To love someone with no reciprocity or to have someone love you that you don’t love back?

All replies are appreciated. It’s a fun philosophical question. Most of the guys I’ve asked say that it’s worse to love someone with no reciprocity.

you just asked this bt music..yes?

yeah and bijoubreaks and blogged it on myspace.... no sense in answering everywhere.  I’m just trying to get a good distribution. 

worse to have someone love you that you don’t love back.

raven848 - 08 January 2008 06:56 PM

worse to have someone love you that you don’t love back.

And why is that?

Racer X - 08 January 2008 07:35 PM

raven848 - 08 January 2008 06:56 PM

worse to have someone love you that you don’t love back.

And why is that?

Because getting a restraining order these days is such a pain in the ass.

I’m more of the opinion that unrequited love is worse - merely because you go through the whole rollercoaster of emotions; the chemicals in the brain just go into complete overload and you just ... I don’t know… you think irrationally, you act irrationally…

If you have someone love you whom you don’t love back, you don’t go through the same thought processes.

Plus here’s the issue of restraining orders

Thanks for posting this, by the way. A welcome relief from the current drama..

isnt it more of an emotional then philosophical question?  sometimes emotion and logic are not very compatible.

Well this question should tell us all who the “fixers” are.

TheFuzz - 09 January 2008 08:43 PM

Well this question should tell us all who the “fixers” are.

Indeed. I’d like to claim innocence but I’m as guilty of infatuation as anyone else (Present time excluded) . Perhaps not the obsessive stage but infatuated, for sure.

Assuming that’s what you meant, of course.

Actually I’ve found that this question is a really good opener.  But I’m trying to see what people’s answers are out of pure curiosity. 

So what answer would you believe fits the “fixer” profile?

guess i’ve just dealt with loving/wanting someone my whole life so it seems rather normal. So to me, its worse to have someone love me that I don’t love. It puts an intense pressure on ones self.

It is better to be loved. It’s information you might be able to use to secure someone that you actually love.

“No, I’m not a worthless creep. See, that person over there loves me.”

This of course depends on who the “person over there” is.

Which thereby fails through circular logic because the person over there must be loved by someone who must be loved, and so on and so forth.

Rageous - 10 January 2008 12:03 PM

Which thereby fails through circular logic because the person over there must be loved by someone who must be loved, and so on and so forth.

Being loved by someone else establishes social proof which is a requirement for attraction.  If you don’t have social proof you have to spend your time actively convincing people that you’re worthy of their love whereas if you have social proof, people automatically assume that you’re a safe bet.  This is all basic psychology, human sociology, and biology.  It’s the whole reason why alot of women are attracted to guys who already have girlfriends because on a subconscious level the fact that the guy has already been vouched for by another woman relieves her of the burden of having to discover if the guy is crazy or not.  This also applies to business in that it’s easier to get a job when you have one than when you’re out of work.  Social proof as a concept is applicable to many different scenarios in human interaction.

Given the above logic, it’s in your best interest to be inclined to abhor loving somone who doesn’t love you in return.  This would avoid the obvious pitfall of repelling people who care about you from yourself, because without social proof your life becomes more difficult.

Just a thought....

On the other hand being more annoyed by people that love you that you don’t love back implies a lack of neediness because you are not at a loss for people that love you and are annoyed at having to handle those touchy situations where you don’t want to offend someone but at the same time don’t want to give them the wrong idea about where you stand in your boundaries of the relationship.  So really the answer to the question is not so important as the reason why you answer one way or the other.  The reason behind the answer offers insight.  The answer itself doesn’t matter.

are u sure u’re talking about love?

maTo - 10 January 2008 01:24 PM

are u sure u’re talking about love?

Love as defined as what exactly?

A biological/chemical process whose sole purpose is to ensure propagation of the species?

An all encompassing benevolence in the universe who’s natural tendency is toward the fulfillment of the potential of all living things?

Romantic love as depicted in modern literature and entertainment ala Romeo and Juliet?

Which hat would you like me to wear?  I have them all in assorted styles and colors.... 

is love really necessary for propagation of species?  sex is not enough?

Racer X - 10 January 2008 12:10 PM

Rageous - 10 January 2008 12:03 PM

Which thereby fails through circular logic because the person over there must be loved by someone who must be loved, and so on and so forth.

Being loved by someone else establishes social proof which is a requirement for attraction.  If you don’t have social proof you have to spend your time actively convincing people that you’re worthy of their love whereas if you have social proof, people automatically assume that you’re a safe bet.  This is all basic psychology, human sociology, and biology. ....

Interesting perspective but it seems rather superfiical, don’t you think. The rules of attraction are surely far greater than being loved/wanted by others.

There seems to be a point of wanting to be validated and really needing to define the levels of attraction, which is an arduous task in itself - lust, infatuation, obsession… somewhere in amongst that spectrum, there is the “perfect” balance that is entirely dependent on reciprocity.

I agree that, to some extent, there is the added attraction of the object of your desire is wanted by other people but I don’t necessarily agree that it is a requisite for love. And the analogy of finding a job, whilst farely loose, is a good one.

But being loved/sought after by someone else, even if you don’t return their affection, does provide a sense of validation - a sense of “ok, so someone finds me attractive!..”. The sense of validation one feels is obviously a purely subjective one.

On the other hand, finding yourself on the other side, seems a lot more worse for wear (in my opinion, of course). You are not only seeking the return of admiration/affection, but you’re also seeking validation of the idea that you can have your cake and eat it too.

As someone mentioned earlier, there’s also the emotional side to it that is a shit-kicker. Using my own experience, you think of very little else, the brain goes into overload creating scenarios as to why/why not you’re not “good enough”.[I’m over it, honestly!! hahaha]

It certainly is an interesting topic and one I reckon will rack my brain, particularly over the next few days.

Your thoughts?

mrmarshall - 10 January 2008 06:32 PM

Racer X - 10 January 2008 12:10 PM

Rageous - 10 January 2008 12:03 PM

Which thereby fails through circular logic because the person over there must be loved by someone who must be loved, and so on and so forth.

Being loved by someone else establishes social proof which is a requirement for attraction.  If you don’t have social proof you have to spend your time actively convincing people that you’re worthy of their love whereas if you have social proof, people automatically assume that you’re a safe bet.  This is all basic psychology, human sociology, and biology. ....

Interesting perspective but it seems rather superfiical, don’t you think. The rules of attraction are surely far greater than being loved/wanted by others.

I honestly don’t think so.  I think people are inherently superficial.  The rules of attraction are based around a simple imbalance of power.  The one who is more powerful or is perceived to have more power wins and attracts.  The less powerful or the perceived less powerful becomes attracted.  People are attracted to people who are:

a. More fit than they are.
b. More intelligent than they are.
c. More powerful than they are.
d. More charismatic than they are.
e. More exciting than they are.
f. More entertaining than they are.
g. More talented than they are.
h. More comely than they are.

Men who are tall, with a full head of hair, broad shoulders, and greater chest to waist ratio are more pleasing to the female eye.

Women who are petite with big tits, ass, greater hip to waist ratio, big lips and thicker hair are more pleasing to the male eye.

First impressions are everything and yes.. people are ... including you… very superficial.

maTo - 10 January 2008 05:45 PM

is love really necessary for propagation of species?  sex is not enough?

Perhaps I’m using the wrong terminology here.  “Attraction” is the appropriate word.

A woman will fuck you 20 times and you’ll never know what she’s really thinking.

maybe you are.  let love be sacred.......

maTo - 10 January 2008 07:25 PM

maybe you are.  let love be sacred.......

IMO that’s equivalent to saying that your nicotine/heroin addiction is sacred.  It’s just chemicals dude.

hmmm… what you’ve described are the biological reasonings for attraction - the need to find the perfect mate, one that will provide/bear the seed for your survival.

With that in mind, maybe your question should be “is attraction, without reciprocity, a degenerative emotion?”

I don’t argue with the reasonings you’ve listed, there’s been a tonne of research into it. But, from your question, you really need to distinguish between attraction and love (I’m tempted to use ‘affection’ but it doesn’t quite fit, for some reason).

At the level of attraction - yes, people are superficial. Including me - I’ll walk around my neighbourhood and see potential mothers-of-my-children every 200m (probably being too generous there - I’ve only realised that I’ve moved house and now live not far from a retirement village, the occupants of which are well outside any level of attraction and certainly outside the age range!).

But love, as a phenomenon, is surely only defined as being reciprocal. It is an emotion derived from some of the most astounding complexities of the human psyche (I’ll need to rephrase that, I think). To love someone, to believe with every inch of your existence that that person is the ‘one’ and to have that feeling returned is the foundation of strong long-lasting relationships.

To have someone supposedley ‘in love’ with you, particularly at the aforementioned level isn’t love, it’s an infatuation. It is a transfixation (is that even a word?) with you.

mrmarshall - 10 January 2008 10:07 PM

But love, as a phenomenon, is surely only defined as being reciprocal. It is an emotion derived from some of the most astounding complexities of the human psyche (I’ll need to rephrase that, I think). To love someone, to believe with every inch of your existence that that person is the ‘one’ and to have that feeling returned is the foundation of strong long-lasting relationships.

All of the above is a construct of your mind.  It is a lie.  You can find “the one” and trust me, it can still be a lie.

so what if it might be just construct of the mind.  why would you consider it a lie.  what would you consider the truth.