[ SECRET POST #2649 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2649 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04. http://i.imgur.com/eD4bGbG.jpg
[frozen, full nudity]


__________________________________________________



05.
[AlternateHistory.com : Malê Rising]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Amelie]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________






















[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]




























11. [SPOILERS for Superior Spider-Man]



__________________________________________________



12. [SPOILERS for Believe]



__________________________________________________























[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]






























13. [WARNING for rape]

[Orwell]


__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for rape]

[Colditz]


__________________________________________________



15. [WARNING for child molestation]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #378.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. http://i.imgur.com/wC3sdSh.jpg

[rubbertea]

dude, no one can explain love. it's one of the reasons it's so beautiful and powerful.

[(Anonymous)]

Love is putting someone's needs before yours!

[ibbity]

Yes, but WHY do you do this?

[badass_tiger]

Not necessarily. Sometimes you put their needs before yours because it's YOUR need that their needs go first. Besides, how about those people who are clingy and jealous of the people they love? Surely they love their beloved too, if in a selfish sort of way. Romantic love is definitely selfish a lot of the time.

ETA: And you can put somebody's needs before yours without loving them. Out of a sense of duty, out of a sense of kindness, because you're being paid for it ... doesn't mean you love them.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think love is selfish. That jealousy and clingy-behavior doesn't usually spring from love, but from self-doubt. Yes, jealous lovers do love the object of their affections, but that jealousy doesn't come from their lover. What's that old quote? "Love is patient, love is kind, love does not envy, etc..."

In its purest sense, I think love is a very selfless thing. You want the object of your affection to be happy, even at the expense of your own happiness. Other emotions can cloud it (doubt, anger, whatever) and drive us to selfish deeds, but at its most base, I think Olaf described it well. He put it into good, simple words that children can understand: "Love is putting someone else's needs before yours."

[(Anonymous)]

That's from the Bible. I Corinthians 13

[sarillia]

I really relate to Anna too, but for different reasons.

I have struggled with this too though. I'm still trying to figure out what I feel towards my girlfriend. I have a friend who talks about our relationship like it's some epic romance and sometimes I feel like I'm just faking this whole thing because that doesn't seem to fit at all. I try not to worry about it too much and just enjoy the time I spend with her.

[(Anonymous)]

That's definitely the way to go. I was never one to fall in love, or even do the intense crush thing all my friends seemed to do.

Now, I'm quite deeply in love with my partner, but it developed slowly over months, and certainly wasn't a thing I was looking for.

I think that the cultural narrative about capital-L Love can mess with a lot of people who tend to have more slowly-burning emotions than sudden blazes. I definitely spent a good portion of my high school and college career convinced that something was... not wrong, but different, about me, because I seemed to experience everything much less intensely than everyone else. Turns out, it mostly took time and the right person/circumstances.

Wow, that got long. TL;DR: Don't worry that you're "faking" something just because you're not living a fairy tale romance. Some people experience love/romance/affection/etc. differently than that, and it's no less valid.

[sarillia]

This all sounds very familiar. The seeming to experience things less intensely than other people. Physical reactions are really strong with me (tears, panic attacks, etc) but the emotional stuff always seems a bit duller than it's supposed to even as I'm crying or shaking. I don't know if that's just the way I am or if it might have something to do with my depression.

Fortunately my girlfriend is the same way, which makes it easier I think. I'd hate to think of her wanting the kind of fairytale romance that my friend dreams about and being disappointed.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm the same way, and I've encountered a decent amount of people who are.

I'm starting to suspect that most people actually experience the "slow burn" that you describe, and it's just a few who have those very intense, sudden blazes. But a blinding flash of emotion makes for great drama and can seem very appealing, so it's what popular culture has latched onto. And many people want to feel that way so badly that they wind up telling themselves that they do, even when they don't.

[ibbity]

I think the idea that love is somehow SUPPOSED to be that blinding flash, and if you don't have that, you're doing it WRONG, is promoted to a really unhealthy level in a lot of movies/books/tv shows that involve romance. That isn't love, that's infatuation, and while it can be powerful and a whole lot of fun, it's ultimately by its nature transient and kind of shallow and needs to be replaced by something deeper and steadier if that relationship is going to last. That's the part that I wish more romancy things would focus on---the maturing of a relationship rather than the sparkly first-few-weeks excitement and flash. It's why I liked Shrek 2 better than the first, lol.

[lunabee34]

I agree wholeheartedly with you and the other people in this thread.

I think we are told by media that love is this feeling that is intense and all consuming and you must always feel it or something is wrong. And it's completely ridiculous because I don't know anyone in a years long relationship who still has that roller coaster in the pit of her stomach feeling from early days of infatuation anymore. Does that feeling still show up from time to time? Sure. But it isn't ever present. I've been with my husband for 16 years and what we have is so much more satisfying than all the flash and glitz and crazy sex of the beginning of our relationship. It's bone deep and real.

I have watched many friends break up with long term partners because they felt like the spark was gone only to reach the same point with a new partner eventually. :(

I tend to think of love as verb (thank you, DC Talk LOL). I think it is something I do and choices I make rather than an emotion I feel. I'm not a robot. I do *feel* love, but I can't define it solely in that way.

[(Anonymous)]

I like the idea of conceptualizing love as a verb more than as an emotion. In the context of a long-term relationship, one builds love. It's a conscious, daily effort, and it's very rewarding and fulfilling, but it definitely involves work.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Oh, I completely agree. And it's coupled with the notion of "happily ever after" in such a way that it gives the impression that not only is love supposed to be over-the-top intense, but it's also supposed to be easy and perfect. And if it's not, then it's because you're with the Wrong Person! It sets up so many unrealistic expectations.

I've never seen 'Shrek 2,' but one of the only romantic comedies I actually like is 'Love & Sex,' because it shows a lot of the more mundane aspects of a relationship and because it also shows the lead couple having to get over the idea that infatuation = love.

[waterfall8484]

OMG this. When I met my boyfriend it took me over half a year before I was sure I actually loved him, because I wasn't sure what (romantic) love was supposed to feel like to me. I went from 'I like this guy and he's very cute' to 'I really like him' to 'I might perhaps love him' to 'yeah, I think I do love him' to now where I want to stay with him forever.

I never get the intense emotions that we're apparently all supposed to feel according to the media and popular culture and I spent years saying I was just 'too picky' to find a boyfriend, after having had exactly one crush (on a guy I was spending time with each week, so definitely not a love at first sight thing). All I really needed to fall in love was about six months with the right guy. :~D

[(Anonymous)]

Watch Samurai Flamenco.

[(Anonymous)]

Seconding this.

[(Anonymous)]

maybe you're just aromantic.
to genuinely care about some people is already a lot, OP. Not saying that you can't like other humans or care about their well being in a indirect way, but to truely care for a person? To feel for them, to invest in their well-being so you stay with them even when it gets harsh and not fun? True altruism is a big, great thing.

But where does non-romantic love fit into this?

[nyxelestia]

Because I'm in the same "what is love and am I feeling it?" boat as secret!OP, but it doesn't stop at romantic love. My emotions tend to feel very dull to me, and ironically enough, my incapacity for romantic love was the easiest to deal with. Despite my existential angst, my boyfriend has been largely accepting of my whole situation, that when I hesitate to tell him I love him, it's not because I don't love him so much as I just don't really know what it is, given that I can't really differentiate what I feel for him from the same kind of "I care for you" feeling I have for most of my friends and family.

But then, if love is just 'caring' for someone, then how does this accommodate the care I feel for complete strangers, passing acquaintances, fictional characters, etc.? Because it doesn't feel all that different - at most, a change in quantity (at most). I'm fairly certain I don't love random strangers I meet and want to help, so apparently I don't love my family? I would like to think I do, but given that I am well aware that I also not sure if I would ever sacrifice myself for them without thought and that there are even limits to how much I put their needs before mine before I start to look out for myself again, apparently not. Some people agree. Others just say it's survival skills running up against love - which is often very counter-productive to self-preservation - and that having a limit of love doesn't change what it is.

It's not exactly a big deal - it has yet to really interfere much in my relationships with anyone - but it does still leave the door open for some occasional existential angst.

tl;dr - I won't speak for OP, but I know that when I say "I don't know what love is", it's not just romantic love, and at least as far as myself goes I'm still not sure about it.

Re: But where does non-romantic love fit into this?

[(Anonymous)]

I think the media concept of "romantic love" is largely a myth. You might find Irvin Yalom worth a read if you've never heard of him. One of his books is called "Love's Executioner" (or maybe destroyer, can't remember) it's about existential therapy and getting people to look at reality rather than the fantasies they've built based on a thing which is largely a construct and not actually a "real" thing.

It sounds to me like you are being a realist. So many people put up with horrible abusive relationships, because they believe that they must be in love, and that it's the most important thing, rather than being able to stand outside and reflect, which is exactly what you are doing.

To me if love is anything it's a really strong form of like, you like some people more than others and some to the extent where it's unconditional. I don't feel we should have to love just because someone is family for example, if they are cruel and hateful, why on earth are we supposed to love them. To me one of the problems is this automatic assumption that we must love relatives.

Re: But where does non-romantic love fit into this?

[(Anonymous)]

Well, what would you feel if a stranger died? And what would you feel if a member of your family died? Would it be the same feeling? If so, then... maybe you really don't love your family?

I figure love is just a general sense of attachment and connectedness between people that comes in a variety of forms. I figure I can basically judge how much I love something based on how much losing that bond would hypothetically hurt me. If I lose and object I love, chance are I'll be upset, but then I get over it. If I lose a pet, it hurts a lot more and lasts longer, and it can still make me hurt years after. If I lost a friend or family member or my SO (doesn't have to be death. A major falling out counts)... man, it hurts a lot just to think about it.

Re: But where does non-romantic love fit into this?

[nyxelestia]

Therein lies a problem: I've had to fight tears when hearing about deaths of people I never knew (i.e. deaths on the news from major armed conflicts, exploited labor deaths from working with Human Rights Watch, etc.)...then I was completely apathetic when my own grandfather died - and while we were never close, I was a lot closer to him than to random people on the other side of the planet I've never met in my life.

Meanwhile, I can't just think about something to engender a feeling. I don't feel anything at the thought of losing someone, or the memory of them, even if I know (in the case of memories) I sure as hell felt something back then. I don't feel anything now, and as such I don't really trust my imagined feelings for hypothetical situations.

I fully expect that I will eventually drift away from my current set of friends and boyfriend due to different circumstances and life plans and am apathetic to that possibility for its own sake, but I feel a vague sense of guilt that the ones who lean heavily on me right now may need someone in the future and I will not be there. I have no problem with drifting far away enough from my parents that I never speak to them again, but dread the idea of them being unhappy or hurt. I really, really want all my families' pets to be taken care of and treated well, but I don't want to do that myself.

All of this goes back to my original problem - the criteria that people keep using to try to define love never quite seem to fit or help because somehow, they're asking about what type of fruit is hanging from the tree while my problem is a vegetable in the ground.

[otakugal15]

To be perfectly honest, OP? No one can. Hell, even I'm still questioning it. But I have no doubt that the happiness I feel with my SO is some form of love. And I'm fairly certain it'll feel different for others, even if it's an SO or someone from their family or a very close friend.

[(Anonymous)]

"I've spent my entire life questioning the concept of love"

Good. More people should do this. I sincerely believe that if more people did this, to the degree that they become aware of the world outside themselves, there might be more love in the world.

But please don't despair too much. There are plenty of folks who have questioned the concept of love as well, and if it takes you a long time to come to the answer, or if you never figure it out to your own satisfaction, then it doesn't make you a bad person (I'm still trying to figure some shit out myself). And hell, at least you are capable of empathy.