Page 2 of 3

PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:55 pm
by darkenangel
lol yeah i like the romantic, but not the cheater... I mean whats the pointin being together if your just going to add others into the mix.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:37 pm
by Ronquistador
yep - one stinky pink is enough for me :)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:07 am
by Yodi
Ron Sensei wrote:I dont think love can be "pinned down" to a certain set of feelings... seems to me that it would be different for everyone who experiences "love" and also veries in degree to what you are speaking of loving.
I figure love and INlove are also about timing, not just context. My husband and I were in the right place at the right time. If I had met him 5 years sooner I wouldn't have been the woman he would have chosen and vice versa. Now after almost 20 years we have continued growing but have made the choice every day to grow together. That is love. and we were not Inlove or we may not have made and kept such a wise commitment. Love IS commitment if it is self-ish love. Really! Even a self-centered possesive love has a level of commitment; it just doesn't have the "lovee's" interests as a parameter.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:28 pm
by Ronquistador
yep....and i know how THAT kinda fucking love works...fucken control freaks.... i dont like rules or the feeling that i have to be governed by them... and a relationship shouldnt be a household dictatorship

the rebelious fuck that i am...and you new people are comming to see me as...im sure you understand

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:27 pm
by winter
(This is What my Winter character's views on love are in my book..)


Subject - Love

Love is not married to love. Love is not married to affection, but to Will.

Just as the physical act of love, among mortals, produces a like kind, so also do all acts of love, among all things, exist to reproduce.

The labours of love, all, are expressions of Will: hammer blows, hoes hacking at the stony earth, or the gentle impression of the potter's fingers. The servants of the old gods will tell you that to hate a thing, to fear a thing is to wish to change it; I say to love a thing is to desire a shape for it, and cause that shape to be. By love, we settle the destinies of our children, draw the borders of empires, distort the rawness of a tree into a table, a chair, a cart, or a throne.

They will tell you, 'To control a thing is not to love it; be changed by the things you love instead.' I say there are many Wills in the universe, and thus all things change constantly: pity you if your Will should be the weakest among them.

They will tell you, "Love is always gentle, love is always kind." I say that to be subject to the desire for affection is to reproduce only the shape of animals.

They will tell you, "A lover's voice, if they truly love, will tell no lies." I say do not warn the tree that the axe is coming, lest it shy from the stroke. Instead, as you hew away, praise it for the future you have offered it, and sing to it hymns in honor of its pain, that it might be encouraged.

In Closing.

All chains have two ends. The roles of the captor and the captive are, in the end, indistinguishable.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:40 pm
by Ronquistador
meh... love is love...and thats whatever it is to the person feeling it

PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:59 pm
by Yodi
hmmm Ron would have us believe that love is in the eye of the beholder. There is merit to that if the "lovee" is basically outside the equation. Could love exist in a vacumn? beyond the theoretical that is. It seems to me that love being reciprocated is the oxygen to the fire of love. That requires a third party to be objecive and do the quantifying. Hence the birth of the sitcom.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:39 am
by Mungman
most everyone sleeps around and cheats

Trying to rationalize your own shortcomings? Not everyone cheats and certainly not everyone sleeps around. People who say that have either too little faith in their partner or certainly not enough faith in themsleves.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:17 am
by Yodi
Successful marraiges, generally speaking, are not one-dimensional and based on sex. I believe that there are three areas of importance and if your relationship lines up in all three you can consider your union "fool-proof" If you match up on 2 out of 3 it's not an easy thing but very workable. 1 out of 3 and you are going to be fighting to stay together IF you stay together. 1. same objectives materially 2. same objectives spiritually 3. same objectives sexually and the most important part is to realize that your relationships specific 2 out of 3 can vary recognizing that relationships have seasons and phases just like people and you have to have steady faith.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:04 pm
by Burn
blah blah blah blah. Life long marriages are a sham created to bring tribes together for economic union or to prevent war. Romantic love is very new and very rediculous. Marriages break up because of money and lack of sex primarily, well and if your life long mate is a fucking asshole. Love is entirely selfish. Why would you bother if id it didnt' make you feel good. If you bother and it makes you unhappy get rid of the bitch, you stupid fuck.

Peace