all you tangsters seem so much wiser than other kids our age. so i wanted to ask you:
how do you define "being in love"?
i think i am (or at least was) in love, but everyone else my age seems to think it is impossible to fall in love when you have only known the person a year and you are only 15. but what i feel for this guy is not just a crush or lust, i feel like we have this really big connection, and like he is one of the best people in the world.
someone please explain
Anonymous
08:20:15 PM
18 comments:
It is possible to fall in love this young--rare, certainly, but possible. I can't tell you how to judge whether you are in love with this person, you have to judge that yourself, but don't rule out the possibility of love just because 95% of people don't find it till they're older.
I fell in deeply in love while I was young. Youre not alone, just go with it.
I think the kind of "love" that occurs in the high school years is more often than not lust, although almost everybody in a relationship would refute that. The real question is I think how the relationship got started, what your motives are (and be honest with yourself), and how the relationship is run. Is it all about physical contact? Is there any sort of awkwardness between you when you talk. The fact is, that if you have to question whether or not you're actually in love with someone, you probably aren't. That said, only you can decide. Love is tricky like that.
1. Your own happiness is directly linked to theirs.
2. You are willing to accept their faults unconditionally
3. You are attracted to them physically, metally, and emotionally
4. You have a shared sense of intamacy and commitment.
5. You have a common set of values and longterm goals.
Your own definition of love will inevitably change as you age, so I don't think anyone can tell you whether you're "in love" or not. In elementary school love meant holding hands and talking during recess, in high school it's mostly physical and exploratory. Mairrage definitely isn't a criterion for love now, but it almost certainly will be in a decade or two.
But as they say, "talking about love is like dancing about architecture." You can only understand it when it happens.
For the first statement: seem is such a funny word. Wisdom often comes from the harder experiences in our lives.
Like this. So far whenever I've felt that I was "in love" during this life that feeling has been quickly followed by tragedy. *Laughs* Not to be at all discouraging -- I think I've just had rotten luck.
But falling in love... how does one go about defining that? It seems that everyone has a different opinion. I think anonymous 5 is right in that: you'll understand when it's happening to you.
That said, some people would consider their emotion love though, if it were felt by another person, that second might not. It doesn't matter what we think love is, it only matters how you personally think your feelings are best defined. Don't let your feelings be constrained by what your peers might say about what you should feel.
It is never impossible to fall in love... in fact, love has the tendency to come at the oddest times.
I tried tried typing my definition about five times and kept deleting it 'cause I can't get it quite right.
To explain it would require a lot of "uh"'s and gesticulating.
Basically I'd say there are two definitions, one we can classify as love and one we can classify as "true" love.
The former is simply a very deep connection that you don't give up easily but one that can fade with time.
The latter comes once and it happens the moment you have the former "love" definition with them, but it's only recognizable after you've been married forever and still love each other deeply.
I have a feeling people will misunderstand that...but there it is, my best try.
What's the difference between "true" love and regular old love that never gets the chance to fade away?
anonymous four-- Nothing should be unconditional.
Pchis-- I think I get what you're saying. It's a really cool concept, one I'm going to have to ponder a lot. Thank you for that.
About the original post-- I am fifteen. I have known this guy for a little under a year and a half. We've been friends for just over half a year. We are in love. It seems fast, but really, things just... grew. (By the way, this relationship made me believe in a connection at first sight - not love, but /something/)
Last year, I thought love was impossible for teenagers to feel. I believed that so that I could deny the truth about my solely lustful relationship. I had an inherent knowledge of what Love (yes, capital L) was, I deeply desired it, and I knew that I wasn't getting it. So I brainwashed myself and told myself that I couldn't understand Love.
Definition of love-- There is none. Much like pchis, I'd need a lot of gesticulating and random eye motions and "y'know?"-s. The English language does not make allowances for emotions and thoughts and convictions this deep, moving, and inspiring.
I suppose that, by those standards, when your vocabulary has utterly failed you and you cannot think of a single way that love could be expressed in words... well, then you've found it.
This is dangerous to say, what with the complete lack of knowledge that I have about your situation. But it sounds like... like you could be on to something here. It's at least of a deeper level than the average high school relationship, if not Love per se. Congrats.
Much luck, fellow Tangster. (For yes, you are a Tangster. We are no older, we are no wiser, we merely are who we are.)
To the person who asked about the love thing: Love that doesn't fade is true love, get it? The funny thing is is that it could be true love but you can't tell until you pass a certain arbitrary test the world puts on true love.
To Hannah: Unconditional love would be the best kind. Why would you need a condition on something like that?
i first thought love meant that i will always love you. now i think it means that i will never hate you.
Pchis: what about the conditions that make you love someone in the first place? Entirely unconditional love would disregard personality, character, and substance as well as superficial external things.
That's why it annoys me when people call it that--"unconditional." Because if you have no reason for loving someone, you're probably not in love with that person after all.
Well you start loving them under the conditions of their personality, but once you make that bond it no longer matters what they become, you'll still love them.
I'm not putting a value judgement no it, but our the disappearing importance of the idea of "unconditional love" is probably the reason divorce rates are so high.
In the case of my parents' divorce (and their previous divorces, yes, divorces plural) it all just seems to be a case of people changing over time and being unwilling to accept what they've got, being sure that this wasn't what they signed up for and that they can do better. If we took mairrage as seriously as people did in the 1800s I'm sure there'd be a lot fewer divorce kids wandering around out there.
It's feminism's fault.
I suppose it goes into the "love is blind" thing, but I tend to think that that, too, is a dangerous thought. Love should be a constant renewal, in my opinion--each day, each week you spend thinking affectionately of another person should bring more reasons, different reasons why to love them. And this, for the most part, is automatic; people grow over time, and if they start out in one direction, it's likely they'll keep loving in the same way. But if love goes so far as to blind us (I keep on in this vein in hopes I don't sound like Anikin Skywalker, circa Ep III), that the one we've loved does change and we love but the memory of them, then we're in love with a symbol, not an actuality.
Ah, and I didn't see the last two posts before me, so I'll adress this separately: Divorce is a different deal. Marriage brings into account a binding contract far more complicated than romantic love, with the issues of custody, financial resources, shared property, etc. I'm not saying there should be fewer divorces, but that there should be more careful thought put into marriages in the first place. The 1800's, anonymous, was not a great place to be, for the most part.
Didn't they still use leeches back then? o_O
Post a Comment