's too late, you're poisoned.

Then all that runs up against our 'morals' and our desires, the absurdity of the comparison between the story from the inside and the story from the outside (with way too many commercial interruptions). Much of what we want is governed by cultural nonsense, including 'being moral'. Not very many people get far enough into ethics to know what morals even should be ... Many try to get morals from popular culture or from religion like going to the 'morals store'. Well, one can - but one finds that those wares are always 'on sale' and always wear out quite quickly just as other 'one size fits all' stuff makes one look fat.

I haven't quite gotten to the bottom of the ethics/moral consideration in this matter either, but then I've only been at it for twenty-five years ... We've discussed this. I find it irritating that you would find it funny that someone could fall in love during casual sex. You've heard the scientific explanation for this. You have also seen that if you exchange telephone numbers, 'booty calls' generally lead to someone getting hurt ...

I should clarify that I find it hilarious that people think they are not going to develop feelings when it is so obviously not true.

Intimacy breeds intimate memories...the more you do it the more intimate memories you have of the person. Your definition of them subconsciously will be filed under "for intimacy" or "closeness". Who doesn't develop a desire to be with some one they are intimate and close with?

Ive been in love a few times, but I always distance myself from developing an attachment, as that leads to nothing but suffering in the long run.

I really enjoyed that video and others that she’s done.

I personally think that you can’t (or shouldnt)approach the concept of love from a purely emotional or chemical position. We are a muddle of body, mind and spirit. It’s possible of course to ignore the influence of one or another, but you cannot remove it from the whole.

I don’t believe that you can chose who you love. So I would have to agree with Helen that it is possible to have different types of love for more than one person. I certainly believe it’s possible to be in love with more than one person, and I don’t see anything morally wrong with that. Why would it be against anyones morals to deeply care for someone? What action you take on those feelings however, is a different question all together and depends on your own beliefs as well as the relationship rules that you have agreed upon with a partner.

Hasn’t everyone lusted after someone that they aren’t with? We are physical and sensual creatures and lust is built in to our instincts. Why should you feel guilty or insecure because there is lust? This is something that I know many women struggle with in relationships because our culture has offered us this belief that if you truly love someone then no one else will ever be appealing, and lust for another is evidence that there is no love or respect. A physical sexual response to someone that is appealing is part of the design, but again, its whether or not you act on it or how you let it affect the relationship you have that’s the issue. As the saying goes “I’m taken… not blind”

I wouldnt say that it’s funny at all. Without trying to sound flowery and poetic, interaction of any kind between people involves spirit. Whether a deeper connection is intentional or not it happens. Pretending that “casual sex” doesn’t create a connection and complication is delusional and irresponsible, and frankly, though enjoyable for some, it seems a bit empty. Real fulfillment in any kind of relationship results from union of physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. If you’re only focusing on one or two of them… well, why bother eating dry crackers when you could be having cake.

They should work together ideally (sex, romantic and attachment loves) but they would have to each fluctuate in reality. As pointed out by rugadd, intimacy gives you the tools, and so the individual can manage how they relate to the person in each of those through directed thought with memories to influence towards balance. If your not getting enough of one, then it might be because of a problem in the others... as perceived by the other person. Assuming what she says is true about those 3 systems to successful longterm love.

In my experience, if your not working towards building a relationship, then by virtue of the complexity of humans you are allowing it to be pulled apart.

I wonder what those systems are specifically; sex sounds obvious but it could be defined as close intimacy with extras, and romance to close but public intimacy, whilst attachment could be the value of the interactions more broadly throughout the rest of experience between two people.

I had actually uploaded a video discussing this in response to a question posed to me by akkarin...in it I discussed my views of the 5 types of love: romantic (eros), game playing (ludus), friendship (storge/philia), logical (pragma), possessive/excited(mania), and selfless (agape)...unfortunately I couldn't get the darn link to work properly so the video is sitting on my youtube account....

But yes it is possible to have more than one type of love for someone, and it is possible to love more than one person...it's a rather complex, tangled web that can be a nightmare to travel...

Thankyou to all who have made their points, there are many little gems of wisdom (or so I feel) in the words written here. So thankyou for the discussion.

Orion and Brenna, I apologise to you directly for irritation and/or offense with my comment about casual sex leading to love being funny. I do believe there is a very common view among mostly young people that sometimes sex doesn’t matter, ‘f**cking’ one another as opposed to ‘making love’ with one another. I find it therefore darkly Ironic (a much better word than amusing or funny sorry) then that these people who have casual sex (often without wishing anything more than that) can fall in love. Brenna, you wrote that this was irresponsible and delusional and I’d like to add that the majority IS exactly that. And sometimes it takes a self-check to realize you’ve sometimes been and even are now sometimes part of that majority. It was foolish, insensitive and a little dark of me to ask ‘how funny’ it was and so I apologize to you both and readers.

I’d now like to add a question/discussion. The question is NOT- Can you be ‘in love’ without being obsessed or deeply attached? (Although if you feel you can be ‘in love’ without deep attachment please do expand your reasoning) But the question I’d like to ask is- can you love without fear? The 4th Teaching of Jedi is “Jedi are wary of attachments, both material and personal. The obsession over possessions and people creates the fear of losing those possessions and relationships which can cause ourselves to be trapped in a state of depression and loss.” So, the discussion focuses on this- does being ‘aware’ or ‘wary’ of attachments mean you can stop yourself from being attached or avoid completely the situations? I personally doubt this. So what does ‘being wary of attachments’ mean in regard to love? How can you/I/we love someone without fearing their loss? Perhaps this is more of a way of life. For an example and for star wars fans, this little discussion reminds me of Anakin’s love for Padme and the discussion with Yoda,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5xkI8uoZYE (1 minute 43 seconds for discussion with yoda)
Anakin simply cannot do as Yoda requests ‘Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose’ which leads him eventually to the dark side killing many and losing most of his humanity until redemption and reconciliation with his son. I still feel this is a tragic story with Anakin’s fall to evil. But I feel it is similar to a more common point of view and occasion- when we fear separation such as breaking up from our partners (perhaps not as ‘severe’ as death) are we not more likely to break whatever limits in order to remain with them? So is this not Attachment?

So, repeating the new questions
- Can you ‘love’ without fear?
- What does ‘being wary of attachments’ mean in regard to love?
- How can you/I/we love someone without fearing their loss?
- Does being ‘aware’ or ‘wary’ of attachments mean you can stop yourself from being attached or avoid completely the situations?

No, there is no Love without Fear. They are mutually arising as are Good/Evil, Light/Dark, Yang/Yin. So, what do you do about that ? How do you deal with a fear of death ? Just not die ? Good luck with that ...

Teaching IV is about "possessive" attachment ; it guards us against that which should not become indispensible to our image of Self, our Self worth or our connexion to the Force. Sure, we feel attachment to people we love. We also have a certain fondness for some of our things. When we are separated from the people we love, we grieve ... that also is the Way of the Force. To the contrary, someone who denies what they feel is NOT following the Force. When we are deprived of some of our things, that sucks too ... but it isn't the end of the world.

The problem with our love relationships is that they are often, perhaps subconsciously, just 'precious things'. In our common language, one frequently says "my girlfriend/boyfriend", "my wife/husband" just like one could say "my car". When people become 'accessories' or 'luxuries', then they are also little more than other consumable items.

See the problem ?