Is love really blind?

silentpilot6 said:Rebecca Scott3... you're exaggerating a bit... honestly... 😁
I didn't even finish reading your post, because seeing that much text at once just kills my motivation to read.

Drew Morgan said:In my experience, absolutely. When you live with an animal, you get to know their true essence, and they learn yours too. You’ll find yourself forgiving them for things a sane person would never overlook, though a total lunatic might. Sure, a pet can't pull the kind of scams a human can, but they can certainly be dominant, calculating, vengeful, selfish, or just a straight-up menace. There is no way I’m forgiving those traits in a boyfriend (nor would he forgive them in me), yet despite all that, we both absolutely adore our little troublemaker rabbit.

Rebecca Scott3 said:Everyone’s got different experiences... different needs... different ways of looking at or understanding the world...
...no big deal... your opinion is yours...
...you don't have to read them... it's fine... I'm not some novelist living off a fan base...
....we're just swapping ideas here
.... 🙂
😉

cosmictinker21 said:No, there’s no such thing as unconditional love, except maybe when it comes to kids. I don't even forgive my dog if he’s being a jerk and shreds my new Nikes! As punishment, I don't throw him his ball. I won't even look at him. That usually keeps him on his best behavior for about a month... until the next pair of shoes shows up.🤣

Unconditional love is, for instance, the ability to care for someone until the very end, without a single selfish thought about wanting your own free time. A spouse, out of pure love for another, doesn't neglect a long-term sick partner; they care for them because they truly love who that person is. One of the core pillars of love is caring for the other person—striving for their well-being, paying attention to their feelings, nurturing them. There’s no room for selfishness just because you disagree on some minor point, or have different habits. It requires tolerance. Pride? What use is pride if love is actually present? Real love means it's mutual, steady, and balanced in all the essential ways. It happens when there's no projection, no infatuation, no chasing an ideal. It's about loving the person who actually exists. Exactly as they are. Regardless of the small things that might bother us... which, in the grand scheme of things, don't really matter anyway.

Drew Morgan said:Trying to discipline my rabbit is a lost cause; the more I try to impose order, the more he rebels, plots, and executes his little schemes. It’s like trying to teach a drill sergeant how to relax. I finally realized I just have to accept him for exactly who he is—flaws and all—without trying to cage his terrible personality. Honestly, he’s the only person I’ve ever truly connected with on that level. It's fascinating, really. I've come to realize that those expensive things he trashed—my designer wool coat, high-end sandals, the custom furniture—matter far less than the connection itself.

Jamie Reyes73 said:He managed to chew through every single piece of my clothing from 😠 😍

cosmictinker21 said:Seriously though, I kept my cat too, didn't give him to my ex😍
but I did dump the guy who spent the whole relationship being jealous and suffocating, ha, ha🤣

Drew Morgan said:Trying to discipline my rabbit is a lost cause; the more I try to impose order, the more he rebels, plots, and executes his little schemes. It’s like trying to teach a drill sergeant how to relax. I finally realized I just have to accept him for exactly who he is—flaws and all—without trying to cage his terrible personality. Honestly, he’s the only person I’ve ever truly connected with on that level. It's fascinating, really. I've come to realize that those expensive things he trashed—my designer wool coat, high-end sandals, the custom furniture—matter far less than the connection itself.

Sean Cruz said:But here’s the thing: accepting a rabbit, or a person, 😁 exactly as they are isn't actually unconditional love. Maybe you and I just define "unconditional" differently.
To me, being truly unconditional would mean expecting absolutely nothing from the other party—literally zero. I don't think any living creature is capable of that. Even in your case, that rabbit makes you happy because he plays with you and provides companionship, but there's still an element of ownership involved. That's not unconditional love. It's the same with people. Even when we claim to love someone unconditionally or say we'd die for them, we’re always subconsciously expecting something in return. In my view, unconditional love is little more than self-delusion.

cosmictinker21 said:They say love isn't blind, but being infatuated? That’s a different story entirely. We've all been there, so let's move past the cliché. The real question is distinguishing when we're actually in love versus when we're just feeding a craving, fulfilling a need, or settling for something we've convinced ourselves is the real deal. To me, love is an ongoing process—it's about building a life together, shared experiences, and true presence. If there isn't a path toward genuine partnership and wholeness, then it isn't love. It’s just intimacy in one specific area, or maybe just longing, or whatever...

Sean Cruz said:I can agree with almost everything said here, except for that final sentence. Why on earth do you think pride has no place in love? Do you honestly believe that people who stomp all over the person they claim to "love" actually love them? I don't. Now, the definition of "love" is subjective, but based on my understanding of romantic or erotic love, it certainly doesn't involve being someone else's doormat. That isn't love; it’s just selfishness masquerading as masochism. When you truly love someone, you don't want them to suffer—in fact, for me, the ultimate act of love is letting someone go so they can find their own happiness if they aren't fulfilled in the relationship. Unfortunately, people are selfish, and often driven by massive egos rather than affection, they won't let a partner go; instead, they toss out mere crumbs just to keep them hanging on. Similarly, those who endure such nonsense are choosing to suffer because they refuse to leave and seek happiness elsewhere, even when they know deep down the other person doesn't care. That is pure selfishness too. There isn't a single li of love in that.
Unconditional love is a myth.

Do you honestly believe that people who stare at someone they claim to "love" actually feel what they say they feel? Personally, I have my doubts. Is it true affection we’re seeing, or is it just something else entirely? I really don't think it's genuine.

It’s honestly quite sad, isn't it? It makes me wonder what people actually mean when they use the word "love." Because if we look at the true essence of romantic or erotic love, it should never involve being someone else's doormat. To me, that isn't love at all—it’s just selfishness disguised as masochism. When you truly care about someone, why on earth would you want them to suffer? For me, the ultimate act of love is actually letting go. If someone isn't finding happiness within a relationship, the most selfless thing you can do is release them so they can find their own joy elsewhere. But let's be real: people are inherently selfish. Often, driven by massive egos rather than any actual affection, they refuse to let go. Instead, they just feed their partner tiny crumbs of attention, just enough to keep them hooked and prevent them from leaving. And then there are those who choose to endure this nonsense, consciously putting themselves through agony because they are too afraid to walk away and seek happiness, even when they know deep down the other person doesn't love them. Isn't that also pure selfishness? There is no real love to be found in that cycle. lj It all comes down to love.

Does unconditional love actually exist? I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and honestly, I’m starting to believe it’s nothing more than a beautiful myth we tell ourselves. We see it in movies and read about it in sweeping romance novels, but when you strip away the cinematic lighting and the scripted monologues, what are we really left with? Is it truly possible to love someone without any strings attached, regardless of their actions or who they become? Or is every single affection we feel inherently tied to some level of expectation, reciprocity, or shared values? It feels like we're always looking for that one exception to the rule, but maybe the rule is simply that all love comes with conditions.

Rebecca Scott3 said:I think love can still exist even if living together is impossible... or even when it's perfectly possible, but one person just doesn't want to go there.....

Rebecca Scott3 said:I think love can still exist even if living together is impossible... or even when it's perfectly possible, but one person just doesn't want to go there.....

Rebecca Scott3 said:I think love can still exist even if living together is impossible... or even when it's perfectly possible, but one person just doesn't want to go there.....

bluemaker52 said:It’s a shame, really, but I suppose we haven't quite touched on this yet. After all, if you look at one of the actual definitions:

-citat:

What exactly is pride? Is it just a fleeting emotion, or is it that profound sense of deep satisfaction one feels when looking inward? To me, true pride isn't about vanity; it’s about that quiet, steady respect you hold for your own entire being—your whole self, in its entirety.

It stems from that deeply personal, subjective realization—that sense you get when you truly believe you’ve done something meaningful, or perhaps played a part in something genuinely special. Isn't there a certain weight to that feeling? It’s that internal conviction that your actions actually mattered, that you contributed to something worthy of praise.
Pride is a real thing, but we shouldn't be using it as an excuse to dig our heels in. Not like that, anyway. A truly proud person? They’re capable of setting their ego aside for the sake of someone else.

Do you honestly believe that people who stare at someone they claim to "love" actually feel what they say they feel? Personally, I have my doubts. Is it true affection we’re seeing, or is it just something else entirely? I really don't think it's genuine.

No, that’s not what love is about at all. Maybe I wasn't being clear enough—which, let’s be honest, is a bit of a habit of mine. You shouldn't dare try to love everyone, but any form of violence is completely off the table. In true love, there is only the act of letting go.

It’s honestly quite sad, isn't it? It makes me wonder what people actually mean when they use the word "love." Because if we look at the true essence of romantic or erotic love, it should never involve being someone else's doormat. To me, that isn't love at all—it’s just selfishness disguised as masochism. When you truly care about someone, why on earth would you want them to suffer? For me, the ultimate act of love is actually letting go. If someone isn't finding happiness within a relationship, the most selfless thing you can do is release them so they can find their own joy elsewhere. But let's be real: people are inherently selfish. Often, driven by massive egos rather than any actual affection, they refuse to let go. Instead, they just feed their partner tiny crumbs of attention, just enough to keep them hooked and prevent them from leaving. And then there are those who choose to endure this nonsense, consciously putting themselves through agony because they are too afraid to walk away and seek happiness, even when they know deep down the other person doesn't love them. Isn't that also pure selfishness? There is no real love to be found in that cycle. lj It all comes down to love.

In medias res. What exactly is love? What I’ve laid out above isn't it—that’s precisely why I’m writing this. I’m not interested in discussing cheap substitutes or hollow imitations. In truth, I’ve said the exact same thing you did; I just managed to condense it into two short lines.

Does unconditional love actually exist? I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and honestly, I’m starting to believe it’s nothing more than a beautiful myth we tell ourselves. We see it in movies and read about it in sweeping romance novels, but when you strip away the cinematic lighting and the scripted monologues, what are we really left with? Is it truly possible to love someone without any strings attached, regardless of their actions or who they become? Or is every single affection we feel inherently tied to some level of expectation, reciprocity, or shared values? It feels like we're always looking for that one exception to the rule, but maybe the rule is simply that all love comes with conditions.

Is there enough closeness? 🙂

I just finished watching this video, and I honestly can’t stop thinking about it. It’s one of those pieces that really forces you to sit back and question everything you thought you knew about the subject. Have you ever encountered something that felt so deeply resonant, yet so unsettling at the same time? The way the creator layers the information is masterful. It isn't just a surface-level overview; they dive straight into the complexities, refusing to give easy answers or simple conclusions. It makes me wonder: are we actually prepared to face the implications of what is being discussed here, or do we prefer the comfort of our own assumptions? The production quality is also worth noting. It has a certain gravity to it that commands your full attention from the first second. It doesn't rely on flashy gimmicks, but rather on the sheer weight of the arguments presented. It feels earnest, almost like a direct conversation between the filmmaker and the viewer. I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks. Does the logic hold up under scrutiny for you, or did you find certain points a bit too speculative? I found myself nodding along to some parts while feeling a deep sense of skepticism about others. It’s a lot to process, but isn't that exactly why we watch these kinds of deep dives in the first place? Let's discuss. Well, I suppose there’s a bit of a connection to "corn," if you want to look at it that way... but then again, is it really that simple?

No, that has nothing to do with love. Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough (as usual). You don't dare love everyone, but any form of violence is out of the question. Love is purely about letting go.

In medias res ... regarding what love actually is... what was stated above isn't it, which is why I'm writing this, rather than discussing substitutes. I essentially said the same thing you did, just in two lines.

There is enough closeness 🙂

Sean Cruz said:Of course, provided the person is actually worth it. 🙂

No, that has nothing to do with love. Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough (as usual). You don't dare love everyone, but any form of violence is out of the question. Love is purely about letting go.

I agree.

In medias res ... regarding what love actually is... what was stated above isn't it, which is why I'm writing this, rather than discussing substitutes. I essentially said the same thing you did, just in two lines.

🤣
Well, you should have said so.

There is enough closeness 🙂

I just dislike that phrase and everything people try to cram under its definition. 😉

Sean Cruz said:Of course, provided the person is actually worth it. 🙂

No, that has nothing to do with love. Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough (as usual). You don't dare love everyone, but any form of violence is out of the question. Love is purely about letting go.

I agree.

In medias res ... regarding what love actually is... what was stated above isn't it, which is why I'm writing this, rather than discussing substitutes. I essentially said the same thing you did, just in two lines.

🤣
Well, you should have said so.

There is enough closeness 🙂

I just dislike that phrase and everything people try to cram under its definition. 😉

Drew Morgan said:My dear brother, I don't "crash" your threads; my entire world is built on psychology, and these idiots are fascinating—anyone would want to study them.

Propaganda and brainwashing work fine until reality hits—until a real sickness sets in.

After that, talking is useless. Anorexia has one of the highest mortality rates of any mental illness (higher than depression, in my view). Unfortunately, you can't cure it by saying, "Look how ugly and skinny you are, nobody wants you."

Apply that same logic to whatever you want.

You can't fix an idiot suffering from temporary insanity by asking, "Where is your common sense?" Because at the moment of illness, the common sense is gone; it's a symptom.

Just look at the ongoing circus in the US. The mob thinks they're treating a patient, but I'd say they're just entertaining themselves. They've turned this man into a spectacle, engaging in sessions of insults and intoxication—and hey, he’s happy. Pure idiocy, isn't it?