From Le Love:
Susan, I’ll start off this thread by saying I don’t like this image. I used to read stuff like this when I was in high school (post secret!) and daydream about what a real relationship would be like, about how wonderful it would be to have someone THAT addicted to me. And then I had my first relationship and realized that real life isn’t like that. My BF wasn’t addicted to me. He didn’t eat up all my attention, and, more importantly, I didn’t eat up all of his. And that made me think there was something wrong with us. I still sometimes think that in my current relationship. That if my BF doesn’t want to be with me every second of every day, he doesn’t really love me. It’s a destructive thought process, one I’m trying to get out of.
The other issue I take with the quote is it’s all about me: my needs, my wants, my desires. That’s the kind of thinking that spurs entitlement mentality, sometimes in both genders (I have a friend who nagged his GF about this so much that she dumped him). Love is beautiful, but I don’t think it’s quite this self-serving.
This is by no means representative of a healthy relationship. Addiction like this usually burns out fast. But it’s memorable, and it’s part of the human range of emotional experiences. What I particularly thought was interesting about it was the author.
I do hear what you’re saying about the deceptive nature of the portrayals of love in the media though.
Yeah I agree, was surprised to know this was a quote from Choke (I’ve actually never read anything by Palahniuk).
Sounds like he’s trying to find himself in someone else. Good luck with that.
Sounds like he’s trying to find himself in someone else.
It worked for Depeche Mode:
“This is by no means representative of a healthy relationship. Addiction like this usually burns out fast.”
I think a healthy relationships can have regular cycle of many feelings. Sometimes the relationships is comfortable, sometimes it’s exciting, sometimes it’s just pragmatic. There’s a whole range of experiences.
I agree, but this kind of addiction, this level of need, is not typical, I don’t think. I had one relationship like this, not with my husband. It was super intense, but by the six-month mark it was deader than dead. One never forgets that kind of relationship, though. He actually found me recently via the blog. :-/
I will add that sometimes is just boring. I think that part is not stressed near enough and is probably the root of many “I’m not haaaaapy so I will leave” moments. Relationships are like jobs, majors… they experience all the same high and lows, but the sadly unlike careers and majors you are totally society sanctioned to quit them if you are not haaaapy.
I will add that sometimes is just boring. I think that part is not stressed near enough and is probably the root of many “I’m not haaaaapy so I will leave” moments.
That quote looks so familiar… looks like something i would have wrote years ago. The mating call of the Beta.
IT’S WHAT I SECRETLY CRAVE… but those are the actions that will drive a woman to call you needy, unattractive, and go all eat pray love on you.
Not going down that road again. It’s laced with IED’s.
Scratch that… not Beta… Zeta. Beta’s serve a functional purpose to society. Back then, i only fantasized about woman’s ideal fantasy and tried to emulate. I was the proverbial donkey’s ass that cartoon characters turn into when they realize they’ve been had.
“The other issue I take with the quote is it’s all about me: my needs, my wants, my desires. That’s the kind of thinking that spurs entitlement mentality, sometimes in both genders (I have a friend who nagged his GF about this so much that she dumped him). Love is beautiful, but I don’t think it’s quite this self-serving.”
Wow, this is the most socially observant post I’ve read on this site. Perhaps you may find this interesting… Among some of the oldest known words we translate in English as “love” is agape. Defined roughly it means, ‘Putting the best interests of others ahead of your own based on right principles, duty and propriety’. Interestingly enough, this kind of love does not preclude emotion and can show profound affection such as when someone might give their life so that another might live but it is never *dictated* by emotion and emotion is not *necessary* to its function at all. Many are somewhat familiar with the bible scripture that says, “God is love.” The Greek word translated as ‘love’ in that passage is agape. Imagine if *everyone* practiced this kind of love in everyday life.
Is he biting her neck? Kinky.
I love that book. Aside from that, there definitely should be a healthy amount of codependency in relationships. Too much can make a person seem weak or clingy. Too little can make a person seem detached and uninvolved. It’s all about striking a fine balance, which is sometimes easier said than done.
You do realize that Chuck is gay, don’t you?
Does it matter?
What do you people mean this isn’t a real or healthy relationships? When you ditch the “Alpha male” myth and look for a mate that is chemically compatible love will not fade! I’ve been making passionate love to the same woman for 7 years and we still spend all of our time together. We have had trials, a long service tour, and health problems..but the chemicals are still there. I still get aroused when I see her or smell her skin, its like the early relationship phase, and our hearts ache every-time we are apart for more than a day… We are constantly accused of being newly weds. The trick has to do with dating women/men you are actually attracted to instead of hooking-up with the first jerk that may take you. When you see that HALO because of pheromones… you got the right one.
What an awesome comment! Not everyone gets to have that – you’re lucky. I like the Halo of Pheromones. Sometimes I think if we just let our subconscious make the choices based on all those subtle chemical cues, we’d be much better off.
I think everyone is a bit too serious – Susan wants us to recall the thrill of infatuation. Interesting crossover with Athol Kay who calls it “mutual oneitis.” And this is what we lose in least-interest combat dating, the will and comfort to go all out.
But it is indeed very unstable, because the moment one of you drops in intensity just a bit, it’s over. It’s fun, and good for what it’s good for, a good learning experience for youth (or the not-so-young).
This is a way better quote than that stupid Carrie Bradshaw quote that’s been making the rounds.
Ah, Choke. I love that book. Palahniuk’s best.
Mike, Zeta’s something different, you mean Omega.
I like @peace’s reminder that the true definition of love is when we put the safety & happiness of someone else before our own. A good thing to check the next time you find yourself saying ‘I’m in love’.
“Relationships are like jobs, majors… they experience all the same high and lows, but the sadly unlike careers and majors you are totally society sanctioned to quit them if you are not haaaapy.”
Yes, Anacaona.. (sheesh.. I liked it better when you used Steph as a handle it’s too much like anaconda and I know a few people have actually called you that in error.. lol) exactly!
Too many people expect it to be like that above pic.. Unrealistic notions cause problems later on in the marriage.. I don’t care how in love a couple are, that initial “floating on a cloud ” feeling is unsustainable. It fades as it should, to be replaced with a deeper abiding love and an ever strengthening bond.
As You say Susan: “But it’s memorable, and it’s part of the human range of emotional experiences.” Indeed it is.. But as you also say Susan, the above quote speaks of an addiction.. I don’t think such an addiction is healthy to a relationship..
Too intense. Too selfish..
Not only that, a couple in time will usually have a family and for a time the kids will be the focal point in a family, It’s just the way it is. Initially there will be sleepless nights with a baby. Night feeds. Sometimes colic.. Not a great deal of sex because you are both stuffed.. That all passes, but it certainly takes your relationship to another level and solidifies the love.. Yep, team marriage. There ain’t no better team to playing on…
For the first time it’s just not about the two of you, but the three of you. Unselfish unconditional and nurturing love.. A different kind of love. The love of a parent for a child.
Now if ya had ya head stuck in the clouds like a giddy teenager day in and day out how would ya be able to devote enough time or energy to a baby..?? 😉
I really love my husband deeply, and there is no other for me, but like most couples we have our ups and downs. We have an autistic son who we both dearly love.. He’s hard work, but we wouldn’t change him for the world..
The upside has been a sex life that has only gotten better and better over the years.
The reason for this is because we could not go out and do the things that we really liked doing together because of our son’s special needs.. You know, like camping, fishing, out to dinner with friends… Or even go to football matches, as be are both avid football fans. So the only other thing left that we could do together that was extremely enjoyable was… make love..So the more we did it the better it got. The calmer I was ( I am a highly strung and passionate person) The happier hubby was. The closer we became.. The less we would argue..
It’s ALL still good 😉 Not perfect, no relationship ever is.. But yeah, real good. 😀
The guy sounds gay.
A straight guy would write something along the line of “feed me, fuck me and leave me alone”. Now THAT is Love.
“feed me, fuck me and leave me alone”. Now THAT is Love.
I actually really like this quote! Thanks Susan for sharing. I always start off addicted to my lover then it mellows into something more stable. I think this initial phase is necessary for bonding. Haven’t we all spent days or weeks or months wrapped up in our partner, in a cloud of mutual adoration? I would love to find someone I can exist with in this state for all eternity. HUS meet Hopeless Romantic with Massive Streak of Incurable Optimism
>> “what I need is somebody that will eat up all my free time…”
But when will I check HUS???!!! :O
I do think though that this is the type of thing where different people have different needs. Some people need to be around people all the time, and would probably thrive in this kind of high-maintenance relationship. Whereas I have reclusive tendencies, so when I read that quote my first reaction was like “yuck!” I like my space.
Is this the Carrie Bradshaw quote you speak of?
“When it comes to relationships, maybe we’re all in glass houses, and shouldn’t throw stones. Because you can never really know. Some people are settling down, some are settling and some people refuse to settle for anything less than Butterflies…”
It’s pretty dumb, I must say…
Uuuughhh. Carrie Bradshaw makes me want to club baby seals. She’s the most misguided character when it comes to relationships in television that I can think of. Nothing will fully encompass the ire I feel towards some of the things she says or does.
SATC must be so terrible!! I actually just googled that quote, but I think I’ve seen people post it on facebook. In any case, I never saw SATC before, but coming to HUS has made me never want to watch it lol.
I’ll admit that I have seen every episode of that show, some more than once. My college roommates had a SATC marathon once, and I saw all 6 seasons. Some of it was enjoyable, while other parts made me want to rip my hair out. Any woman that takes dating advice from that show is insane. I was fully aware of the fact that the show was purely fictional and a form of entertainment. Any woman who thinks the show’s messages should be transferred to real life deserves whatever consequences come about.
This might be slightly off-topic but it is still in the BallPark.
I have been on a number of “Trail-Rides” where lots of humans ride on their horses from one place to another. Both species naturally form up into a herd/gang that looks like from a distance to be a unitary assemblage. But the humans mainly talk to the humans and the horses talk to the horses. There is some trans-species communication but it is really of secondary importance, usually awkward, and at any rate is poorly understood across the genetic divide…
When guys find themselves in a group they start to jostle and compete-and thereby bond- with one another. I will not bore you with why; but trust me, it has to be done. Any females in the vicinity are vulnerable to emo-meltdown unless they had a good brother to teach them what to expect out of these transformations..
If the subject of the hour is uber-alpha behaviour towards women then your opening bid has to be, at least, a story about spanking a fat womans ass while trying to pound her right off the mattress. If the game is on about pedophiles – then the most extremely vile joke ever told about dark woods and squealing 8 yr old virgins will be taken as no more than a challenge to the creativity of the other guys present to come up with something a lot viler… here I need to interject that there are some things I will not say online. It can be back-traced. I have a job. Lots of people almost worship me irl, so I shall stop here.
The women? They care a lot less about jostle-ing and competing over the things that are really motivating the guys. They can sort of understand what is really happening but only with some effort.
Their reward for that effort to understand is that they will “get it” one day and then get a good nights sleep.
And Chuck Norris will be looking down on her from his floating mountain-top-fortress to make sure that she never forgets what she learned. that no harm can come to her.
9 Mike December 22, 2011 at 6:05 pm wrote:
It’s laced with IED’s.
IED = Improvised Explosive Device ?
/ Kari Keeper-of-Acronyms
Kari; I think you’re correct. It totally fits with the tone of his post.
IED’s are a surprise demolition package, usually set-off by another bystander. Although, to be honest, they can also be set off by a trip-wire.
Who knew explosives had so much relationship advice?
I will add that I do think the “infatuation” stage is important for the first part of falling in love. Is the focus that allows people to see the rest of the person and then realize the other more good deep parts of them. The problem comes when people get addicted to the infatuation and “confused” it with love and when is over they try to recreate it again with a new lover. The best is to get infatuated find the rest of things that bond you to that person, sense of humor, common interests and so on and then move on to the other stages. I think Athol mentioned his addiction to Jennifer but no one here can imagine that they are less than a healthy couple willing to survive whatever it comes. So yeah don’t hate the infatuation just enjoy it while it last and cherish it once is gone, YMMV.
I wonder to what extent the “divine addiction”, ie extreme infatuation, only happens when there is resistance and uncertainty. If someone falls for you as soon as you fall for him/her, and you never have any doubt that you’ll be able to get them (“get” meaning LTR/marriage, if that’s what you want, not only sex), then can the divine addiction really develop***or does it only happen when there’s at least some point early in the relationship where you have a big question about whether you’ll be able to get/keep them??
In my one experience with this kind of relationship, both of us signaled early on that we were 100% in. There was no “hard to get” element to it. It was like getting drunk on another person. Eventually, of course, you do want to come up for air, interact with other people, leave the cocoon. That is when the problems begin.
“If someone falls for you as soon as you fall for him/her, and you never have any doubt that you’ll be able to get them (“get” meaning LTR/marriage, if that’s what you want, not only sex), then can the divine addiction really develop***or does it only happen when there’s at least some point early in the relationship where you have a big question about whether you’ll be able to get/keep them??”
My husband and I fell in love with each other about the same time, and I had no doubt that I’d be able to “get” him, as we talked about a serious LTR very shortly. I was incredibly addicted to him, and still am. He is the love of my life, and when I’m not around him for a while I still get angsty.
I did had the infatuation stage and it actually happened because I knew my husband was into me. Even though I have had one sided crushes before its not anywhere near the level of intensity when the other person is yours and only yours. Of course I’m still attracted to my husband in a way I can actually function in society but still I cannot be apart very long from him, in spite of us starting long distance. We hold hands when he is driving and we kiss at least once every hour when we are in the same place. Is truly delightful. Can’t wait to see how would I love him as father of my children or when he starts to get all wrinkly, and start to chase kids out of our lawn. I know weird things to start to consider, still I can’t imagine a future without him in it.
Carrie Bradshaw makes me want to club self-centred single middle-aged women.
The fiancée took me to see the movie. Near full frontal nudity was all it had going for it.
There’s a chip you should call in at some point!
¡Feliz año nuevo a todos!
What Chuck describes here has nothing to do with love. It’s the narcissist’s need for narcissistic supply, only vaguely camouflaged with the last words of “mutual addiction”.
Love and addiction are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Feeling addicted to someone almost always has its roots in a false and unhealthy understanding of love.
The dynamic is mostly like this: As soon as one defines love as something external, something that the other person posesses and therefore has to give to one, one converts him or her literally in a drug dealer. “Love” being the drug in this case.
The simple cure is to get a broader understanding of love as an act, and to learn to transcend issues of the ego.