/lit/ - Literature

perhaps

>>20413273
In the sense of being transactional just to raise a family, yes.

Yes, it's real. Sure. Just like the movies

Actual love is superior to the common fictional portrayal, actual love isn’t random, actual love isn’t based on the sight of that person or some nebulous quality of their being. Actual real love is developed over a long period of knowing someone, sharing things with them and mutually working towards the benefit of each other, until slowly you associate so much with them as an aspect of your life that they may as well be so much a part of you that they basically are you, and deep love is when that person is so essential to you, has become so important, that they are more central to your identity than your body is, than your conception of self is. Your children automatically get this since they literally come out of you and you see every event in their life growing up. But you can have this with women, no matter a woman’s beauty or personality, once you stay in the house with them for a month or so, or depending even a few days, All of their quirks of personality, eccentricities, the accidents of who they are, their intellect, even their beauty, all of that disintegrates and they’re just a person. That romance lust/passion based relationships dies because of this, this is why the west has so many marriages that fail, they’re based on that fictional conception of love and when the natural thing happens, when you both see each other clearly, they want to end the marriage.

If they instead didn’t go in wanting this passion but instead understood the real emotion is a gradually built thing, not just about you, but about your family, their family, the future, what’s good for everyone, then I doubt such divorces would be common place. For by mutual work and caring for one another you become essential to each other, you may as well become one person.

Doesn’t matter if you even hate the girl, enough time together this will develop in most cases.

>>20413343
So you're saying that true love comes from time + interaction, rather than lust?

>>20413343
books about slowly devellopped love in a functioning marriage?

>>20413273
Your love had better be true. But what is usually meant this is compatibility or synchronicity with your object of affection. Is their love “true” and dedicated?
So yeah. Duh. Stupid frog poster.

>>20413388
Yep, and most importantly mutual work. Whether that’s cooking for each other or helping with the job or the like. Actually having a tangible action that you do for each other brings you closer day by day until you may as well be one.

>>20413435
fiction of all types often doesn’t go into adult well developed love because it’s boring, it’s boring because there’s no drama, there’s no spice, there’s no breaking it, it’s simply an existent thing. They can argue or fight but it’s not like it’ll actually matter, it’s as unthinkable as breaking off a limb. under such a circumstance tension is basically impossible. The end of Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship by Goethe has the main character gradually get a more adult conception of the world and it’s a bit related to this. There’s also some parts of kawabata’s the sound of the mountain which show really well how the harmony happens even if the relationship is being sabotaged.

Problem is, again, think of any really successful marriage you’ve seen with people you know, they can argue and bicker all day and they’re likely not lovey dovey, that’s reality.

Love, as portrayed in fiction, is just a mingled mass of teenage hormones predominantly love and overreaction of all sorts. Don’t you think that people who seethe over wanting such a love have an air of teenage childishness about them? I’ve known 40 year olds who seem like brats due to trying for and failing in the fictional form of love. Always ends up hurting everyone involved. Not to say you shouldn’t be attracted to your partner or that you ought not be loveydovey, but that’s not what it is at the end of the day.

>>20413273
>true love
As opposed to what; false love?

>>20413343
>Actual real love is developed over a long period of knowing someone, sharing things with them and mutually working towards the benefit of each other, until slowly you associate so much with them as an aspect of your life that they may as well be so much a part of you

I understand this; however, how do you "get to know a girl?" I have to get her to like me first? How do I do that? What if she talks in babbles and you talk in logics?

>>20413343

You tell my girl she can't cook a raw fish and I'll scalp you and your children

>>20413488
> I have to get her to like me first? How do I do that? What if she talks in babbles and you talk in logics

Girls and men are both simple creatures, show some masculine traits, economic viability, handsomeness, toughness, outgoingness, dominating her in some regard, not over much just a bit, and that’ll be a key, as for talking in logic and babbles, to put it bluntly, your woman is not your best friend. You don’t go to your woman for stimulating discussion or even necessarily emotional discussion until you’re far down the line.

You talk about what people have always talked about, other people. You gossip, you have friend groups, you discuss media you have both consumed, daily events, future plans, you discuss things that concern both of you and relate to your social and economic standing.

Fact is, the stimulating intellectual or deep dive emotional discussion is what you have with your best friends, not with your woman. A woman is no replacement for a healthy friend group.

>>20413481
Well, yes. False love would be short-lived lust without proper connection and mutual respect, or even a relationship where one side is abusive, physically and/or emotionally.

>>20413466
any other novel or poetry rec on the matter? I like your posts, I'm glad you are posting more often. How old are you btw?

>>20413466
insightful as always. are you a monk, Ase? you're right about the lack of tension, but just for once I'd like to read a book like a feel-good-movie with a happy couple facing challenges together.

>>20413273
Yes, but it lasts for a few years at most. Love like >>20413343 is describing is longer lasting but not exciting like what you read in novels.

>>20413343
Eh, that's some bad faith stuff. Come on. You know it's the chemicals in your brain

Overall you're describing friendship here

>>20413481
>true love is a tautology

>>20413273
No there is no such thing as love. We are all alone in the world.

>>20413545
This

However the entirety of the human race depends on perpetuating the True Love meme. It's sort of like believing in Santa Claus so to speak

>>20413558
Santa Claus is real, he owns Coca cola company.

>>20413343
truIt's TRUE. The bible says a man shall cling to his wife and they become one flesh as you described. But theres a point you didnt explicitly state, but alluded to by listing off its qualities. Everything you said can be summarized to the idea of true love being: Surrendering yourself to the other person and loving them for them, not their personality, looks, but because they are your partner and it's your duty. Your other partner must do the same and true love is complete.

This is why sex before marriage is so damaging to men and women(especially women,) because its the act that binds them together makes them one flesh. Destroying that will serve you up for failure.

>>20413343
What is the difference between friendship (say with a female) and love then?
>>20413466
I agree, but isn't human nature (fault?) to be a hopeless romantic, to pursue that so-called "green light"? Are you saying that we should give up that part of us?

>>20413343
Most beautiful and literary thing I've read in this board, maybe this site. Fantastic work anon, I salute you.

>>20413629
>the bible
I don't think we'll be needing that here
>>20413660
He's describing a friendship. That's what relationships evolve into. After the initial flood of dopamine and oxytocin you begin settling down. Then you decide if you'll both have kids or not