Love The One Who Loves You

[yeahisaidit]

The fact that someone loves me, adores me, respects me and treats me well is a reason for me to love them. How a man makes me feel is important to me. So for me it could work.

However, if the persons personality is unappealing to me then I won't stick around long enough to realize/know they love me.

I think having chemistry is very different from liking and respecting someone. I have had chemistry with men who I didn't like and didn't respect so those relationships wouldn't work for me.

THIS!!!


Sent from my Desire HD using Long Hair Care Forum App

 

[ScorpioBeauty09]

This thread hits close to home. When I was in college my mom was desperate for me to date/have a boyfriend and would push me toward anyone expressing interest. The most recent one was my ex-roommate since she liked him from the first day and she and his BFF insisted he wanted to date me. He was a sweet guy but there was no chemistry and didn't feel our personalities matched beyond friendship. It's not that I couldn't be happy with him I know I could, but it wouldn't be enough. I'd get bored and I don't want to put myself in a situation where I'd be tempted to look outside the relationship. I can see how being with someone who loves you more than you love him could work for some, but not for me. I have to feel something for the person I'm with and it has to be mutual.

The only way I'd be with I didn't love is a marriage of convenience for money or power.

 

[B_Phlyy]

My ex fiance was a man like this but I knew if we got married, we'd be divorced before the 10 year anniversary. I knew he loved me and I loved him (we still have a mutual platonic love also), but once the initial chemistry wore off and we couldn't cook some back up, our relationship failed.

I don't think one needs 100% chemistry all the time, but I do think you need enough of it most of the time.

 

[Imani]

Been there, done that, never again. I totally agree w/thiends. When the chemistry is not there its hard to overlook the flaws, u just get annoyed and resentful.

 

[TrueToHair]

..................................

 

[TrueToHair]

..................................

 

[Thiends]

@Arcadian, Smiley82, @HoneyCurlz etc: Let's not create a false dichotomy here. Some posts here seem to imply that if a woman isn't settling down with a man who loves her but to whom she is indifferent, then she is chasing emotionally unavailable, flashy types around. That does not have to be the case. It can be as simple as the woman waiting for the man who she is capable of loving too. That is the scenario I envisioned in my post. The question is:

Would you be content settling down with a man who loves you, but who you are only fond or appreciative of, or would you want to wait to find the man you can love as much as he loves you (knowing that you are taking a risk because there is no guarantee you would ever find that man)?

 

[Thiends]

Thiends, this thread is so on point and timely for me. I have had this question weighing on my mind for a while, and was actually thinking about it a lot this morning. My conclusion is I just can't do it without the chemistry-I just can't. I will eventually be resentful and make both our lives miserable.**shudders**

@rabs77: I think every woman who is about something will eventually be in this position, if she stays single past age 20 or so. I have been in the position to settle down with several men who were crazy about me, but who I just wasn't feeling like that. I totally understand what you mean about being resentful because in each case, seeing how these men looked at me made me very resentful that I hadn't found someone to inspire that kind of feeling in me.

I guess this thread also ties into the question of: What is the point of marriage to you? Would you be content marrying just for companionship? Would you be content marrying just for children? Would you be content marrying just to improve your standard of living? Would you be content marrying just to be able to say that you, too, have someone and to not have to face the stigma associated with being unmarried at an older age?

For me, marriage is pointless if the person I am with is not that special someone. If I am never again allowed to have sex with another person and must always consider this person in all of my decisions, then the person I am doing all of that for has to be truly special to my heart. Otherwise, I will grow resentful at making such sacrifices for someone who I don't care about more than I do my friends, for instance. Also, the secret fear is always in my heart when I am with someone I feel just ok about:

What if I meet the person with whom I do feel incredible chemistry and shared values, goals, and everything else?

I would feel honor-bound to remain in the marriage and let that person of my dreams go, but I am not sure that I could do that without being embittered in the process and extremely resentful of the person I had married. I am not sure that taking the risk that I will not find the right one is worse than setting myself up to be in the painful, terrible position of having found the love of my life who isn't my husband.

 

[rara171]

i can't, because I will always be looking for something better. i need passion more than stability

 

[HoneyCurlz]

@Arcadian, @Smiley82, @HoneyCurlz etc: Let's not create a false dichotomy here. Some posts here seem to imply that if a woman isn't settling down with a man who loves her but to whom she is indifferent, then she is chasing emotionally unavailable, flashy types around. That does not have to be the case. It can be as simple as the woman waiting for the man who she is capable of loving too. That is the scenario I envisioned in my post. The question is:

Would you be content settling down with a man who loves you, but who you are only fond or appreciative of, or would you want to wait to find the man you can love as much as he loves you (knowing that you are taking a risk because there is no guarantee you would ever find that man)?

To the first bolded: I hope I did not imply that. I gave the scenario about my own aunt and I know for a fact she never chased men period! She simply was looking for a man who made her heart skip a beat. That does not mean the man had to be flashy or emotionally unavailable.

To the second bolded: To be honest, it would depend on my age. I would have to look at what I thought my chances were of giving up a guy who adored me...that's the Virgo in me. lol

I was lucky because I happened to meet a guy who made my heart skip a beat whenever I heard the phone ring (with me hoping it was him). As fate would have it, he was smitten with me as well. BUT if I was at a certain age in my life...I don't know...I would probably be looking for other stuff to be 100% honest with you.

 

[MizAvalon]

I agree to an extent, however, I feel that love and adoration are two different things.

I feel that both parties should love each other equally, but the man should adore the woman more. These relationships are most fulfilling for both parties.

There's little more pathetic/sad than a woman desperate to keep a man.

I think that may have been a factor in the Eva Longoria/Tony Parker relationship. Anyone with eyes could see that he was not as into her as she was into him. And we see how that turned out.

 

[Crystalicequeen123]

Hmm........... :scratchch


I don't know..... That's hard to say because I've never been married before.


But, off hand I would probably say maybe not. I think you could be HAPPY (maybe he's rich, maybe he treats you like a queen, etc.), but I think that if you were not really "into" the man, ULTIMATELY or eventually you would always feel like there was something missing.

I have dated men who I was not into all that much, and while their romantic advances were VERY flattering...I always felt somehow cheated. I felt like I wasn't being true to MYSELF. Not only that, but I always had "wandering eyes". Plus, you might end up kind of resenting him in the end. Not to mention....if you're not attracted to the man, then it might be a little difficult to fulfill those "wifely dues" ( if you know what I mean ). Goodness knows some women have a hard enough time feeling "fulfilled" with their husbands who they ARE into.....


I don't want a guy who treats me like a jerk, but at the same time I don't want a guy who I have to FORCE myself to like or have chemistry with. IMO, if the chemistry isn't there, then it just isn't there! Chemistry is something that (IMHO) is either there, or it isn't. I think it can grow somewhat if there was some there to begin with, but I don't think you can "CREATE" chemistry where there is none.


But, I could be wrong! Again, I've never been married before, so take my comments w/a grain of salt!

 

[~Sparklingflame~]

@Arcadian, Smiley82, @HoneyCurlz etc: Let's not create a false dichotomy here. Some posts here seem to imply that if a woman isn't settling down with a man who loves her but to whom she is indifferent, then she is chasing emotionally unavailable, flashy types around. That does not have to be the case. It can be as simple as the woman waiting for the man who she is capable of loving too. That is the scenario I envisioned in my post. The question is:

Would you be content settling down with a man who loves you, but who you are only fond or appreciative of, or would you want to wait to find the man you can love as much as he loves you (knowing that you are taking a risk because there is no guarantee you would ever find that man)?

To answer your question: no.

My cousins cousin was wild about me. WILD. He was an all around good guy, but I just didnt feel that way about him. I didnt. He was fine too but I just couldnt be with him in that way. Now, if he was Vladimir rich then ummm.....possibly.

 

[Ladybelle]

Passion will have you marrying the wrong guy for the wrong reasons & getting divorced when you don't feel the "passion" anymore. Passion is overrated in marriage, IMHO. It's a good thing to have, but it certainly isn't what makes a marriage. Passion can be one of the most fleeting things & it comes & goes in even the happiest marriages.

 

[PopLife]

Playing Devil's advocate:

Does that mean that just because a guy isn't initially head over hills about you mean that he can't grow in love with you over time?

I know we always talk about men knowing very early on but can that possibly apply to all guys (seems like a huge generalization). Any examples of this type of situation?

 

[HoneyCurlz]

Passion will have you marrying the wrong guy for the wrong reasons & getting divorced when you don't feel the "passion" anymore. Passion is overrated in marriage, IMHO. It's a good thing to have, but it certainly isn't what makes a marriage. Passion can be one of the most fleeting things & it comes & goes in even the happiest marriages.

Gotta agree with you here Ladybelle.

It goes back to Thiends question of "what does marriage mean to you?"

 

[Thiends]

Passion will have you marrying the wrong guy for the wrong reasons & getting divorced when you don't feel the "passion" anymore. Passion is overrated in marriage, IMHO. It's a good thing to have, but it certainly isn't what makes a marriage. Passion can be one of the most fleeting things & it comes & goes in even the happiest marriages.

Ladybelle: I think passion is the wrong word for what I am describing. I don't mean that googly-moogly, swooning feeling one gets when another is still new. I mean physical attraction and the sort of love that separates a romantic prospect from a friend. These might not make a marriage, but do you think a marriage without them can be as strong as one where they are present?

By the way, I think a marriage can last while lacking almost everything a person could want. So, this isn't really a "can these people stay married" thread. I've seen people who hated each other, hadn't had sex in years, and cheated wantonly stay married because all that's needed to stay married is not to get divorced. I am talking about a healthy, strong, stable marriage that is good for both people, not just any marriage.

I am not wedded to the idea that chemistry is necessary. I think chemistry might be necessary to some people, but not to others. Some have never felt chemistry in their lives, so it is a nebulous unknown quantity. Some value friendship and companionship more than romantic love.

 

[Thiends]

Playing Devil's advocate:

Does that mean that just because a guy isn't initially head over hills about you mean that he can't grow in love with you over time?

I know we always talk about men knowing very early on but can that possibly apply to all guys (seems like a huge generalization). Any examples of this type of situation?

PopLife: I think that 99% men have to feel chemistry, not just love their wives in a "yea, she aight" sort of way, in order to be faithful. A few years ago, I thought I met the exception to this. I met a very meek, easygoing guy who didn't feel any particular way about his longtime girlfriend. He claimed he just enjoyed the companionship and that he was ok with the friendly fondness he had for her. They had a quiet, milder sort of love.

I was impressed.

Then the news broke that he had been covertly cheating on her for years with virtually every girl who would say hello long enough for him to kick game.

He left her for one of those girls with whom he felt genuine chemistry.

 

[Maa Maa omo mti]

So what is your thoughts on arranged marriages?

 

[PopLife]

@PopLife: I think that 99% men have to feel chemistry, not just love their wives in a "yea, she aight" sort of way, in order to be faithful. A few years ago, I thought I met the exception to this. I met a very meek, easygoing guy who didn't feel any particular way about his longtime girlfriend. He claimed he just enjoyed the companionship and that he was ok with the friendly fondness he had for her. They had a quiet, milder sort of love.

I was impressed.

Then the news broke that he had been covertly cheating on her for years with virtually every girl who would say hello long enough for him to kick game.

He left her for one of those girls with whom he felt genuine chemistry.

I agree that there has to be some type of chemistry but some people make it seem like if a guy is not all googly eyed or moving the heavens & earth to be with you than he's not into you. I just don't think that's always the case...just like us women differ in how we interpret love, I think the same applies to men.

 

[TrueToHair]

.............................

 

[Arcadian]

In western society, over 50% marriage end in divorce. People do not take the time to know someone beyond the first blush of attraction, and when it leaves, there's nothing in its place. I don't feel that love is necessary for marriage to take place, however, something needs to be there on both sides to sustain it.


I can certainly say that my parents did not get through 45 years of marriage just on love. Also because I grew up and saw successful relationships, I realized, love is nice and all, but its not the only part of the equation.


Could I be intimate with a man I don't love? Yes, as long as there is respect, an open and honest communication channel, friendship, fondness and he was hot. (why lie??) As long as we are in the same place in our lives, going in the same direction in our lives, I don't see an issue. I've dated lots of those types, though I was not in a place in my life where I was ready to settle down.

When I met my now husband I was at a point where I was sick of dating. We lived together for A LONG time though before I agreed to marriage.


So because I DO love my husband, my response is somewhat colored by that. If I didn't love my husband Thiends, you'd hear something totally different.

I've said many times that my attraction to my husband is still as hot and heavy as when we first started dating 10 years ago. However the first blush has worn off as it does in any relationship, and we worked to build a foundation to get over that hump by also being friends and communicating our wants and needs with each other.

The things I may have found cute during the first blush...yeah girl...not so cute these days! (trust me, its not cute when he nearly melts a hole in the bed after letting go a sbv) He's wonderful to me, and that matters a lot. Who knows where journey together will take us...It should be interesting!


So no, I wouldn't say be with a man because he's just a warm body. If a woman just don't feel it, she dosen't. But I would say that it depends where a woman is in her life and what she wants. Some are perfectly fine being with a man that they don't love as long as said man treats them well, provides for them, and is an upstanding guy. And some want more than just that. Each relationship between a man and a woman is unique.

By that same token, I stand by my earlier statement. I've seen how successful that model is first hand, though there are some intra-relational idiosyncrasies that also make those types of relationships unique too.

At the end of the day, you have to do what you find is best for yourself. Nothing I or anyone else says should have sway if you feel differently.

-A

 

[Ladybelle]

@Ladybelle: I think passion is the wrong word for what I am describing. I don't mean that googly-moogly, swooning feeling one gets when another is still new. I mean physical attraction and the sort of love that separates a romantic prospect from a friend. These might not make a marriage, but do you think a marriage without them can be as strong as one where they are present?

By the way, I think a marriage can last while lacking almost everything a person could want. So, this isn't really a "can these people stay married" thread. I've seen people who hated each other, hadn't had sex in years, and cheated wantonly stay married because all that's needed to stay married is not to get divorced. I am talking about a healthy, strong, stable marriage that is good for both people, not just any marriage.

I am not wedded to the idea that chemistry is necessary. I think chemistry might be necessary to some people, but not to others. Some have never felt chemistry in their lives, so it is a nebulous unknown quantity. Some value friendship and companionship more than romantic love.

hmm..., I see what you are saying. Yes, I think a marriage without physical attraction can be just as strong, especially if there are other areas to compensate.


I like you, am not wedded to the idea that chemistry is neccessary in marriage for some people but for me it is. I can only speak for me, but chemisty isn't neccessarily based on physical attraction or is it? I know I've experienced the spellbounding effects of chemistry before and wouldn't want a marriage without it unless he was rich.


I also wonder if the man treated me really well, adored me, we communicated/meshed well in most other areas, then wouldn't the physical attraction become inevitable? How could one not ultimately fall in love/become attracted in this type of scenario? I'm not sure if I know the answer to that one, but I do think it is easier for a woman to love and stay married to a man minus physical attraction than it is for a man to do the same & stay faithful. I'm going off on a tangent here, but the typical woman has typical needs:

-security
-protection
-provider
-emotional intimacy & physical touch outside of the bedroom
-communication

If a man meets all of those needs, but there is no chemistry/attraction, I think it is highly possible for the woman to still be happily married because all of her needs are being met.

 

[Thiends]

Could I be intimate with a man I don't love? Yes, as long as there is respect, an open and honest communication channel, friendship, fondness and he was hot. (why lie??)

But if he was hot, then you would be physically attracted to him and you wouldn't be forgoing that.

So no, I wouldn't say be with a man because he's just a warm body. If a woman just don't feel it, she dosen't. But I would say that it depends where a woman is in her life and what she wants. Some are perfectly fine being with a man that they don't love as long as said man treats them well, provides for them, and is an upstanding guy. And some want more than just that. Each relationship between a man and a woman is unique.

I was hoping we would get some responses from women who have given the practical compatibility and friendship approach a try, even if it didn't work. I guess such relationships are not common though or maybe it is that people are not comfortable admitting that theirs is not a romantic coupling.

 

[Thiends]

So what is your thoughts on arranged marriages?

Maa Maa omo mti: The stats on arranged marriages lasting very long don't really mean much to me because all that is necessary for a marriage to last long is for the couple not to get divorced. They don't have to be happy, faithful, or nice to each other. From what I can see, the bonds holding arranged marriages together have more to do with cultures that stigmatize divorce and with families that provide the emotional support that spouses might not be getting from each other than with arranged marriages being inherently more stable or effective. I suspect that arranged marriages taking places in individualistic, "modern" cultures like America's that don't stigmatize divorce and don't provide extra support to couples would fail just as often as marriages in which the couples chose each other.

 

[MonPetite]

Before meeting the love of my life, I would have said, "Yes".

Now that I have meet a man that literally makes my heart skip and feels the same way about me...I couldn't imagine being bound to someone who doesn't make me lovesick and vice versa.

 

[Ladybelle]

Before meeting the love of my life, I would have said, "Yes".

Now that I have meet a man that literally makes my heart skip and feels the same way about me...I couldn't imagine being bound to someone who doesn't make me lovesick and vice versa.

Are you a newlywed?

 

[~Sparklingflame~]

the typical woman has typical needs:

-security
-protection
-provider
-emotional intimacy & physical touch outside of the bedroom
-communication

If a man meets all of those needs, but there is no chemistry/attraction, I think it is highly possible for the woman to still be happily married because all of her needs are being met.

I agreed with your post but I want to pose a question to everybody based off this part.

In the list that you gave is the basic needs of women that is dictated by her nature that has to be met and if a man is able to meet those needs, how much does chemistry, sparks, and bells ringing when he walks into the room stack up to that? Would you pass a man by who does all these things for a man that you have chemistry/physical attraction/romance with?

 

[HoneyCurlz]

@PopLife: I think that 99% men have to feel chemistry, not just love their wives in a "yea, she aight" sort of way, in order to be faithful. A few years ago, I thought I met the exception to this. I met a very meek, easygoing guy who didn't feel any particular way about his longtime girlfriend. He claimed he just enjoyed the companionship and that he was ok with the friendly fondness he had for her. They had a quiet, milder sort of love.

I was impressed.

Then the news broke that he had been covertly cheating on her for years with virtually every girl who would say hello long enough for him to kick game.

He left her for one of those girls with whom he felt genuine chemistry.

Wowza. lol Yea, I've known of a few quiet meek little guys (with glasses and all) who turned out to be something else.

But I agree with you that men in general have a better chance of staying faithful if they are highly attracted to and in love with their ladies.

Men rarely settle. Just going off the men I know.

 

[Ladybelle]

I agreed with your post but I want to pose a question to everybody based off this part.

In the list that you gave is the basic needs of women that is dictated by her nature that has to be met and if a man is able to meet those needs, how much does chemistry, sparks, and bells ringing when he walks into the room stack up to that? Would you pass a man by who does all these things for a man that you have chemistry/physical attraction/romance with?

On the surface, it's easy to pass by a man who does all of these things because you have to give this type of man a chance, get to know him and that takes an investment of time which the woman has to be willing to invest while chemistry/physical attraction/romance yields immediate gratification. A wise woman would do the former, IMHO because the relationship would last much longer than the latter one.