Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#71

Post by IgorPartola »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #27
IgorPartola wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh. Heinlein wasn’t actually how I came into it, but because his writing was always in the back of my mind, it made it a lot easier to accept. I fell into it the way one falls into a puddle: by a series of mishaps. And those links/songs are excellent, thank you!

I am glad someone bought up Heinlein. He has certainly been a very important influence in my life. I don’t like the label of ‘poly’ and I don’t understand the definition of ‘love’ as we know it in society..and I have a dim view of marriage as a social construct as I see how it can be regressive for women(I am female). That Heinlein quote is one of my favorites. I embrace it better as something that causes a tumble an…

I kind of agree. I got into an argument with an ex once about how love is just brain chemistry. She didn’t like that because that made it not romantic. I think it makes it more romantic: out of basic biochemistry you get “this insane feeling!”

I do think we would all be nicer to each other and ourselves if we didn’t strive to make our partners our “everything”. It isn’t the solution to all our problems but it is a solution to a problem that plagued many marriages/long term relationships. If it wasn’t, cheating and marriage counselors wouldn’t be as common as they are.

I don’t really like labels in general (I prefer to use verbs than nouns if I use one), but poly is what I have been doing for about 7 years now. In addition I have realized that other forms of non-monogamy fit me as well. Love can be felt more or less in those than in poly.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#72

Post by wool_gather »

IgorPartola wrote: post #66
majos wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to criticize here, but if "love" becomes freely applicable to all sorts of relationships of varying intimacies and understandings and bonds, doesn't that cheapen the word? Maybe the word doesn't need to be love -- but I think we need a word that expresses commitment. Perhaps not exclusively, but at least through-thick-and-thin support. Love without this sounds oxymoronic to me.

It depends on how you define it. It may sound like I am preaching “the one twue way”. I am not, I support those who define things differently. Having said that, the way I view it is that love is already used all over the place: “I love this game!” “I love chocolate cake!” “I love you, and your sister, and your little brother! I love my kids!” Why do we “allow” such usage without qualms, but when it comes to romantic…

I agree with what you've said, but your last paragraph also points to a simple, easy way forward (on the individual level): just describe the specific feelings without needing to roll them all up into that one loaded word. The specificity is probably better communication anyways. It also maybe frees the other person to express the same kind of appreciation.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#73

Post by mistermann »

tokenpreneur wrote: post #68
mistermann wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why must lust necessarily impose conditions/pre-requisites on unconditional love? This is the part I don't understand.

We're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor, if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there have been any subsequent love to arise? The sexual attraction (lust) is a condition that caused the love to sprout in the first place. I'm not saying there aren't other possible ways for people to get together, but we're specifically talking about cases where peo…

> We're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor

Oh, I thought we were talking about unconditional love in general.

> if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there have been any subsequent love to arise?

Afaik sexual attraction isn't a pre-requisite for love in general, let alone unconditional love.

All this considered, I'm still unclear on why unconditional love and lust cannot co-exist. I can see how uni-directional/unfulfilled/non-reciprocal lust could in some cases diminish the love felt by one party (this would be a case where it isn't isn't actually unconditional love), but the part I don't understand is that unfulfilled lust must do this, even if the lust is strong.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#74

Post by IgorPartola »

davidjnelson wrote: post #67
shrimp_emoji wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand "casual love" poorly, but imagining myself engaging in it, I picture some chaotic asteroid collision chain reaction. The asteroids are people, and the collisions are the hook-ups. The hook-ups must be episodes of sex mixed with the psychological trauma of infatuation ("falling in love"?). It sounds horrifying and disruptive... But, to me, even sex in itself would be unappealing so casually; the only thin…

> surface-level, material ugliness of other humans What does this mean? If it's just physical attraction, why not date more attractive people?

Not the person you are asking but if you think about it, sex is weird, gross, and makes you very vulnerable. For some that is offset by it being wonderful and hot and sexy, while for others it takes more to go past the reality of it. That’s why the asexual spectrum is a thing: not everyone is down with getting down. And because as a society we expect sex and sexual attraction to be the norm, people on that spectrum may not always be out about it.

Not saying the other poster is on that spectrum, just pointing out that many different brain configuration exist, with some going “all the sex” all the way to “sex? No thanks.”

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#75

Post by IgorPartola »

wool_gather wrote: post #72
IgorPartola wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on how you define it. It may sound like I am preaching “the one twue way”. I am not, I support those who define things differently. Having said that, the way I view it is that love is already used all over the place: “I love this game!” “I love chocolate cake!” “I love you, and your sister, and your little brother! I love my kids!” Why do we “allow” such usage without qualms, but when it comes to romantic…

I agree with what you've said, but your last paragraph also points to a simple, easy way forward (on the individual level): just describe the specific feelings without needing to roll them all up into that one loaded word. The specificity is probably better communication anyways. It also maybe frees the other person to express the same kind of appreciation.

Sure. But why? Because someone else somewhere else might feel uncomfortable with how you feel with my partner? If what you feel can only be described as love, but you don’t plan on making a commitment, why would you call it something else? Wouldn’t it be the person who wants commitment that needs to say “I love you and want to be with you forever” rather that the person who just is experiencing love that has to clarify “I love you but am not necessarily looking for a commitment”? If you accept that loves doesn’t mean commitment, it logically follows that you can experience a form of love unburdened by expectations. After all, I love chocolate but that doesn’t imply that I should only eat chocolate.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#76

Post by davidjnelson »

IgorPartola wrote: post #74
davidjnelson wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> surface-level, material ugliness of other humans What does this mean? If it's just physical attraction, why not date more attractive people?

Not the person you are asking but if you think about it, sex is weird, gross, and makes you very vulnerable. For some that is offset by it being wonderful and hot and sexy, while for others it takes more to go past the reality of it. That’s why the asexual spectrum is a thing: not everyone is down with getting down. And because as a society we expect sex and sexual attraction to be the norm, people on that spectrum m…

That makes sense. It seems about 1% of the population is asexual from some quick googling.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#77

Post by IgorPartola »

davidjnelson wrote: post #76
IgorPartola wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the person you are asking but if you think about it, sex is weird, gross, and makes you very vulnerable. For some that is offset by it being wonderful and hot and sexy, while for others it takes more to go past the reality of it. That’s why the asexual spectrum is a thing: not everyone is down with getting down. And because as a society we expect sex and sexual attraction to be the norm, people on that spectrum m…

That makes sense. It seems about 1% of the population is asexual from some quick googling.

My guess is that it is slightly higher than that because often times the label “asexual” is applied to people who have 0 interest in sex, while others experience a reduced emphasis on sex, hence the “spectrum” part. Also it isn’t something people openly admit to it, so it suffers from the same problem as trying to quantify the numbers of people who identify as bisexual.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#78

Post by tokenpreneur »

mistermann wrote: post #73
tokenpreneur wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor, if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there have been any subsequent love to arise? The sexual attraction (lust) is a condition that caused the love to sprout in the first place. I'm not saying there aren't other possible ways for people to get together, but we're specifically talking about cases where peo…

> We're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor Oh, I thought we were talking about unconditional love in general. > if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there have been any subsequent love to arise? Afaik sexual attraction isn't a pre-requisite for love in general, let alone unconditional love. All this considered, I'm still unclear on why unconditio…

I'm not making the case that sexual attraction is a necessary pre-requisite for love. I'm making the case that in a love where sexual attraction is the pre-requisite, that love is not unconditioned.

I meet a woman. She's beautiful. I'm attracted to her. She's attracted to me. We do the deed. Multiple times. Girlfriend. Boyfriend. Get married. We keep doing the deed. Multiple times.

Eventually, we stop doing the deed, grow old. Now we say we love each other unconditionally. But how can we say that, do we now live in a vacuum that we're going to ignore the entire history of our past and that our sexual attraction (or simply, our enjoyment of each other) caused the dominoes to fall the way they did?

I can't say to this woman when I'm old: "I would have loved you even if you weren't hot when we were younger" because this is an untestable claim and ontologically absurd since the "you" (from my perception of her) she was when she was younger is inseparable from how "hot" I found her.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#80

Post by majos »

IgorPartola wrote: post #75
wool_gather wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you've said, but your last paragraph also points to a simple, easy way forward (on the individual level): just describe the specific feelings without needing to roll them all up into that one loaded word. The specificity is probably better communication anyways. It also maybe frees the other person to express the same kind of appreciation.

Sure. But why? Because someone else somewhere else might feel uncomfortable with how you feel with my partner? If what you feel can only be described as love, but you don’t plan on making a commitment, why would you call it something else? Wouldn’t it be the person who wants commitment that needs to say “I love you and want to be with you forever” rather that the person who just is experiencing love that has to clari…

It looks like we just disagree on definitions -- my definition of love entails commitment and obligation, yours doesn't.

But there are so many existing ways to communicate your definition of love: you're so rad! hanging out with you makes me feel great! I'm having such a good time! or any of the things you wrote responding to my comment above. Why take love and make it synonymous (ignoring issues of correctness, I think the current popular meaning of love, expressed between two romantically involved persons, is closest to the "serious" one I have in mind)?

I think we should generally be careful using words that may have charged meanings for people -- not for the sake of anonymous third parties not present, but because one of the two parties may be such a person.

Post reply on HN