From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Important Is Being IN-LOVE?
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:23:45 GMT
	<JMD.92Oct13103104@lion.bear.com> <Bw2x3E.FBJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu's message of 13 Oct 92 21:30:49 GMT


In article <Bw2x3E.FBJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:

   >We had come to a point where (perhaps due to my own perceived
   >limitations) I found it necessary to choose between being her lover
   >("in love with her") and being her friend ("loving her"). 

   You had to _choose_ between them?  Why?  (Do you think they can't coexist?)
   And why did you "choose" the latter rather than the former?

I do believe that they can coexist -- but after 2 years of trying to
have them coexist and fail, I would like to create a new relationship
where they _will_ coexist.  I deserve to be in a relationship where I
too can be supported -- it is very hard to both be a father and a
lover to the same person at the same time.  I think that this kind of
dependance has been discussed here before.  We all know that it does
not work in the context of a romantic relationship.

   >choice, I selected the later.  It has been (and will be) difficult,
   >but I know that this was for the best.
   Why?

Because at the rate we were going a situation was about to arise where
we would neither be friends nor lovers.  And that was _not_ of my
making.  At this point in time it is more important for me to have her
as a friend that to maintain the status quo in the relationship.  

   >The terminology of love is confusing, unfortunately.  
   It's only confusing if you don't bother to think about it and clarify
   your notions.

Then clearly you haven't tackled the really tough problems.  I don't
know if you have been in my current situation, but it sure sounds like
you haven't.  Did you read my previous comments about "loving" vs. "in
love with"?  

   >Is it possible to love someone and not want to be in a
   >romantic relationship with them?  
   Of course.  Consider your parents.  (I know not everyone loves their
   parents, so feel free to insert any appropriate person...)

   >Is it possible to love unconditionally while still being 
   >selective about a mate?  
   No.  Unconditional means not subject to conditions.  If you want to be
   selective about a mate, if you don't want to just love anybody who
   comes along (which is what truly unconditional "love" would be--and
   how meaningful would it be?) then you have to have some selection
   criteria--some conditions.  (Maybe the criterion that your love
   interest be female, for instance.  That's a condition.)

I think your statements are contradictory.  First you use parents
as an example of a case where you love, but are not interested in a
romantic relationship. This implies that one can love, but not desire
a romantic relationship.  Then you state that unconditional love is
impossible -- equating romantic love with platonic love.

My claim:
1) to love != to be in love
2) Unconditional love is desireable, and possible.
3) Unconditional being in love is undesireable, and most likely
   impossible.

Is that what you are trying to say?

   >I believe that it _is_ possible -- and now I tread that course.
   You're wrong.  Your notion of 'unconditional love' has very little to
   do with more practical forms of love, and has almost nothing to do with
   'romantic love.'  (Romantic love, for instance, requires that one
   respect and admire one's partner.  Those are certainly conditions.)

I'm truly sorry that you do not perceive of non-romantic love as being
practical.  I don't think that I would enjoy life very much if I was
only loved by those who had a romantic interest in me.

   Good luck trying tho. 

Thanks.  It will be my pleasure.

   >So, in conclusion, I would have to say that ROMANCE _is_ important in
   >a relationship -- it might not be present all of the time, and it is
   >definitely not the sole requirement, but I believe that the joy of
   >romance is crucial to having a relationship last.

   I agree.  That's why it's called _romantic_ love, after all.

A question for everyon out there on the net: Of your relationships,
present and past, which could be described as "romantic
relationships", and which would be better described as "friends who
sleep together".  I get that there is a lot of both out there.

				later...

						Spidey!!!

--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
Newsgroups: soc.singles