D2’s general philosophies on love

[greybeta]

D2 has three general philosophies on love. They are as follows:

1. You have to like someone before you love them. I don’t believe in love at first sight, but I do believe in physical attraction at first sight. But there’s also the attraction of getting to know someone, in other words getting to “like” them. Once that prerequisite is out of the way, then you can really “love” someone.

2. People’s hearts change. The reason most high school sweetheart relationships fail is because people change. It’s a fact of life that the relationships we formed growing up because of convenient geographic distance don’t hold so well once the glue of high school is gone. It’s not impossible for long distance relationships to work, but it’s difficult. Plus, people are always changing. If your significant other can’t understand that, then you’re going to have many, many problems.

3. You have to dream the same dream. This is the most difficult step in any relationship, and the one that must be hurdled before a ring can be offered or accepted. Let’s say you have a doctor and a teacher who are dating. Just to be politically correct, we’ll say the doctor is the female and the teacher is the male. With such a large pay scale and socioeconomic difference, there must be something that holds them together greater than what can be seen on the surface. Let us suppose that the doctor and teacher dreams of changing the world. Then that would be the uniting dream of their relationship, the raison d'être of their joining. If they didn’t dream that same dream, they would eventually break apart.

Comments

1 & 3 I have to disagree with...

[mollyblack.livejournal.com]

1. My relationship was love at first sight in the stereotypical movie manner (I still have the first email from Shawn saying "this is like something out of some sh*tt* movie") so I have to disagree with that point.

3. My best friend makes over $100k a year as a programmer for Apple. His girlfriend (common-law wife at this point) whom he has a three year old son with is a teacher. They've been friends for years and years before the relationship started and I think they've been together two years longer than me and Shawn.

Maybe we're exceptions that prove the rule, I don't know. But I just wanted to point those two things out.

Ps: Yes, Shawn and I are back on track and doing immensely better. I think my illness and his book deadline took a real toll on us that we've made it past. I want to thank you for commenting when you did. It made me breathe a little easier to read those posts. They're in my memories too now.

Re: 1 & 3 I have to disagree with...

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Fine, you can be the exception that proves the rule! ^_^

As far as number three goes, it's more of a case-by-case basis. But then I'd have to get into my specific philosophies on love, and that could be fifty pages or so in Word if I actually sat down and wrote it the way I wanted to write it.

p.s. Glad you liked those posts!

[thanoslug.livejournal.com]

What the heck does payscale have to do with love? My wife earns no money and we've been happily married for 12 years now.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

You have the right attitude. However, not everyone has the attitude you and your wife does. That's the problem! ^_^

[koocheeloo.livejournal.com]

I assume this has to do with romantic love, yes?

I have different philosophies on different types of love. So, this might actually be inspiration for a more meaningful post than what I've written the past few weeks.

One of the lessons I'm learning pre-marriage is that the hardest time many couples have is letting go of the people they used to be before the union. This goes hand-in-hand with your point about goals. It is very difficult to learn to identify oneself as a member of a romantic union-- a partnership--, as opposed to a single entity whose decisions affect only oneself.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

You assume correctly. I look forward to your meaningful post! ^_^