![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 28. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 3, 2001, at 0:55:43
I get get mixed up when it comes to romantic
love. I want to go with my gut, but people
tell me that that just isn't rational; if you
go with your heart and gut more than using the
mind, then one is being irrational and that
love is not a "gut and heart thing", they say,
but rather one loves mainly with the brain.
In other words, the intellect rules over the
heart when it comes to true romantic love.Glenn
Posted by Todd on June 3, 2001, at 14:33:07
In reply to Romantic love: What is it, really?, posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 3, 2001, at 0:55:43
I have wrestled with those issues too, Glenn. I think you have to go with all three in harmony. If your mind and your heart say "Love!" but your gut says "Let's get outta here!," then it's time to listen to your gut. If your gut and your heart say "Love!" but your mind says "Hmmmm..." then it's time to find out what's up in your mind. I think, in order to form truly healthy relationships, we have to bring all three elements into alignment. All are equally valid, and none should be overridden by the others. My two cents. Peace and love (the universal kind!)
Todd
Posted by Willow on June 3, 2001, at 20:08:28
In reply to Re: Romantic love: What is it, really? » Glenn Fagelson, posted by Todd on June 3, 2001, at 14:33:07
Here's how I would define "romantic love" (which is equivalent to puppy love or lust,)is the stuff we read about in romance books or watch on TV, that first love before we wake up and smell the coffee or lack of it. True love is more mature because it communicates, accepts differences, forgives, and as a result lasts. It is dependable and can even sometimes surprize you by showing a lustful side!! : )
Whispering Willow
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 4, 2001, at 0:23:56
In reply to Re: Romantic love: What is it, really? » Glenn Fagelson, posted by Todd on June 3, 2001, at 14:33:07
> I have wrestled with those issues too, Glenn. I think you have to go with all three in harmony. If your mind and your heart say "Love!" but your gut says "Let's get outta here!," then it's time to listen to your gut. If your gut and your heart say "Love!" but your mind says "Hmmmm..." then it's time to find out what's up in your mind. I think, in order to form truly healthy relationships, we have to bring all three elements into alignment. All are equally valid, and none should be overridden by the others. My two cents. Peace and love (the universal kind!)
>
> ToddThanks Todd! What you say sounds very sensible.
And insightful too!!Glenn
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 4, 2001, at 0:30:35
In reply to What is it, really?, posted by Willow on June 3, 2001, at 20:08:28
> Here's how I would define "romantic love" (which is equivalent to puppy love or lust,)is the stuff we read about in romance books or watch on TV, that first love before we wake up and smell the coffee or lack of it. True love is more mature because it communicates, accepts differences, forgives, and as a result lasts. It is dependable and can even sometimes surprize you by showing a lustful side!! : )
> > Whispering WillowDear Whispering Willow,
Your observations on romantic love are very
well put. I agree with your definitions of
love. And that part about being in a mature
relationship but having the lustful side to
it as well sounds pretty good too. Thank you
for responding to my post.Glenn
Posted by kazoo on June 4, 2001, at 3:07:14
In reply to Romantic love: What is it, really?, posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 3, 2001, at 0:55:43
> In other words, the intellect rules over the
> heart when it comes to true romantic love.^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ever have a bed scene with an "intellectual"?
I have.
A fine example of necrophilia.Read this: "The Whore of Mensa," by Woody Allen, from his "Without Feathers" collection.
(a swashbuckling) kazoo
Posted by Willow on June 4, 2001, at 7:46:58
In reply to Re: Romantic love: What is it, really? » Glenn Fagelson, posted by kazoo on June 4, 2001, at 3:07:14
"Read this: "The Whore of Mensa," by Woody Allen, from his "Without Feathers" collection."
Woody Allen, is he not the guy who slept with his grown (adoptive - still a partent/child relationship) daughter? In my mind, his writings are similar to the madness of Hilter.
Willow, hearing a hundred banshies!
Posted by Cam W. on June 4, 2001, at 8:03:24
In reply to What is it, really?, posted by Willow on June 3, 2001, at 20:08:28
Willow - Well put, my sentiments (no pun intended) exactly.
Romantic love (lust), a semi-delusional state, with all its dreams, wishes, assumptions, novelty, and sex, brings two people together. Friendship solidifies the relationship and hard work and mutual respect keeps it together. Every now and then, that romantic love does return, but it has become more special and more endearing than a "big screen kiss" ("its so deep, its meaningless" - Tragically Hip).
Thanks Willow - Cam
P.S. I think I have some meds that will stop the banshees from wailing.
;^)
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 5, 2001, at 2:28:01
In reply to Re: Romantic love: What is it, really? » Glenn Fagelson, posted by kazoo on June 4, 2001, at 3:07:14
> > In other words, the intellect rules over the
> > heart when it comes to true romantic love.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ever have a bed scene with an "intellectual"?
> I have.
> A fine example of necrophilia.
>
> Read this: "The Whore of Mensa," by Woody Allen, from his "Without Feathers" collection.
>
> (a swashbuckling) kazooThank you, Kazoo
I will try to pick up the book that you
mentioned, "The Whore from Mensa". Thank
for your response.
Glenn
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 5, 2001, at 2:39:01
In reply to Correct me if I'm wrong ..., posted by Willow on June 4, 2001, at 7:46:58
> "Read this: "The Whore of Mensa," by Woody Allen, from his "Without Feathers" collection."
>
> Woody Allen, is he not the guy who slept with his grown (adoptive - still a partent/child relationship) daughter? In my mind, his writings are similar to the madness of Hilter.
>
> Willow, hearing a hundred banshies!Dear Willow,
Thank you for your imput. It is true that
Woody Allen, the comic genius, has
been quite a controversial character. I
have not read any of his books; however, I
will read, "The Whore of Mensa" in order to
see what you are talking about. If, as you
say, he writes with the madness of Hitler,
then I will know it after the first 10 pages,
and will read no further. I appreciate your
feedback.Glenn
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 5, 2001, at 2:50:46
In reply to Re: What is it, really? » Willow, posted by Cam W. on June 4, 2001, at 8:03:24
> Willow - Well put, my sentiments (no pun intended) exactly.
>
> Romantic love (lust), a semi-delusional state, with all its dreams, wishes, assumptions, novelty, and sex, brings two people together. Friendship solidifies the relationship and hard work and mutual respect keeps it together. Every now and then, that romantic love does return, but it has become more special and more endearing than a "big screen kiss" ("its so deep, its meaningless" - Tragically Hip).
>
> Thanks Willow - Cam
>
> P.S. I think I have some meds that will stop the banshees from wailing.Dear Cam,
Your response to Willow (and indirectly
to me as well) is very well put. I am impressed with all the responses concerning romantic love; I am
hearing some very, very good perspectives
concerning this subject. I am very glad
that I posted this on psycho-babble; I have
been enlightened.
Thank you all,
Glenn
> ;^)
Posted by Adam on June 5, 2001, at 12:09:26
In reply to Romantic love: What is it, really?, posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 3, 2001, at 0:55:43
I think there is this unfortunate disconnect in the popular conception of love and "where it comes from", as if a human emotion will, at various stages or in various forms, exude from some place cerebral, visceral, cardiac, or even etherial. I know and you know these are just metaphors, but potent ones in our "popular culture" and delusiory ones, if you ask me.
What are the relative merits and deficits of the sundry "loves", erotic, platonic, eros, agape, etc., and so on, ad nauseum, ad absurdum? Since any given love relationship will fluctuate, at times wildly, in its character and motivation, I see it as useless to try to isolate "romantic love" from any other form of love as the great thinkers have defined them. Love, or what is or should be expected of love, varies to such a large degree among individuals and cultures, I have become rather suspect of the idea of "true love" and its status as the pinnacle of experience. There has always been, and will always be, the kinds of unions that, at best, bring something more to people than they would have had without them.
All love is the product of the mind. We do, at times, think with our sexual organs, but remember the brain is the biggest sexual organ, and the most important. If anyone asked me "is this love right?", I'd ask them back, "well, are you happy?" If the answer is "Yes!", then I really could care less what stamp CS Lewis would put on that person's sentiments. Analysis and value judgement are now pointless: They are happy, god bless 'em. If the answer is "No," then all I could offer is "Find out why." If the reason is depression, get that treated, and see how things go. If the reason is that other person just isn't the right one, who on Earth knows why, then there's only one thing to do: Search elsewhere. This "gut feeling" people talk about is nothing more than the accumulation of dissatisfactions one has with the other person, which they can no longer suppress or ignore.
There's no way to define what love is, what it should be, what it's proper course will follow. Use your head, but not too much. Forget about your gut and other organs. They work essentially on their own, unless you want the controll of a yogi. I sure don't, or don't see the need.
> I get get mixed up when it comes to romantic
> love. I want to go with my gut, but people
> tell me that that just isn't rational; if you
> go with your heart and gut more than using the
> mind, then one is being irrational and that
> love is not a "gut and heart thing", they say,
> but rather one loves mainly with the brain.
> In other words, the intellect rules over the
> heart when it comes to true romantic love.
>
> Glenn
>
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 5, 2001, at 13:56:28
In reply to Re: Romantic love: What is it, really?, posted by Adam on June 5, 2001, at 12:09:26
> I think there is this unfortunate disconnect in the popular conception of love and "where it comes from", as if a human emotion will, at various stages or in various forms, exude from some place cerebral, visceral, cardiac, or even etherial. I know and you know these are just metaphors, but potent ones in our "popular culture" and delusiory ones, if you ask me.
>
> What are the relative merits and deficits of the sundry "loves", erotic, platonic, eros, agape, etc., and so on, ad nauseum, ad absurdum? Since any given love relationship will fluctuate, at times wildly, in its character and motivation, I see it as useless to try to isolate "romantic love" from any other form of love as the great thinkers have defined them. Love, or what is or should be expected of love, varies to such a large degree among individuals and cultures, I have become rather suspect of the idea of "true love" and its status as the pinnacle of experience. There has always been, and will always be, the kinds of unions that, at best, bring something more to people than they would have had without them.
>
> All love is the product of the mind. We do, at times, think with our sexual organs, but remember the brain is the biggest sexual organ, and the most important. If anyone asked me "is this love right?", I'd ask them back, "well, are you happy?" If the answer is "Yes!", then I really could care less what stamp CS Lewis would put on that person's sentiments. Analysis and value judgement are now pointless: They are happy, god bless 'em. If the answer is "No," then all I could offer is "Find out why." If the reason is depression, get that treated, and see how things go. If the reason is that other person just isn't the right one, who on Earth knows why, then there's only one thing to do: Search elsewhere. This "gut feeling" people talk about is nothing more than the accumulation of dissatisfactions one has with the other person, which they can no longer suppress or ignore.
>
> There's no way to define what love is, what it should be, what it's proper course will follow. Use your head, but not too much. Forget about your gut and other organs. They work essentially on their own, unless you want the controll of a yogi. I sure don't, or don't see the need.To Adam and everyone else,
Thank you for your imput!! The responses that
I am getting are really quite amazing!
Every one has a different perspective on
what is "romantic" love. No wonder I have
been confused about this; love, so it seems,
cannot be put in some sort of a box.I ask pretty much the same question to my 4th
grade students yesterday. Their answers will
simpler of course, but they all made sense.
I suppose love is like a diamond and the
diamond's multi-faceted nature. Maybe, that
is why diamond rings are associated with love
and marriage.Glenn
>
> > I get get mixed up when it comes to romantic
> > love. I want to go with my gut, but people
> > tell me that that just isn't rational; if you
> > go with your heart and gut more than using the
> > mind, then one is being irrational and that
> > love is not a "gut and heart thing", they say,
> > but rather one loves mainly with the brain.
> > In other words, the intellect rules over the
> > heart when it comes to true romantic love.
> >
> > Glenn
> >
Posted by Wendy B. on June 5, 2001, at 15:02:01
In reply to Re: Correct me if I'm wrong ... » Willow, posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 5, 2001, at 2:39:01
> > "Read this: "The Whore of Mensa," by Woody Allen, from his "Without Feathers" collection."
> >
> > Woody Allen, is he not the guy who slept with his grown (adoptive - still a partent/child relationship) daughter? In my mind, his writings are similar to the madness of Hilter.
> >
> > Willow, hearing a hundred banshies!
>
> Dear Willow,
>
> Thank you for your imput. It is true that
> Woody Allen, the comic genius, has
> been quite a controversial character. I
> have not read any of his books; however, I
> will read, "The Whore of Mensa" in order to
> see what you are talking about. If, as you
> say, he writes with the madness of Hitler,
> then I will know it after the first 10 pages,
> and will read no further. I appreciate your
> feedback.
>
> Glenn
>Dear Glenn & Willow:
As Glenn rightly and mildly puts it, Woody Allen has been a controversial character... His love escapades aside, he is well-known for his overt Jewish-ness, that element taking a very important role in all of his work. He, or whomever the protagonist is in every one of his movies (and many of his stories), is a neurotic intellectual jewish boy-man, always a self-conscious, long-term therapy goon, always a boy bullied by jew-haters in his youth. (For that reason alone, travelers on the Psycho-Babble Highway might want to look him up in their video stores and libraries.) Please cf: his film "Annie Hall" if you want to know more about what I'm trying to explain here.
But to imply or come right out and say, as Willow does here (and this is not an attack, just IMHO), that his writings are thus akin to the "madness of Hitler" is really to miss the point of his whole life's work. His portrayal of Jew-haters of every kind, and the horrors the Nazis wrought, is an essential part of his work (cf: the scene in Annie Hall as he stands in line for the 20th time to see "The Sorrow and the Pity," dragging his reluctant girlfriend Annie to it, also for the n-th time...)
If he made some really terrible, and/or sick decisions in his personal life, who am I to judge? I've made many of my own, and haven't we all? The only thing is, we thankfully never made it into the daily papers, or the covers of People Magazine, because we ain't famous. Statement of the obvious, here, I guess.
But to me it doesn't necessarily follow if I read books by a child-abuser, and that's debatable in his case, that I condone child abuse. Just like if I read "Mein Kampf," it wouldn't make me a Nazi, either...
I have read several of Woody Allen's stories and books, but never the Whore of Mensa. I don't know if it portrays any oppressed, neurotic jewish male figure, but I can almost bank on it! I'll have to look it up.
No disrespect meant here to anyone, just my personal opinions..Wendy
Posted by Shar on June 5, 2001, at 22:55:16
In reply to Re: Romantic love: What is it, really? » Glenn Fagelson, posted by kazoo on June 4, 2001, at 3:07:14
Kazoo,
(ahem) We may want to define intellectual just a bit. While I am willing to make sacrifices in the name of love, I draw the line at having to become corpse-like! Have I been taking 'sexually active' too literally?!Shar
> > In other words, the intellect rules over the
> > heart when it comes to true romantic love.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ever have a bed scene with an "intellectual"?
> I have.
> A fine example of necrophilia.
>
> Read this: "The Whore of Mensa," by Woody Allen, from his "Without Feathers" collection.
>
> (a swashbuckling) kazoo
Posted by Willow on June 7, 2001, at 10:54:46
In reply to Re: Correct me if I'm wrong ... » Glenn Fagelson, posted by Wendy B. on June 5, 2001, at 15:02:01
My daughter last night was talking about "Harry Potter" and how some people think it isn't appropriate for children. There was a reference to how many faces a diamond has and we can make the assumption regarding our opinions.
I have a good older friend who was raised as a child in Germany during the hitler years. Some of her views are very different from mine.
Fictional books containing violence against children, even some sex crimes, I avoid. This is my way of showing my disapproval.
ps in a northern community a 43 year old father brutally raped his 5 year old daughter.
Posted by Wendy B. on June 7, 2001, at 15:06:39
In reply to Censorship, posted by Willow on June 7, 2001, at 10:54:46
Willow,
I have long enjoyed and appreciated your posts, and have thought you have added so many great comments, and have given support to many people. So forgive me if I sounded... I don't know, what? My post was rather low-key, at least I tried to make it that way. I simply do not understand what you are saying here...> My daughter last night was talking about "Harry Potter" and how some people think it isn't appropriate for children.
Are you saying that you don't agree? That you are against banning Harry Potter for kids? I am.
>There was a reference to how many faces a diamond has and we can make the assumption regarding our opinions.
What?
> I have a good older friend who was raised as a child in Germany during the hitler years. Some of her views are very different from mine.Right, such as... And the point is?
> Fictional books containing violence against children, even some sex crimes, I avoid.I usually do, too.
>This is my way of showing my disapproval.
As is your right in a free society.
> ps in a northern community a 43 year old father brutally raped his 5 year old daughter.Again, I'm not sure about the point you're making here. I'd be happy to keep up the conversation, and again, no harm meant or disrespect to you, I just don't get what your message re: Censorship is.
Regards, Wendy
Posted by JennyR on June 7, 2001, at 18:43:00
In reply to Re: Censorship » Willow, posted by Wendy B. on June 7, 2001, at 15:06:39
A good book about love is "The Psychology of Romantic Love" by Nathaniel Branden.
I read it when searching for answers to the same questions you pose, but from a different perspective - from that of being married for many years to someone who hasn't felt like a good match for me for many years, but I don't want to break up a family. I think even when you think you know it's the right person, and your heart is doing cartwheels, we don't see our blind spots. We don't see that we might be picking this person for the wrong reasons, unconscious reasons.
I think your head and your heart have to agree, but that's still no guarantee you won't grow apart. Anyway, that book is good. He also wrote one called the Romantic Love Question and Answer Book which was very good.
Posted by Willow on June 7, 2001, at 21:23:37
In reply to Re: Correct me if I'm wrong ... » Glenn Fagelson, posted by Wendy B. on June 5, 2001, at 15:02:01
Wendy
It was my feeble attempt of saying that we each have a right to our own opinions, two different answers can be correct even though they may be opposites of each other, and as a result you had no need to apologize for your opinion.You have opened my eyes to the fact that he may have written some interesting books, I've only thought of him as an actor and director.
Having said that, I can't get past my view that he had violated the trust of a child. (My husband has made arguements to argue that she wasn't a child.) And I have such strong feelings when it comes to children, that I have a habit of seeing black and white.
My ps just was myself wondering if a person can heal quicker when a stranger violates their saftey or a trusted loved one slowly violates that trust. And where does this leave this poor child??
Whispering Willow
ps please pardon my ramblings if they aren't coherent. i've had a week of *&#$@@*^ which has really left me questioning so much
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 7, 2001, at 23:38:06
In reply to To Glenn re: love, posted by JennyR on June 7, 2001, at 18:43:00
> A good book about love is "The Psychology of Romantic Love" by Nathaniel Branden.
> I read it when searching for answers to the same questions you pose, but from a different perspective - from that of being married for many years to someone who hasn't felt like a good match for me for many years, but I don't want to break up a family. I think even when you think you know it's the right person, and your heart is doing cartwheels, we don't see our blind spots. We don't see that we might be picking this person for the wrong reasons, unconscious reasons.
> I think your head and your heart have to agree, but that's still no guarantee you won't grow apart. Anyway, that book is good. He also wrote one called the Romantic Love Question and Answer Book which was very good.Thank you, Jenny for your response!! It
sounds true to me that if 2 people are
frantically, romantically in love, there
is that greater risk of their being blind
spots within that relationship. So, does
romantic love have any healthy aspects to
it?? Or do you think romantic love will lead
2 people off a cliff?
Thank you also for the books that you
recommended; I will see first if I can
check them out of the library. It sounds,
Jenny, like you were very, very
romantically in love with your husband,
at one time. And then when the passion died
down, you saw some things that you had not
seen before. Please forgive me if I am
getting too personal here.
Thanks again for the post!
Glennlike
Posted by JennyR on June 8, 2001, at 18:36:39
In reply to Re: To Glenn re: love, posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 7, 2001, at 23:38:06
You're not too personal, this whole place is about people sharing their experiences to help each other.
In our case, we seemed a good fit at first. But who we were in our 20's is different than who we are in our 40s.
I was a very strong, independent, competent individual. My husband was a very dependent type. He wanted/needed a lot of taking care of. I thought I didn't need any, and had enough for both of us.
I have read many, many books on couples and relationships, I could give you names of those if you want (but they're for dealing with problems in an existing relationship). But one theme in all of them, is that usually one partner is the pursuer, one is the distancer. One pursues, the other runs away. One pushes for more closeness, more time spent, the other pushes for more time alone.
My husband would have been content to spend every waking moment together. He was very needy. I thought I was this pillar of strength with no needs of my own. He was child-like, didn't want to grow up, I was too adult-like, thought I needed no taking care of.
That arrangement can only last for so long. Also, I let him have everything on his terms, made no demands - saw the movies he wanted, ate at the restaurants he wanted. I handled all the grown-up things, like applying for a mortgage, getting taxes done, etc.
Another big problem was an extraordinarily sparse sex life, which always bothered me, which began on the honeymoon (and you were worried about getting too personal).
Eventually I got fed up, and as a last ditch effort we spent 2 years in couples therapy. We learned that he needed to grow up, take on more, and do some nurturing back. I learned to stop denying I had any needs, stop being a martyr, and stop being mad at him not doing things that I don't ask him to do or don't trust him to do.
He also learned to be a little more independent, and I learned not to guard my boundaries so tightly. A lot of my big independence thing was to not allow anyone to get too close and I never wanted to perceive my own needs, because I didn't want to be vulnerable because in my family if you allowed yourself to be vulnerable someone would go for your jugular.
In the beginning, I overlooked his immaturity, thinking he'd grow up. But he didn't til the therapy. And I was always angry, because I wasn't getting my needs met, only I couldn't see I had any.
In the beginning, I loved that he thought I was so wonderful and told me all the time that he loved me. No one in my family ever had. I loved that he was very affectionate, even if it was in a clingy way, because there had been no affection in my family.
He liked that he had found a new Mommy to take care of him, his had been a very pre-occupied single mother. His father, Mr. Hotshot Playboy showed up every now and then with another bimbo on his arm. So my husband had no role model of a good husband/father and hangups about being sexy/sexual. I took his lack of interest in sex at first as flattery - he must really love me for me if he hardly cares about sex. That's what every other guy seemed so overly interested in. But over time it makes you feel really crappy for your partner to have so little interest in you in that way - amazing we even had kids.
My whole message to you here is, if you're really emotionally healthy you might really pick the right person for the right reasons. But if you don't know yourself really well, and not know your hidden (from yourself) motivations, it could be a disaster down the road.
There's no easy answers to any of this. In some countries they have arranged marriages and it works. We look for love then 50% of us get divorced.
I do think you have to be really compatible from the start and for the right reasons, not because this person allows you to overlook what you need to work on or feeds into your problems.Anyway, that intense being in love feeling in the beginning can often be because of the wrong reasons, unconscious, unhealthy reasons.
Posted by Autumn Despotis on June 8, 2001, at 22:28:32
In reply to Romantic love: What is it, really?, posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 3, 2001, at 0:55:43
Romance doesn't seem to exist in my life, I see it in movies, though! My husband doesn't even say I Love You! I know he loves me, I guess, but I think saying I love you may lead me into a more romantic state of mind, if it really does exist. . .Autumn
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 8, 2001, at 23:52:33
In reply to Re: To Glenn re: love, posted by JennyR on June 8, 2001, at 18:36:39
> You're not too personal, this whole place is about people sharing their experiences to help each other.
> In our case, we seemed a good fit at first. But who we were in our 20's is different than who we are in our 40s.
> I was a very strong, independent, competent individual. My husband was a very dependent type. He wanted/needed a lot of taking care of. I thought I didn't need any, and had enough for both of us.
> I have read many, many books on couples and relationships, I could give you names of those if you want (but they're for dealing with problems in an existing relationship). But one theme in all of them, is that usually one partner is the pursuer, one is the distancer. One pursues, the other runs away. One pushes for more closeness, more time spent, the other pushes for more time alone.
> My husband would have been content to spend every waking moment together. He was very needy. I thought I was this pillar of strength with no needs of my own. He was child-like, didn't want to grow up, I was too adult-like, thought I needed no taking care of.
> That arrangement can only last for so long. Also, I let him have everything on his terms, made no demands - saw the movies he wanted, ate at the restaurants he wanted. I handled all the grown-up things, like applying for a mortgage, getting taxes done, etc.
> Another big problem was an extraordinarily sparse sex life, which always bothered me, which began on the honeymoon (and you were worried about getting too personal).
> Eventually I got fed up, and as a last ditch effort we spent 2 years in couples therapy. We learned that he needed to grow up, take on more, and do some nurturing back. I learned to stop denying I had any needs, stop being a martyr, and stop being mad at him not doing things that I don't ask him to do or don't trust him to do.
> He also learned to be a little more independent, and I learned not to guard my boundaries so tightly. A lot of my big independence thing was to not allow anyone to get too close and I never wanted to perceive my own needs, because I didn't want to be vulnerable because in my family if you allowed yourself to be vulnerable someone would go for your jugular.
> In the beginning, I overlooked his immaturity, thinking he'd grow up. But he didn't til the therapy. And I was always angry, because I wasn't getting my needs met, only I couldn't see I had any.
> In the beginning, I loved that he thought I was so wonderful and told me all the time that he loved me. No one in my family ever had. I loved that he was very affectionate, even if it was in a clingy way, because there had been no affection in my family.
> He liked that he had found a new Mommy to take care of him, his had been a very pre-occupied single mother. His father, Mr. Hotshot Playboy showed up every now and then with another bimbo on his arm. So my husband had no role model of a good husband/father and hangups about being sexy/sexual. I took his lack of interest in sex at first as flattery - he must really love me for me if he hardly cares about sex. That's what every other guy seemed so overly interested in. But over time it makes you feel really crappy for your partner to have so little interest in you in that way - amazing we even had kids.
> My whole message to you here is, if you're really emotionally healthy you might really pick the right person for the right reasons. But if you don't know yourself really well, and not know your hidden (from yourself) motivations, it could be a disaster down the road.
> There's no easy answers to any of this. In some countries they have arranged marriages and it works. We look for love then 50% of us get divorced.
> I do think you have to be really compatible from the start and for the right reasons, not because this person allows you to overlook what you need to work on or feeds into your problems.
>
> Anyway, that intense being in love feeling in the beginning can often be because of the wrong reasons, unconscious, unhealthy reasonThank you, Jenny for your openness and
your candor! I see what you are talking about.
I definitely will keep in mind what you have
just said.
Thank you,
Glenn
P.S. I am still not clear on one thing. Are you
still married to him??
Posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 9, 2001, at 0:09:29
In reply to Re: Romantic love: What is it, really?, posted by Autumn Despotis on June 8, 2001, at 22:28:32
>
> Romance doesn't seem to exist in my life, I see it in movies, though! My husband doesn't even say I Love You! I know he loves me, I guess, but I think saying I love you may lead me into a more romantic state of mind, if it really does exist. . .
>
> AutumnDear Autumn,
I agree with you. I believe your husband needs to say "I love you" to you. Personally, I think saying "I love you" to your spouse keeps romance alive in a marriage; it is not the only thing, mind you. But I think it is very important. My mother and father have been married for 51 years now; my mother once told me that my father has never said the words "I love you" to her since they have been married. I do not see much romance in my parents' marriage, nor have I for a very long time. I guess that is why I feel that it is important to say "I love you".
Thank you for the post!
Glenn
P.S. Do you believe that the type
of love that you see in movies is valid
and realistic? I'm just curious.
Posted by JennyR on June 9, 2001, at 22:04:44
In reply to Re: To Glenn re: love » JennyR, posted by Glenn Fagelson on June 8, 2001, at 23:52:33
Thank you, Jenny for your openness and
> your candor! I see what you are talking about.
> I definitely will keep in mind what you have
> just said.
> Thank you,
> Glenn
> P.S. I am still not clear on one thing. Are you
> still married to him.Yes, still married for 16 1/2 years, but rather unhappy and feel stuck and feel like I'm giving it my last ditch effort.
I guess my point really was, when it comes to the question of do you follow your heart or your mind to know if it's love, your emotional gut reaction of being drawn to someone might feel strong, but might be because they meet some uncounscious need, or keep you from facing things in yourself. And the other person might be doing the same thing. So that gut feeling, maybe it's right, maybe it's not. But I definitely think if our head and our heart are at odds, that person can't be right for us from the start.
If your mind is telling you something incongruent with what your heart is telling you, I think that's a danger sign. It has to feel right all around, and you have to really know yourself well.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.