Is love really blind?

Drew Morgan said:So, how do you justify claiming someone was a pushover in just one relationship? Everything you listed isn't a permanent part of his character. Take masochism, for example—it isn't an inherent trait, so you can't just label him a masochist by default.

Jeremy Brooks6 said:The sweet spot is being with someone where the sex is great and you can just have a chill, casual conversation without any pressure.
Because people lack that genuine connection, love becomes this tired, cliché concept. People try to define it through escapism (cheating), money (ego), power (social status), beauty (showing off to others), or even honesty (using someone else as an emotional dumping ground for your own problems); stuff like that.
A little bit of all those things isn't necessarily bad, but they shouldn't be the main focus.
Ugh... that's a heavy burden to carry for the person on the receiving end.
😉

silentpilot6 said:Let's take this step by step. 😁
Wasn't this supposed to be preventative too? Didn't girls who were just starting down the path of starvation join those discussions? Didn't they ask for advice on how to reach some twisted, unrealistic beauty ideal? Weren't they exchanging "brilliant ideas" 😵 on how to practically stop eating without their parents noticing? Sorry-da, if this had been a topic reserved only for long-term sufferers, your critique might actually carry weight... but that wasn't the case here.
Sorry, you can't claim they weren't reading it, especially when girls at the very beginning of an eating disorder—or heading straight for one—were actively participating.

Moving on... being foolish is an illness, but I'll ask again: can something characterized as a "temporary" lapse 😵 really be called something that lasts for years? If it lasts for years, then there is clearly something fundamentally wrong with those people.

Personal experience is the best teacher, I agree... and I've learned most of my lessons that way, though I have occasionally learned from the mistakes of others. Have you?

You call it a multilayered problem... I say people love playing philosopher, making things unnecessarily complicated when they could be simple. It's quite straightforward: you don't stay with a jerk, you don't start anything with an idiot, you don't act like a doormat for a moron, and you don't sit around weeping over a fool... if you do, it means you aren't thinking clearly and likely have much deeper, hidden issues to deal with.

But love isn't unconditional... except perhaps in a parent-child relationship, though even then, it's not always the case.
Accepting someone as they are? Fine, but why accept an idiot exactly as he is? Why accept a jealous coward exactly as he is? Why accept someone with a hundred flaws? Expecting nothing isn't the definition of love... reciprocity is. How can you fall for someone who gives you nothing, or only negative things? How can any "normal" person fall in love like that?
You say fools are the only ones who love... so what are everyone else doing? 😕Do they not like them?
Of course they do, but they have standards; they possess a bit of common sense and simply refuse to tolerate idiots.

Drew Morgan said:So, how do you justify claiming someone was a pushover in just one relationship? Everything you listed isn't a permanent part of his character. Take masochism, for example—it isn't an inherent trait, so you can't just label him a masochist by default.

cosmictinker21 said:It’s because those people aren't really in love with the partner—they’re just in love with the idea of love itself. They project that onto the other person. They’re so desperate for affection that they'll tolerate almost anything just to maintain the illusion that they're being loved by someone else. In their own heads, they "know" it's there. Everyone needs to feel like they actually matter to someone...

silentpilot6 said:I’m honestly telling you this with the best intentions, but you really should consider changing your writing style. I'm not the only one who skips over your posts because of it. That constant breaking up of... sentences is exhausting and hard to follow—especially in an online forum setting where people aren't usually looking for deep dives or trying to focus intensely. Plus, there are plenty of others who write "normally" (if you'll excuse my use of that word, haha), so your posts just get passed over.
I COULD ALSO WRITE LIKE THIS BECAUSE I THINK THESE LETTERS ARE COOL... but I don't, because on the internet, all caps feels like shouting.
Likewise, I won't write in this tiny font either because it's too hard to read.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation, write properly😁, but if that doesn't matter to you, then keep writing the way you do.👋

silentpilot6 said:But they don't actually have love... it's like being thirsty and trying to drink sand instead of water 😁 while convincing myself I've had my fill 😵
Sorry-neko can be in love with someone who doesn't return the sentiment—someone who isn't even actively mistreating them—but I honestly cannot wrap my head around how anyone could sincerely love a person who is constantly playing mind games with them, all while maintaining the delusion that the feeling is mutual 🤷... to me, that just doesn't seem healthy... which is why this falls under psychology 😁

Drew Morgan said:By that logic, it looks like I love only my rabbit. I expect nothing from him. In fact, I expect him to be a jerk, just like he’s always been. But if that changed, I’d still love him. We want him to give us a treat, but instead, he bites our nose. We know that's a possibility—we're happy if he gives the treat, and if he bites? Well, that's just him—stubborn, fearless, and bold.

I don't even expect him to stay good-looking, even though he is (and smells great). He could go bald, get mange, or start stinking—we would still love him. There is something special about him, and since he's an animal and not a human, you just forgive him for everything.

Sean Cruz said:To me, comparing love for people to love for animals is absurd. You bought a rabbit; he’s your property. For me, that’s where the whole idea of unconditional love ends. If you had bought any other rabbit, it would be the exact same thing. The only version of unconditional love that exists is between a mother and her child, and even then, it isn't entirely absolute. What Maherica mentioned regarding caring for a spouse is, in most cases, due to the responsibility you take on through marriage, and that spouse has also "earned" that care in some way. You certainly aren't going to care for an abuser who mistreated you, unless you've lost your mind or are pitying them after the fact—and in that case, there's no question that it isn't love.

lonegardener said:Sure, "unconditional love" sounds like something divine—but I have two issues with that. First, I'm not even sure if God exists. Second, even if He does, I'm fairly certain humans aren't gods. 😬

So, I'm with you on this—your assessment seems spot on. The real question is how we actually live with that realization. 😢

Sean Cruz said:Life isn't some fairy tale, though dreaming is a nice distraction every now and then. 🙂 While I tend to be pretty pragmatic about what people are actually capable of when it comes to love, knowing what I *don't* want is a start. And that counts for something.

Sean Cruz said:To me, comparing love for people to love for animals is absurd. You bought a rabbit; he’s your property. For me, that’s where the whole idea of unconditional love ends. If you had bought any other rabbit, it would be the exact same thing. The only version of unconditional love that exists is between a mother and her child, and even then, it isn't entirely absolute. What Maherica mentioned regarding caring for a spouse is, in most cases, due to the responsibility you take on through marriage, and that spouse has also "earned" that care in some way. You certainly aren't going to care for an abuser who mistreated you, unless you've lost your mind or are pitying them after the fact—and in that case, there's no question that it isn't love.

lonegardener said:I'm not so sure that counts as much of a 'start.' Once I cross off everything I refuse to deal with, I feel like there's nothing left on the list. 😬 🤣

cosmictinker21 said:Good luck to anyone who was only a pushover in one specific relationship. Unfortunately, a lot of people have that tendency. Maybe it isn't strictly about masochism, but more about accepting whatever passes for "love" just to avoid being alone, staying relevant in the dating scene, or feeling like they actually matter to someone. So they just endure it, and endure it, hoping things will eventually turn around. Because, hey, it’s "true love," right? And for the tiny scraps of affection they receive—which they mistake for actual love—they just keep taking it...

lonegardener said:I'm not so sure that counts as much of a 'start.' Once I cross off everything I refuse to deal with, I feel like there's nothing left on the list. 😬 🤣

Drew Morgan said:Love is love, regardless of the recipient. I am simply arguing my point that the only kind of love capable of forgiving everything and nourishing the soul is found with animals. I won't weigh in on maternal love—I know it can cause immense damage to children—but what a mother feels as a mother? I don't know. It likely varies from one mother to the next.

We had this debate over at my good friend (Philosophy). The fact that I bought a rabbit isn't the core issue here. I bought him because he won me over instantly and I didn't want him trapped. We started living together, and a relationship grew from that. My point is simple: we tolerate things from an animal that we would never tolerate from a human being. We endure it specifically because we love them and accept them as they are, without expecting anything in return.

Regarding what Maherica said about nursing a sick husband—that would primarily be driven by solidarity, which is the purest motivation. Beyond that, it could be anything, and not always something noble. You don't necessarily have to love someone to care for them, though if you do love them, you probably will.

silentpilot6 said:So your definition of a good relationship is just a "friends with benefits" situation? 😁I don't see it that way at all. Is it really impossible to love someone, be in love, and still have great sex and easy conversation? I find I can't even fall in love without those elements being present.😬

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:I remember back in second grade, grasping the concept of set intersections was a total struggle for me. It finally clicked once they explained it using an example where one of the sets was actually empty. Ever since then, math hasn't been an issue. 😁 🤣