Boys and Girls – Online Relationship Help

It’s time for a usual provocative topic. Reasoning about love with a serious appearance would mean that I gave in to universal madness because of a whole lot of nothing, therefore I’ll add in our talk a little pepper and irony. Let’s talk about love and try to form an understanding what love is and why there are so many problems because of it. It will be my online relationship help

Such topic was once examined, but I was talking about friendship, and I did such a conclusion: a good attitude to a person happens, liking happens, respect happens, but such abstract and naively raised category – “friendship”, which is none other than a neurotic team spirit of two infantilisms.

Of course, words can be used differently, and “friendship” may mean exactly the adequate relationship, built on mutual fondness and respect – there is no reason to argue in this case. But if we are talking about the relations which are called “friendship” in practice, then we see just a neurotic dependence. So, let’s won’t argue about a sense of words and will try to puzzle out in essence of the issue.

We may tell the same about love, and it would be absolutely right, but if we stop here, the topic won’t be developed. Love and faith in it is more complex thing, just because of the universal madness. They humbug us about friendship a lot, and really brainwash us when they tell about love. Television, magazines, the internet, parties and get-togethers – the same groans about love are everywhere.

Actually, the situation is that importance of the issue of love equal importance of the issue of meaning of life, and for many is identical. To spend life and don’t love, to spend life and not to be beloved – don’t you think it’s the most terrible nightmare of modern people?

Formula of love

There is such a principle in psychology – the more expectations we have the more disappointment we get. The more wait – the less you get, the less you wait – the more you get. It’s an iron principle and there are no exceptions.

That’s because reality is unpredictable and doesn’t want to fit into Procrustean bed of mental ideas about “how it will be”. And the more sophisticated ideas about a future we build, the more difficult to fit them for reality, and therefore the probability to fail is higher. And on the contrary – the less plans and fantasies we have, the more possible reality will turn better any expectations.

So, one from the main problems with love is that expectations are dreadfully great, cause love surely is such an important thing!!! Love is waited for all life, people increasing expectations after the next fail, as if the next time will be a fairy tale. Then a new relationship happens, but time passes and crude reality punishes us again.

A clever person would look back, think, come to a conclusion about wrong expectations, but, for some reason, it happens oftener otherwise. It’s finished oftener with accusations that your chosen one loves you badly or doesn’t manage his or her duties; – it’s simpler, than to be responsible for your false expectations and unfounded demands. In short, expectations are strongly increased and there is need to do something with the issue. Rapturous romantic ideas about love don’t allow seeing simplicity and naturalness of the feeling.

“Feeling of love” is just figure of speech. There is no feeling of love at all. And if someone believes that there is a special lamp inside him, which lights up, when fondness develops into love, it serves him right, such persons aren’t lucky in relationships, maybe they die out one day themselves.

Fondness happens, respect happens, passion happens, but there is no love at all. A set of more or less simple soul feelings is called as “love”, in general, among neurotics. “I have gone mad, that means I love” – this is the modern formula of love.   

Favorite sweater

It’s said that it’s necessary to be able to love, and that not every person is capable of that feeling. That’s yack! If not to substitute conceptions and to examine the root of the matter, no science is needed. Manipulators are the persons who moan about inability to love most of all, they use the topic of love as a linchpin of psychological influence. Everybody can love – it’s not more difficult than to breathe. That is enough just to gaze at your everyday fondness and antipathy to understand, how easy and informally we love our thing, and……how we absolutely can’t love even the closest peoples.

Of course to love inanimate things is easily. There is no reason to argue – we can’t expect anything from them. We don’t demand response feelings from a favorite sweater – it isn’t able, but we don’ suffer because of that for some reason. We accept it, just because it exists, and because it’s warm and cozy in it. But as soon as we are talking about love for a human, then some complaints begin straight away. A sweater is not indebted to us for our love, but a human is indebted– he or she is a human, he must understand that! It comes to a strange thing – we like favorite things more than close persons.

And what do we think about faults of our things? We don’t get angry and aren’t hurt, and the most favorite things wear out until it’s full of holes and continue loving it just the same. It’s easier to feel the quiet and unconditional love, with regard to an inanimate thing, which everybody searches in relationship with a human for. We all are able to love, but in the most important moment that our ability fails, cause we see in other persons not just persons, but an active storage for our psychological arbitrary rule. It’s not enough for us a beloved person to be with us – we want besides, the person to change his or her faults, or else we won’t love him.

We want someone from outside to accept us with all faults and to let us to believe that we have the right to our meters of space in this life. We don’t love ourselves, can’t accept ourselves, and therefore can’t quietly accept another person. Our love works only in the simple cases with inanimate things, where dissatisfaction with us can’t be transported on an object of our love.

Dissatisfaction with us exactly creates dissatisfaction with other people. Inability to accept our faults, as some actuality, doesn’t allow us to see such actuality in another person. We see faults of another person and blame the person for them, as blame ourselves. If there weren’t the inner quilt, we would accept another person differently – we would look at him or her as we look at our favorite things, without any dissatisfaction.

It’s possible to love another person only being reconciled with ourselves, or at least, not allowing ourselves to transport on the person our inner problems. Nobody is indebted to us because of our nice behavior – it’s our choice to love or not to love, to carry or not, and there is no response from another side, that isn’t a reason for grievances. To love and to be loved doesn’t mean to be indebted.

Everything is simple in the case of favorite things – we just like them. We don’t need to sort things out between us and to demand some oaths and declarations. We are glad that we have them, but don’t depend on them. We get used to them and inevitably get upset, when lose them, but we don’t go mad – however we feel bitter, we continue living, we buy new things and love them.  We don’t consider our things as a meaning our life, and therefore losing them, we don’t feel that our world is broken.

With regards to favorite things a psychological distance is naturally preserved, which we have to control deliberately in relationship with a person, moreover forcing ourselves. It’s possible to love things, but it isn’t possible to become crazy about them. But we admire, adulate, fall and vanish – and that is exactly pathology.

And what about marriage-bed? Must we have the only sweater and refuse other sweaters? We, of course, can play a game and make a vow of marriage-bed – to wear out the sweater, until we change it. But what is the point? What is the difference between favorite sweater and others? Just because we do like it at present, and we come back to him again and again, cause it’s better with it, than with others. Are some oaths and promises really needed?

And even if it turns out that there are two favorite sweaters or more – must we really feel some moral suffering because of that? Nobody demands from us monogamy, nobody reproaches us for adultery. It’s good to go cross-country skiing in one sweater, to watch TV in another sweater. And what to do now – to kick ourselves?

Morals requiring to love and to have the only sexual partner defend neurosis of the partner. There are no another valuables in the morals. To catch a human, to chain him up and to force him to love themselves, that’s what devotees of marriage-bed want. It’s painful to lose someone’s love only for one reason – you don’t love yourself. And morals here defend weak persons and condemn strong people.

We must not be with the only thing, we aren’t nailed to them by nails of their demands, but without any external and internal compulsion, we return to it again and again. We are free from things, and therefore, we are with them – cause, there’re no chains and no desire to rip them. A real marriage-bed is not a moral category, but necessary consequence from the principle of satisfaction – we return there where we feel good, and no vows are needed here. If it is good – we’ll come back, if it isn’t – we’ll leave. There is no another rule about marriage-bed.

But imagine, the sweater has had the right of choice, and it decided to change an owner, cause it will be better there. Admit that you have thought “how did it dare?  It’s mine!” Pride demands obedience, worthless painfully suffers when a self-appraisal is blown….but, we are talking about the right for freedom, which we have just recognized as our lawful right. An object of our love has the same right to leave there where it will be better for him, but are we ready, in this case, to take pleasure in it and to wish sincerely all the best? 

Beloved person

If someone doesn’t like the parallel between love for things and love for a human, go past, you just don’t want to give up your self-deception. It’s so convenient to believe, that a love for a human is something absolutely different. It’s possible to make up so many interesting, it’s possible to suffer without “a real love” with such a pleasure, and with such a benefit your real love can be exchanged for all sorts of favors and psychological “caress”!

If to talk about “science of love” and that a real love is something more difficult and lofty, than usual fondness, then learn to love a human at least such way as we love your thing – without any commitments, without any dependence, but with devotion and sincere concern. When you succeeded in it, then come back to debate about real love.

And now imagine, that there is a real pleasant person near by you, who likes you as he or she likes his favorite sweater in the sense which we have just examined. He loves you quietly without any madness. He feels good with you and doesn’t demand something in exchange. He takes care of your relationship and sincerely wants you to feel good, cause he’ll feel good with you. Whether that’s not such a life you dreamed about?

But are you able to love another person in this way? Are you able to accept a person with all his “holes and spots”? Are you able to take care of another person for healthy egoism reasons, not invoicing him?

Are you able to love, keeping your integrity and independence, not vanishing in another person? Or, maybe,  you are looking for it – the vanishing in each other? Maybe, you consider loss of a personal “border” as a love? When two lonely and unhappy “better halfs” hope to become a unified whole? If you do, then you have great problems which you can be proud of. Any love lyric poetry and a half of creations of art is created by such people – with similar “romantic hearts”. There is something to be proud of it, but it didn’t bring happiness to anyone – only sweet sufferings.

There is no “border” between fondness and love – it’s just words. There is only fondness – sometimes powerful sometimes not. And the “love” everybody talks about is different from fondness just by a safety contract on exclusive using each other. Marriages are made in heaven, yes! but using heavenly laws, without registry offices, beautiful promises and agreements on the right of owning. Fondness may be called “God’s law”, but there are no rights and duties – it’s juggling of “human’s law”.

Natural love

There is no something funnier than a declaration of love. It’s so funny!!! If there is no the feeling named “love” in our psyche, then what does a human see in himself, making declaration of love? He sees inside fondness and his persistent attachment, together with fear of possible loss and comes to the conclusion that it’s probably “love”.

Ask him what love is, and he’ll stop short – if he has enough honesty, he’ll say that he doesn’t have the answer. But he has to use the conception, cause, she is waiting and even demanding –“When will he finally say about his feeling?” So he says in order to not to look as an idiot, who is the only, who doesn’t know what love is. But in actual fact nobody knows it! And especially the persons, who do believe in love.

And you surely thought about it. Did you try to answer the question? Did you think about something except a beautiful poetic definition in response? And if someone asked you what hunger was you’d run to a poetry too? No, hunger really exists and you know it very well, therefore easy describe it and say where you feel it. But you don’t know about love – and don’t tell that’s because you haven’t been “hungry”.

Being a child you loved the entire world around, but it was not independent feeling – you just accepted everything around, as a wonderful actuality. But even if you had known the word you would have understood, that it was love, cause there was nothing to understand. In those days, it was your natural way to look at things – complete accepting and complete lack of rejection. As breathing – breathe out – breathe in, and there were no illusions, that exhalation is better than inhalation or else.

Love is not a feeling – it’s a condition of perception, only a healthy psyche has it. Love is a perception, there is no the division on “good” and “bad” in love. And that’s a natural state of human, which is deeply broken unfortunately. We have “good” and “bad” inside and therefore, can’t perceive integrity of the around world. It’s quite possible to restore inner integrity, but not through the game in neurotic love, which the inner split just increases.

So, all declarations of love is either lie or neurosis, which many people use to be proud of, instead of  treating it. If there is “real love” in our life, then it’s natural love, which can’t be described. A lack of stone in the ankle boot is not love it’s just a lack of stone in the ankle boot. I hope you understand me.

Therefore, you are no match for lucidity. The more beautiful words the more lie and self-deception in the words. Trust your clear fondness, follow it, and don’t demand more than that from other people. Pursuit of ghost takes up your power and gives you nothing in exchange. Stop, look around – the wonderful world and amazing people surround you.