Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
Blogs > wickedeasy > wicked and that ain't so easy |
...to love and be loved in return
...to love and be loved in return nature boy is one of my favorite nat king cole songs. it's utter simplicity is so lovely. we talk so much about sex here. but lately it seems a lot of women (and a couple of the men...smiles) are talking about love. i wonder if it's spring. there are many different types of love. a country singer who "loves this bar" but likes his gal...now, if i was her, i'd be walking, but who knows, maybe she loves the bar better than him too. the way i love profiteroles. or charlie. the love for a . i visited my friend yesterday at the hospital and watched her stare at her new baby for an hour while we chatted. that kind of love i know...and it never dies. you can't budge it. nope, she's a goner. hippiechick posted about being in love. i had to agree with her assessment for culling. if a man's been in love more than 3 times, best not to go there....he's too facile. those that said over ten, well they're just mistaking lust for love i think. being in love is utterly different than loving. no? but what came to me after reading this was something that my mama said to me when i was going to get married. in any couple, one person loves the other person more. which one are you? because in the end, that will define your life. and she was right. i didn't marry the man that i fell in love with. i married a man i loved. was that fair? now, i don't think it was. at the time, i believed that we had a really good chance of a life together. but mama knew. and she loved my husband. everyone loved him. we still do. all of us. nothing not to love. sometimes soul mates can kill each other with their passion and desire and love. ah, such sweet agony. would you rather be the one who loves more, or the one who loves less? is there safety in either? or does it only mean that at some point the precarious balance will tip and then no matter who loves, or how they love...you will have to face the truth that between a man and a woman, love is never a profiterole? or a dog and never a . to be in love. it's so deep sometimes that it makes you weep. so mean that it will make you weep as well. so grand that it can make your knees go straight out from under you. it will keep you awake at night. with wonder, or fear, or despair, or joy. being in love is like being a wee bit crazy. not that there's anything wrong with that...grins. everything is just MORE. and you, well you seem to be the very best of yourself. and people ask you stuff like, did you lose weight, or cut your hair, and you just laugh. you write and call and take hours to get ready to see him. you day dream and night dream and your body is ..."so brand new". smells will send you off. you laugh out loud walking down the street. people look at you because you look ripe. oh it is a most marvelous thing. i hope you're in love. i hope everyone knows what that feels like. because if you do, then you'd never say 10 times. because that's just not possible. "the dizzy, dancing way i feel" You cannot conceive the many without the one. |
||||
|
Great descriptions of how it feels and how I feel. Having been married twice before, it's clear to me the difference between loving someone and being in love with someone. Being in love feels like a fantastic fire is burning inside you. Loving someone feels steady and consistent. Never ignore those who care for you you will have lost diamonds while you were collecting stones
| |||
|
Tough post to comment upon, WickedE, but I'll try. I know that my ex loved me more than I did her, it was suffocating at times. Yet in the end we are now ex & ex not because of the inbalance in love, but because we fell out of love. Perhaps the inbalance was the root of that fall? I guess I'll never know. It seems to me that you're right, we can't love with that luminous intensity young newlyweds know (or aspire towards) more than a few times in our lives. When I became Chas-the-dating-fellow, none of the ladies I dated inspired that kind of glowing fire, until the one I've been with 7 years now came along. Yet even that love is different; I've attributed it to being older and mellower. Our capacity for familial love is infinate, I think (and include close friends in my family grouping) but our/my capacity for paired love is limited to one at a time. The polyamorists can disagree, I won't argue with them Chas < who thanks you, WE, for a great post!
| |||
|
I know now what real love feels like. In the past I thought I knew only to realize it was actually fear wrapped in the guise of love. With MB, I want to do for him just to do. He is the same. There is a kindness that comes with love. I have no fear now. Maternal love...wow that is heady stuff. With each of my children I would hold them in wonder. I prayed I would do right in raising them. I worry over them. I have made hard choices on what is right for them. I let them know regularly, I love them as well as respect them. I tell them, "One day when your all grown up and holding your own child, you can let me know how I did." I want to be loved enough. I want to love enough. I ask MB ever night as we go to sleep, "Did I tell you today?" He always answers, "Every way." Yep, it must be spring.
| |||
|
I know now what real love feels like. In the past I thought I knew only to realize it was actually fear wrapped in the guise of love. With MB, I want to do for him just to do. He is the same. There is a kindness that comes with love. I have no fear now. Maternal love...wow that is heady stuff. With each of my children I would hold them in wonder. I prayed I would do right in raising them. I worry over them. I have made hard choices on what is right for them. I let them know regularly, I love them as well as respect them. I tell them, "One day when your all grown up and holding your own child, you can let me know how I did." I want to be loved enough. I want to love enough. I ask MB ever night as we go to sleep, "Did I tell you today?" He always answers, "Every way." Yep, it must be spring. Firstly, I had to look up 'profiterole; that hardly ever happens. I've never seen a couple where the love was 50:50; interestingly enough, I once knew a couple where it started out 60:40 her, but the balance switched somewhere to 60:40 him over the years. I am and have always been acutely aware of the imbalance. I think there are advantages and pitfalls for both. If you're the one who loves more, it's always in the back of your mind; you're hypersensitive about it and maybe a bit vigilant. If he's the one who loves more, it can be a burden, a smothering anchor weighing you down and making you feel guilty at times. I've loved a couple of men in my life, only been in love once. I'm not afraid the intensity of love is only for the young. I can't help but feel I haven't met the love of my life yet. And that's an incredibly exciting prospect.
| |||
|
I'm just taking a tiny bit of what you posted, which I enjoyed reading, to comment on. I love Nat "King" Cole too. My favorite songs are "The Frim Fram Sauce," "Sweet Lorraine," and "Straighten Up and Fly Right." You'd never know it by listening to me play, but I am a HUGE fan of the piano trio thing.
| |||
|
I used to "fall" hard. Now I try to catch myself and thereby avoid breaking things. I used to fall in love. Now I fall out of bars.
| |||
|
Being "in love" is much over-rated--happiness is much over-rated, as well. And there can never be a lasting "love", shared, which is less than 100/100. (Ya might squeak by with something like 97/100... but you ain't never gonna make it on no 50/50 scenario; and that's for damned sure.) The problem with "love" is that very few realize it is actually a choice. It ain't chemistry, or magic; or even emotion. It's a conscious decision which evokes a change of heart... from hardness to softness. When you are willing to give up on your own longings in favor of the longings of the beloved... then you can say, "I love you." Until then, all you can do is say, "Hey, Baby--let's fuck." (Of course, having been 24 years married... I can attest that if you want any sex, beyond the first 30 days, askin' for it ain't gonna get ya any. Nor is beggin'--nor is screamin'. That's why God invented hookers... and other married men and women.) As I get older, I find it rather easier to "love" than not. However, I find it very difficult to fall "in love" (and stay in.) I think it's a result of having been there and having done that (and more than three times, too--that's countin' my ex-wife.) It ain't never worked; and now that I have hindsight as the only necessary (yet previously lacking, early on) tool for discriminatin' any future situation... I know it never will work. Just one of the many, many negatives seeded in the stupidity of youth and then harvested by application of the cynicism of old age. As for sex: love (man/woman) is worthless without it. But $500 once in a while is worth some damned fine sex--love or no love. BTW: You can tell when you're gettin' old when you realize that the best piece of ass you're ever gonna get... you already had. But you know you ARE old when you realize that the last piece of ass you're ever gonna get... you already had. (This assumption precludes havin' $500 in hand.) BTW #2: I ain't really jaded--just realistic; and old... and $472 shy of the requisite amount for that much under-rated pretense of being "in love". Solar...
| |||
|
I started to reply to this yesterday but then realized I have no idea what I really think about love. That kind, at least. I certainly have motherly love in spades - I would kill for that child and willingly lay down my life for her. And I know familial/friends love - I have this amazing circle of love around me. I even know universal love - at least the way I define it. But romantic love? I thought I knew. I didn't. And I think the absolute biggest thing that will come from this last relationship for me? A redefining of romantic love. I'll still pondering - figuring it out in my head but there's a blog coming. I can feel it. I hope, every day, that we all, every one of us, can feel the love the surrounds us. Always tell the truth Use kind words Keep your promises Giggle and laugh Be positive Love one another Always be grateful Forgiveness is mandatory Try new things Say please and thank you Say your prayers Smile ~Author unknown
| |||
|
Would you be wiling to share the story of your marriage? I think that you've been reading my blog long enough to know that I hold to the Greek idea of love -- that there are multiple types of it. So, I won't go into that theory again here. I do think that the ways in which we love are highly personal. Would you really disallow a man of your age who had been "in love" four times? Say, once a decade? What about if he lost, say, two of those loves to cancer? Is being in love so finite and limited? I can't believe that. If you've used all of your chances up, then when you meet someone incredible, do you really have to tell yourself, "Self, that's it! You can't fall in love! You've had your chances!"? How do you define being "in love?" What is being in love if not erotic love? I do think that erotic love is more than simple lust, though. And I love that song, too. Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety. Other women cloy The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry Where most she satisfies. For vilest things Become themselves in her, that the holy priests Bless her when she is riggish. ~~ from Antony & Cleopatra
| |||
|
Very thought-provoking post. I answered hippiechick's poll with "3", but looking at it in terms of your definition maybe there has only been one. And then when things end poorly, it does tend to cast a pall over even that one occasion I don't know if it is in the cards for me to feel that exhilarating feeling again. I told myself seven years ago that I wasn't going to let myself become closed off, but I think I have, a little bit.
| |||
|
It's so interesting to me to hear people's ideas about love and romance! So, how many times have you been "in love?" Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety. Other women cloy The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry Where most she satisfies. For vilest things Become themselves in her, that the holy priests Bless her when she is riggish. ~~ from Antony & Cleopatra
| |||
|
i think i was in love with my husband when i married him. i had his child...my only child. this is not something i take lightly. to me, that was huge. huger than huge. ultimately, i realized i loved her more and he loved him more and we parted ways. i was tragically in love with a younger man after my divorce. that went on for 2 years in what i knew would be a finite period of time. i decided to enjoy the ride knowing it would break my heart, and it did. we are still dear friends, and sometimes lovers. i fell madly in lust with an older man who somehow winnowed all of my desires out of me, many i didn't even know i had, nor to what degree...and i knew i was falling in love with him when it became more than just incredible sex, it became like my destiny, but i loved somewhat grudgingly, though passionately and deeply...the feelings were there, i just didn't let them show. they had a way of escaping anyway. it was a terrible love affair. and sometimes still is. of those 3, all have been in the last 21 years. if i had to pick one that represents how WE describes being in love, i have to go with the younger man; loving him was like loving for the first time, and loving him was like loving for the last time. (i think that's something my older lover picked up on and resented.) after all of that i am sure of only one thing: i know nothing about the subject.
| |||
|
oui-oui replies on 5/13/2012 10:08 am: oh you old fart. 100 100 is the same as 50 50 in terms of a ratio. Why... you radical east-coast buzzard! An arbitrary ratio is irrelevant as a stand-alone equation for love -- e.g: 0/0... is also the same ratio as 100/100... or 50/50. But how much love ya gonna get if there's none on the numerator side of the ratio... and none on the denominator side? Huh? Hmmmm? If one love-entity eats, sleeps, and breathes the other, then the one who does not will likely "die" off through consumption... and the other will wish themselves dead--sooner or later... through the guilt of unrequited gluttony. There can be as many loves and in-loves as there are stars in the sky. But when both elements of the ratio are 100... there is only love as an immutable constant. However, if the elements can be made arbitrarily into constants for the purposes of ratio, alone... then there can be no loves or in-loves--merely the illusion (facsimile, if you will) of love (which facsimile is not necessarily bad, ya know--in fact, it's almost as valid as the real thing.) 100/100 50/50 0/0 In the end... equilibrium of ratio matters only in that the equation is made up of both quantitative and qualitative elements at the same time. Remember--you're dealing with love. If the elements of ratio are out of whack (more love vs less love), then the elements take on even more importance, being they are qualitative and quantitative... than if there is strict equilibrium--0/0 proves this as much as does 50/50. BTW: I had a mathematician friend of mine once tell me that I could not... and would not... derive zero in a certain equation--because that particular derivation of zero meant certain variables had to become inoperable. He was quite adamant, too. So... I grabbed up an RPN calculator and, using the law of proportion, unequivocally proved that I very well could derive that zero. Of course, the application of a ratio at equilibrium, in that case, was warranted as there were no variables to get in the way of its use. Ya know--he never forgave me for that. I don't suppose you will hold my application of it against me, too... will ya... oui? Solar...
| |||
|
Being "in love" is much over-rated--happiness is much over-rated, as well. And there can never be a lasting "love", shared, which is less than 100/100. (Ya might squeak by with something like 97/100... but you ain't never gonna make it on no 50/50 scenario; and that's for damned sure.) The problem with "love" is that very few realize it is actually a choice. It ain't chemistry, or magic; or even emotion. It's a conscious decision which evokes a change of heart... from hardness to softness. When you are willing to give up on your own longings in favor of the longings of the beloved... then you can say, "I love you." Until then, all you can do is say, "Hey, Baby--let's fuck." (Of course, having been 24 years married... I can attest that if you want any sex, beyond the first 30 days, askin' for it ain't gonna get ya any. Nor is beggin'--nor is screamin'. That's why God invented hookers... and other married men and women.) As I get older, I find it rather easier to "love" than not. However, I find it very difficult to fall "in love" (and stay in.) I think it's a result of having been there and having done that (and more than three times, too--that's countin' my ex-wife.) It ain't never worked; and now that I have hindsight as the only necessary (yet previously lacking, early on) tool for discriminatin' any future situation... I know it never will work. Just one of the many, many negatives seeded in the stupidity of youth and then harvested by application of the cynicism of old age. As for sex: love (man/woman) is worthless without it. But $500 once in a while is worth some damned fine sex--love or no love. BTW: You can tell when you're gettin' old when you realize that the best piece of ass you're ever gonna get... you already had. But you know you ARE old when you realize that the last piece of ass you're ever gonna get... you already had. (This assumption precludes havin' $500 in hand.) BTW #2: I ain't really jaded--just realistic; and old... and $472 shy of the requisite amount for that much under-rated pretense of being "in love". Solar...
| |||
|
wickedeasy replies on 5/13/2012 1:29 pm: and no, if i met someone who turned my toes up, i wouldn't disallow anyone. but as a generality, i think there are those that fall in love like it's going to the store. and they fall out just as quickly. my brother is one of those. i've only been in love once. although i've loved quite a few times and lusted many more. being in love for me feels utterly differnt. it feels like love a million itmes over. it feels like i'm going ot burst and like i'm in the eye of the hurrican at the same time. i cry and laugh and everythign is sharper and more poignat and well, just more. i am more. i am smarter and faster and more myself. and it is erotic but i've had erotic love that wasn't being in love. lust is differnt. when you're in love, the lovemaking takes you so far away...........instant trance...lol shall i dither on? Yes!!! That's the difference!!! Dither on...
| |||
|
I disagree that we should strive to love everyone unconditionally; it's unrealistic when you fell in love with that person based on innate qualities and other characteristics. You can love someone and be in love with her and not be happy with all of her choices. That's where communication and compromise come in. But this is the first I'm hearing from you that part of you thinks the Love of your life may still be out there ! Don't worry - I won't blow your cover.
| |||
|
Sorry, WE, I didn't mean to scribble so much on your intriguing post; there are so many interesting responses on her I can't help myself.
| |||
|
Hippie... If you view my comment as protesting, you obviously didn't observe much during the '60s, wherein countless protesters were faced with "real" protest. This was simply a comment--no protest was evidenced, as I read it. It was a posit within a potential series of posits in an exchange of ideas. That my ideas happen to be logic-oriented does not make me a protester. Perhaps you might argue against my postulate of 0/0, as a representation of "no love" on either side--that the concept is somehow less valid than, say... 100/100; and yet 50/50 may somehow be the equivalent of 100/100? Or perhaps you might care to disprove that my being short $472 may still get a geezer laid (and I don't mean by some drunken slut down to the local pub)? Can it be done? Can she do it??? Solar...
| |||
|
"100/100 or 50/50 still comes to 1 but 0/0 is 0" Yes--the ratio is exactly the same, whether it derives from 0 or 1. That's the whole point. Ya can't look at love as simply either quantitative... or qualitative. But everyone seems to want to do so; and then they apply a ratio that is strictly quantitative. When the ratio is applied (as a ratio), it just don't seem to work out--does it? Zero is not One... just as certainly as One is not Two... yet the ratio (quantitatively) is quite exactly the same in all three cases: 0/0 or 50/50... or 100/100. Nothing is so simple that a ratio can be applied when dealing with qualitative aspects, too--not without the qualifiers being taken into account; and love complicates such scenario to an absurdity. In the case of 50/50, when attaching such ratio to relationships, it is rather commonly accepted that 50/50 = 50%/50% IE: "meeting halfway". So... 50/50 means each gives half to the relationship... thereby making it the whole of one (in theory.) This concept precludes 50/50 from being considered strictly a ratio. It is also (in not entirely) merely an expression of two qualitative aspects separated by a slash mark. Taking that into account... in the case of 100/100, the same concept may be applied, therefore: 100 = 100% So... 100% + 100% equals 200%--that makes two; not one. Each gives ALL, thereby making the relationship MORE than one... or, the whole of two (in theory.) This is why quantitative ratios cannot be applied to love... without qualifiers being acknowledged. Once qualifiers are induced, the concept of ratio disolves. This is also why I can derive zero in an equation that leaves variables unqualified... and in which I have been told, "You can't do that." (You'd be surprised what I can do when forced to resolve unresolvable problems.) BTW: What does this mean... "oh dear, hit a sore spot did she?" If Hippie had hit a "sore spot", I'd make her rub in some lidocaine. Why is it that my response to an "obvious" slight appears to be considered as my carrying on some sort of pissing match, if you will? I thought my response was quite succinct, given the relative harshness of her brief bitch-slap; while at the same time, I thought I remained rather respectable and, even, respectful... in my request. Perhaps I should refrain from responding to bitch-slaps... unless the response may be viewed as kowtowing? But, of course, most anyone would likely take such non-response as... kowtowing. Guess ya just can't engage in discussions--coming or going--with bitch-slappers... without kowtowing; right? Solar... BTW#2: Zero has, long ago, been proved to be a real number... with very little value--relatively speaking.
|
Become a member to create a blog