MaxC
Big Bad
ooh yeah
Posts: 198
|
Post by MaxC on Jul 3, 2006 11:08:00 GMT -5
I don't know how old you folks are here, but how many of you believe in 'True Love' and what the 'ell does it mean? I think everyone would agree that 'Buffy and Angel' had the young love, first love scenario when everything is full of passion and angst. Whilst the 'Angel and Cordelia' love was more about adult love. It is also one of the basis of the argument why most people would want Angel to be with Cordelia because they had a adult relationship and that constitute as real love because it's not all about the passion, but also about the commitment and responsibility. Usually I would agree, but now I believe that the latter version, the adult love is created from society itself. We had to recreate 'love' by compromising with real life itself, and the responsibility of thinking about the future. Buffy and Angel passion for each other might never survive in the real world, but they might learn to be in which case they would have lost the essence in what they first felt for each other. What I'm trying to say is that I believe that 'true love' is what Buffy and Angel had. What it will be like in heaven (if it truly exist). Where there are no responsibility and other worldy things to think of except your other half. No distraction to detract from what it's meant to be.
|
|
|
Post by quantumcat on Jul 3, 2006 16:29:40 GMT -5
I'm one of the older ones here and I came into the whole love thing a bit late. (Lust,infatuation ,philios and agape I knew quite well in my younger days but the stuff they write the love songs about came much later. I knew just enough about it to know when I didn't have it and that even if *I* were willing to settle for less,I didn't want the people I cared for to have to. That kind of set me up to hold out about as long as Angel did.) MaxC is right in that true love (if I've got it right this time) isn't bogged down in real world burdens. But it's not that those things don't exist for us or don't matter. They just sort of fade into the background and feel do-able. You feel just as giddy and ecstatic as when you had your first crush in study hall but suddenly you aren't obsessed with how you look or if he thinks your ideas are strange or if her friends and your friends like your being together. You feel incredibly safe and comfortable and respected and that feels absolutely easy and natural and appropriate. This is why jealousy and self-doubt and wanting to trade in your one 60 year-old for 3 twenties just doesn't happen with true love. It's not that you martyr yourself by being with your current love but that you really want no one else. They're not inadequate and neither are you so there's nothing to be gained by latching onto someone with more money,status,hair or muscle tone. It's not that everything becomes easy and perfect when you find one another. It's that it no longer has to be. You really wouldn't notice much difference either way. I think Buffy understands this on some level and needs to have baked cookies before she settles down. True love (Q'Cat style) hasn't gotten rid of Angelus and hasn't shooped. There's still an apocalypse every other day. But now you look over at the other person carrying the stake and holy water and you know that as long as no one forgets to pick up coffee,milk and Mallomars, you're going to be just fine. True love is preferring to clean dead flies from between the window screens at eighty with a cellulite-ridden grouch than dancing barefoot at midnight through Trevi fountain with some James Bond or Emma Peel clone at twenty-five. True love is not choosing among eros,philios and agape. It's saying: "Of course!" as you give and receive all three. Buffy and Angel never had the luxury of just being at ease doing the boring. Love doesn't get exciting till it gets boring. (Trust me,that'll make sense when you're older.) Soap opera writers and novelists may not know how to make what happens after the happily ever after seem adventurous but it is-even without the artificial highs of saving the world. I'm sure there are authors skilled enough to depict that but no one would believe it who hasn't lived it. It's pretty special but it does exist and no one should ever EVER make do with less.
|
|
|
Post by GreatMuppetyNick on Jul 3, 2006 20:53:48 GMT -5
I used to believe in the whole "True Love" thing when I was younger. Then, experience and life disillusioned me from that concept.
|
|
|
Post by quantumcat on Jul 4, 2006 0:09:07 GMT -5
The fun part comes when the same mean old realities that stole your illusions provide you with the real thing-and it's SO much richer than your fantasies that you're dumbstruck.
It just doesn't seem possible for anything that good to feel that much of a given.
The closest non-theological analogy I can come up with is learning to read.
When you're little,it seems very very cool but somehow magical that big people can make books and newspapers and boxes tell them things-and everyone seems to have the same code.
Some big people can even make weird lines and dots say music and others make numbers tell them things.
Then,one day,you 'get' the code and you can read a story to yourself or add a column of figures or play a song.
You can dial a telephone or follow a recipe.
The beautiful part is how *ordinary* the magic has become!
From now on,this legerdemain will be a routine part of your life and the foundation for everything else.
That's what true love is like.
All the myths and songs and poetry becomes comprehensible and real.
It takes a while to realize what it ISN'T but that keeps you from buying into a lot of empty hooey.
It's not that there isn't work involved in making a relationship work so much as that you aren't having to labor at it every second and obsess as if you were trying to act out 'The Andromeda Strain'.
You aren't having to tap dance every second and wonder which of you is going to be 'voted out' of the relationship first.
Losing what you have doesn't seem like losing the winnings at a poker table.
It seems as absurd as losing your adulthood or your education or anything else that, once experienced,becomes a part of who you are.
The counterfeit stuff always leaves you feeling unsatisfied sooner or later.
You're always needing something more or something else to postpone feeling empty.
The real thing is more satisfying.
We get a taste of that with the genuine friendships we form.
(the ones that aren't superficial or conditional)
One litmus test of a true love is that it is nothing less than one of those friendships.
Take Buffy for instance.
Has she had anything with Parker,Riley-even Angel or Spike- that was as easy and as deep as what she's had with Giles,Xander and Willow?
Has Angel had anything in his romances that approached what he had with !Cynthia?
Now,Cordy and Spike had overlap between romance and being on the team roster but there was still something lacking.
It involved too much 'work' to make it fit.
The friendship part wasn't so labor intensive.
When the champagne and skyrockets part gets as easy as the 'slay the Big Bad,order pizza and play Yahtzee' part,then you're onto something.
|
|
MaxC
Big Bad
ooh yeah
Posts: 198
|
Post by MaxC on Jul 5, 2006 11:36:32 GMT -5
Now that was deep qcat.
|
|
|
Post by Bango on Jul 5, 2006 12:33:47 GMT -5
I think everyone would agree that 'Buffy and Angel' had the young love, first love scenario when everything is full of passion and angst. Whilst the 'Angel and Cordelia' love was more about adult love. It is also one of the basis of the argument why most people would want Angel to be with Cordelia because they had a adult relationship and that constitute as real love because it's not all about the passion, but also about the commitment and responsibility. I'm also one to think that Buffy and Spike had that adult "love thing" too... But, can you really base what Angel and Cordy as real "true love"? They were best friends, and their feelings grew into something like a crush--but they never got to express those feelings further than Cordy's final kiss...because the Cordy in Season 4 was kidnapped and taken over by an evil higher power.
|
|
MaxC
Big Bad
ooh yeah
Posts: 198
|
Post by MaxC on Jul 5, 2006 16:31:58 GMT -5
Don't mistake me. What I'm saying is that 'adult love' isn't true love.
I believe that is actually love in its lesser form, formed by life's responsibility and society. Hence I believe Angel and Buffy is true love. Where you just want to be together, where you can't be friends, where its difficult to get over, where it's so easy to get hurt - and usually because of life circumstances, it's hard to be together. I believe regardless of who Angel or Buffy ends up being with in life, they will seek out each other in heaven, or in death and be together for eternity.
|
|
|
Post by quantumcat on Jul 5, 2006 18:56:45 GMT -5
Thanks,MaxC!
Don't think true love has to make way for something less.
I think its very validity lets it evolve into 'adult love' rather than be replaced by it.
(Although adult love can exist independently of true love.
You are correct about that.)
I think Angel and Buffy are the real thing but *in spite* of all the angst-y part.
The inner turmoil isn't evidence that they're perfect for one another.
There are folks who can 'love' in the midst of a crisis.
They can survive the worst life dishes out for them.
They can't manage peace time.
They're always looking for or creating a crisis to keep that adrenaline level up even if it means sabotaging what they have to do it.
Buffy and Angel aren't guilty of that but they were allowed about nine seconds of normal living to see how they'd exist without the ardor of the first crush or the hectic battle for survival.
They had very little time to enjoy the fact that they really did love one another and it wasn't just an infatuation with the idea of romance itself.
Buffy and Angel didn't waste their time apart.
They used it to explore and nurture themselves as individuals.
They used their other relationships and experiences to grow.
That gave them what they needed to give one another a richer and deeper partner.
It didn't take away from the purity and intensity of their core love but it did dampen the effects of the distractions and impediments that got in the way of their fully enjoying the undiluted love they'd found.
What makes me know that Buffy and Angel were real was how independent it was of the hype and hoopla.
A Buffy with a crush would never have slain Angel and walked away.
She'd have killed both of them in a grand gesture of sacrifice.
(Note that she could kill him and,later,kill herself-but only when necessary.
A tragic,theatrical ending to their love didn't seem mandatory.)
Angel with a crush could have denied himself a life with Buffy.
He'd not have given her up once he'd become human so as to better serve as the kind of man she 'd helped him to become.
The very fact that each of them was the type of person who'd choose a life apart doing the right thing for the world over more melodramatic solutions (such as a death pact that would stop Angelus and leave them love's martyrs) shows that their time together made them stronger,more centered and more mature.
It made them more complete as individuals instead of just joining two halves to make a whole.
That's what reveals that what they had was real and true and would have survived evolving into 'adult love' intact rather than fading when the crises diminished.
True love doesn't fade when the mundane or difficult parts kick in because it's not that fragile.
Being in love with the idea of love may demand that things be without complication or full of high adventure but genuine affection isn't that delicate.
True love is more like a favorite garment.
It feels good. It's functional. It's attractive. It can go any place at any time. It's durable and never goes out of style. It suits you.
The other stuff sits in your closet because they feel like costumes and always need to be dry-cleaned.
So true love isn't something that has to vanish until heaven while we 'make do' with a weaker surrogate.
True love can (and should ) co-exist with adult love.
The order in which they appear may vary and,yes,sometimes folks get their true love early and don't have the luxury of retaining it throughout this life.
But there's nothing that says true love can't last and even increase with time.
Infatuation can't hold up under real life demands.
True love improves the more weathered it gets.
It's that resilience that proves its quality.
|
|
|
Post by AlyWay on Jul 12, 2006 16:36:39 GMT -5
I believe my husband and I have "true love" however its the "adult love" that keeps our house a home and the kids fed and paychecks coming in. I love our "true love" and could not ever live without it but we also have to have the "adult love" to appreciate one another.
Did that make any sense? Of course not because love doesn't really and that's magical.
|
|
|
Post by quantumcat on Jul 13, 2006 9:35:50 GMT -5
It makes the best kind of sense.
But like most magic,you'll never get your head around it until you live it- and even then it leaves you loopy.
You know how being with the wrong people saps the life out of even the most pleasurable moments?
The right relationships make the ordinary activities scintillating and sacred.
It's like combining the thrill of living a pulp adventure with the sheer comfort of sleeping in or enjoying a favorite meal.
When getting a book and getting a diamond feel the same,when removing a Gummi Bear from a child's ear is equal to shoving a Big Bad into a matter-dissolving abyss and baggy polyester becomes as sexy as silk,leather or spandex,then you've got something worth getting starry-eyed over.
The best thing about this magic is that anyone can become an adept and it can happen before you know it.
For real.
|
|
|
Post by PyleansDontLeaveMe on Jul 17, 2006 14:12:06 GMT -5
Obviously, the only true love is gay love.
what?
|
|
|
Post by dEz on Jul 18, 2006 6:52:29 GMT -5
Obviously, the only true love is gay love. what? Obviously, the only true love is the one that doesnt make you sleep in the wet spot.
|
|
|
Post by AlyWay on Jul 18, 2006 9:27:19 GMT -5
Amen sister!!
|
|
|
Post by Rebelman on Apr 3, 2007 18:27:03 GMT -5
Very interesting to responses but I think we are confusing True Love only to either sex or common bonding. That is a physical attraction off lust. Love on the other hand is the much bigger Love. I can be single and have "True Love"
What is True Love? True love is selfish, giving, Godly and unconditional. Someone with real love knows no limits and no bounds. They would do anything for love. They would not stop it nor end it but continue with it no matter what heart breaks come ahead. This can happen in a relationship between family, friends, or a wife/husband. There are different situations but not just one is "Real Love". Thats putting love based upon a fixed condition. That reminds me of the 80's song "Tainted Love". We don't want to mar love but express it. Now we get into the question, how do we express it?
This is where many would say "sexual actions". If sex is the only way to express something, then the person is inately foolish at heart. They must go outside their flesh and experience everything in its full context. First. Love is selfless. Not selfish but selfless, meaning you offer yourself. Give yourself to someone as an innocent child for you to be vulnerable with no barriers or walls inside your mind so you can experience Love. If the wall is not broken, Love will not be attained.
Giving. What do I mean by that? Give yourself over to the Love, not lust, but Love. Sometimes we get confused on the two but Love is more than just a bodily flesh or brief emotion. Love is long lasting. It is pure at heart with no selfish motives behind it.
To quote the scholar, Love is the ligament that binds together. Meaning it binds you to someone, its inseparatable. No matter how tough things get, you will never break the Love because you are not capable. Once love always love. I do not believe in love lost because it was never there. It was more than likely conditional love that was imposed which is not really love at all. It was full of restrictions and boundaries. Life was not experienced.
If a Man/Woman had not Loved(Real Love), then his/her life had no meaning. Meaning Love is Life revealed. Knowing it is Life conceiled. My prayer and wish is for everyone to break down their wall and let Love enter to the full extent. God is Love and each person can also have a person look at them and say "You are Love.
No matter what has happened or occurred, grudges are not love, resentment is not love. That is a barrier. Love has no limits and no bounds. Break down the wall and experience True, Genuine Love in your life today.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Purple Goddess on Apr 19, 2007 12:30:28 GMT -5
Well, I was browsing through the forum trying to catch up with my peeps and maybe try to jump in and participate with you guys after such a long absence from posting...
I decided to pick this thread because of the developments in my life over the past year and a half. 2 years ago I would have dismissed the term "true love" as being silly and meaningless. I still think the phrase is a bit frivolous, but I think I've gotten closer to being able to wrap my brain around it.
I think there is a pretty basic distinction that we've all made about love. There's the passionate, all about the romance and sex love. Then there's the practical love. The practical love being the kind that binds you to another through the mundane, the everyday pressures of life and knowing the realities of the other person.
The idea of "true love". I guess that's the big question here. I suppose the answer is really subjective especially if you can still call something "true love" regardless of whether it lasts or not.
But, if you wish to make the term "true love" more objective....then the only true love that exists are between those who are together until the day they die. More specifically, 1 dies, and the other follows suit shortly thereafter.
And we all know how often that actually happens. But, I don't think we can be objective about true love because then we'd have to ask ourselves "what's the point?" I mean if it doesn't happen that often, the numbers aren't in your favor so why even entertain the idea that you could be lucky enough to find it?
I suppose I should not get wrapped up in the technicalities of meaning and phrasing. Especially since the concept is purely personal to each of us.
I don't like using the phrase because there's so many different kinds of love, it would be like saying only 1 type of love is legitimate somehow.
If it's true to you, than it's true love. If it proves itself to be untrue later, than my guess would be you couldn't label it as true love so much as "true at the time love".
This world makes it hard enough to find any kind of love. So, why complicate it even more by coupling love with a word that is inherently objective in nature?
Love is love. True, untrue, clouded by hormones, clear as day, practical, impractical, I think if you can label something as love to begin with you should hang onto it and ride it as long as it's lasts and enjoy it in whatever form it comes in.
Aside from all that, if we go back to the 2 basic types we've discussed, I've experienced both and neither have seemed anymore true or untrue than the other.
I'm currently in a relationship that was always based in the more mundane. I don't see it as any less true of a love than the passionate romances I've had in my life. For me, it is a deeper love if only because I trust it more than I ever trusted fire burning love.
And since I have a lot of trust issues, the fact that someone can care about me, take care of me and vice versa regardless of the type of connection I'm having with my partner that day or week, whatever...I'd consider THAT "true love". And if somewhere down the line it doesn't last....well I still had love and how lucky am I?
Well alrighty then, I guess I've probably repeated what's been said. But didn't you just love the confusing way I said it?
Though I wasn't as succinct as Dez was, I think it's basically the same point.
|
|