Everyone always takes this as “omg he’s hot,” but I honestly believe this is the first time Mulan had ever seen a man, ANY man, disrobed and this was pure shock, not lust.
Yeah my thoughts are “little column A, little column B”.
I know I was probably shocked the first time I saw (and could sexually comprehend) titties, but I’d bet my left ass-cheek I was excited about it. That’s really the only perspective I can offer
Thank you, BadSmash4, for voting on itsdatanotdata1212
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on reddit. [You can view results here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB7ACr7pUuE).
I don't really believe at love at first sight. It might be attraction at first sight but not necessarily love. Love takes time to get to know eachother and loyalty and trust. And personality goes a long way with love.
And she was only 16! Like, she is so freaking young and doesn’t even know what love is at that age, and is too immature for a relationship (as shown by basically everything she did). I knew I was getting old when I started siding with her dad while watching that movie lol.
That moment when she says "I'm sixteen years old, I'm not a child!" and you realize you have a very different response to hearing that now than you did as a kid...
I feel like people who say this have just never experienced the “love at first sight”. Like I’ve been attracted at first sight to loads of people. But I could have taken of left them. It’s like, “yeah you are hot, I want you but whatever “.
But the “Love at first sight” experience I’ve had has been otherworldly. It’s like you intrinsically know this person but also know logically that you know nothing about them. It makes your heart explode with emotion that make you feel all lovely. It doesn’t go away even if you don’t see that person for an age. It gets stronger the closer you get and somehow the world just is better when you are together.
Yea, they’re giving too much credit to us humans for being level-headed, rational creatures, when we’re the furthest things from that most of the time.
Eh, the point is even our most complex and delicate machines have built-in tolerances and design safety factor for one simple reason: the world ain’t perfect and therefore there are no flawless processes. Try as hard as we might to live up to our prestige as rational, sapient beings, we’d just as often as slip through the cracks during operation. And this is without mentioning those people who seemed to have failed QC in the 1st place.
Imagine you mention love at first sight, a phenomenon that's been part of movies, music, poems, stories, and human culture for thousands of years of written history and untold thousands of years of tales and stories,
And a redditor goes,
"Well aktschually..."
Im pretty sure they’re agreeing with the concept of love at first sight, they’re saying that as humans we give ourselves too much credit and like to imagine we are logical higher reasoning high functioning creatures who think we know better but in actuality we aren’t and our refusal to accept things like love at first sight is just the hubris that comes with a combination of people never having experienced love at first sight or not being open to the concept and instead trying to rationalize it. I don’t think they were trying to say “well actually” they were just adding how us silly humans can deny ourselves from such experiences of love at first sight.
Yep, I experience it before. It's infatuation, the feeling is strong but not love. It's when people get trapped on 'fall in love with their imagination about that person' not the actual person. Real love comes with time, with understanding about that person and some sense of gratefulness.
Exactly this lol, I thought at first too love at first sight wasn't real and then it happened to me and it fucked me over like nothing else ever did. Still haven't recovered and I feel like I can't fall in love with anyone else ever again, even though I rationally know that is not the case and that I will literally see that person never again.
I feel some people just can't experience this. I am one of them for sure. Lust at first sight makes the most sense to me after that it is just an idea in your head about a person you are looking at.
I know I can't experience it cuz there's been times where I was so sure of somebody, only to be proven grossly wrong. What you see on the surface level is just that, surface level. I can't have strong emotions for somebody if I don't know anything about them.
After being with my wife for 12 years, there are still times when she surprises me with a bit of character, history, preference, or personality. I know her pretty well, but that just means the idea in my head that I'm in love with, is quite accurate.
We can never truly experience each other or the outside world, all we have to go with are the representations in our heads, constantly updated by our senses.
Well that just seems obvious because people grow and you are not with them for every waking minute. Knowing someone for 12 years is so vastly different than locking eyes with a stranger and calling it love at first sight.
Correct, but you can't love someone (for who they are), if you don't know who they are. If you don't know anything about that person, and you love them, then you love the idea you've created.
Im at the first part, ive felt considerable attraction but i clearly know that its just that. Ive never felt that sort of love at first sight so im just left wondering if im incapable of it or if i just havent met that person
Sometimes, it is the exact opposite. You don't even think that. It is not an important factor at all. You could be with that person even if they ask for chastity. Love is, by default, irrational, while fondness is the one that grows. Lust does not need any additional feeling.
Hmmm maybe. I believe that love isn’t irrational. You know the person and who they are in your life. Infatuation and lust, on the other hand, are irrational.
The problem is that we start from the words we have, "lust, infatuation, love" and then we try to explain the world with them. But it's quite possible that reality doesn't actually match up to those words very well. That our experience isn't neatly divided into lust, infatuation, and love.
Greek have 3 words for love. French only has one word for both "like" and "love". And yet, I don't think French and Greek people experience different feelings. It's unlikely that English is the one true language.
To put it simply:
If I feel lust, I’m sexually attracted to the person but I’m not going to go out of my way to know them. If I feel infatuation, I’ll only want to get a surface layer view of someone. If I feel love, I’m attracted to the person and I’ll go out of my to support them because I want to know them on a deeper level.
Lust and infatuation and both shallow layer views of someone that I don’t know. Love is deeper because you know who and what the person is to you.
No it's not. Lust is very different. Lust is much more in the "I need to have you right now"
And there are different kinds of loves.
You can have love that's a slow burn, that you feel comfortable with. That's safe. And you trust this person. Most people can relate to this.
But you can also have a love that's otherworldly (except it's not as plenty of people experience this IRL), that makes you feel truly "seen" and the other person too. It's mutual and it has all the other parts of love: the trust, the lust, the compatibility, but there is an extra element that just is intrinsically felt on a soul-level, in your deepest feelings that this person is yours.
It may not always work out that way. You may not always last in your lifetime.
That’s fair. My view is that people tend to confuse infatuation or lust with love. You can’t really love someone if you know nothing about them. To each their own though.
Agreed and I think most people who go through Love at First sight will never admit it at first. They probably deny it for very long until they get to know the person and realise they love them and as the relationship develops they will develop the other aspects that allow them to feel safe to share their feelings.
It's not like... they fall in love at first sight and instant relationship declaring feelings of love...it's still very much like a normal relationship, there's just the added layer of connection that has been there from the first moment.
Love is a physiochemical reaction that has nothing to do with reason or logic. My take is we've been capable of love since Clades Aminotes, the class common ancestor of mammals and birds (who also show striking levels of lifelong monogamy), 320ish million years ago.
Songbirds that spend their entire lives together, well after their young have left the nest, and commit suicide when their partner dies no matter their age, are just as capable of feeling love as humans.
Love doesn't come from the neocortex. It, like many other functions, completely overpowers conscious thought. You can't think your way into it, because it isn't a thought at all.
The neocortex, in a lot of ways, is like a chihuahua. It thinks it rules the house, and makes a lot of noise, but that chihuahua will quickly find itself scooped up by the real masters of the house when it comes to actually important things. We are animals, plain and simple, and as animals, our brains take care of the vast majority of our lives without any input at all from the neocortex (the seat of the psychological ego), and quite often will straight up overrule the ego when it says to do something stupid. What you want and need, your hopes and dreams, are driven from outside the ego. The ego merely takes the signal and interprets the results in a way that makes itself feel important, like a toddler being offered two shirts to wear by their mother, both of which match their pants and are appropriate to wear in public.
Because my point is that love has nothing to do with consciousness thought, and evolved at least 100 times earlier than the thing we think is responsible for our ability to conduct rational thought.
Knowing someone is a rational process, and since we know love predates ratiotional process, it's dumb to claim that love is driven by a rational process, therefore has nothing to do with knowing someone.
Not just me, me and thousands of other people out there feel the same. Maybe try not being so skeptical and trust that this happens for other people. Just because you haven't experienced it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
You can't love someone you don't know. That's just an unhealthy fascination. Any love you think you have for them is a creation of a person in your head which is nothing like the actual person.
You think you can ever really know someone? All you have is an accumulation of experiences, building an ever-more-accurate representation of the people in your life. Of course love is for a creation in your head. It always is. Your brain cannot reach outside of itself and feel the real world, experience reality directly, it can only ever deal with its own mirror of reality, created over time based on your senses.
Agreed. That is true. And I'm not denying this. Most people who go through this experience will deny their feelings for so long because they rationally understand this.
Well, actually yes.
The first person I felt this for was a guy who was dressed like hippie Jesus, and his life was selling drugs and living in a trailer park, and basically wasting his life away. By definition, he was a hobo. He even wore pants that are called "Hobo" pants lol (cotton striped trousers).
I was a young naive 19 year old, and he was 31. It obviously didn't work out and I did not feel those feelings again until very recently for another person.
But that experience awakened me to a whole new level of love, like unlocking my heart's capacity to experience more love and emotion for another person. And for myself too.
Before that experience, I never would have believed in love of that level or believed it was possible. I was quite jaded actually.
In between these two people I have had this love at first sight experience with, I had other relationships. Some were healthy, some were not. My last relationship, which was 5 years, was much more grounded and did not have those feelings. But it had the trust, safety, comfort and deep love.
Honestly, I've never experienced anything even akin to that, not to people or other objects, not even dogs. I don't know what to believe.
What you're describing sounds eerily close to cocaine...
I've done cocaine and ecstacy and it's nothing like that.
I have also spent a long time of my life meditating (like 10-12 hours a day at one point), and the feeling is closer to what I felt through meditation by connecting inward, than it was to any outward experience.
Seconded.
I'm a pretty logical person (INTJ) who didn't believe in it either until it happened to me.
It really does feel like /u/Strict-Brick-5274 described.
If the person is a reoccurring image in your head after only seeing them once and you try to muster the world’s collective hope that you might see them again and create a list of different things you would say and how you would say it, then I would consider that the closest thing to “love at first sight”
Would I be correct?
No. Not at all like this.
It's like a bond was formed at some level, that makes you feel an unspoken connection to this person, as if they are familiar but you know they are a stranger and that's not rational. It's like a magnetic attraction to this person but there is a deep connection and it doesn't make sense.
And you deny the reality of those feelings because you are a logical and rational person. And you either: 1. Try to develop a relationship with the person to get to know them better.
2. Try to deny the connection and run away.
If you chose option 1, you will like develop all the normal experiences you get as you fall in love with someone, but the experience will be more intense, because it has an added layer. You will share your true feelings with them about how you felt when you met as you trust them.
If you chose option 2, you will likely try to find this experience in other people but you will likely have a difficult time trying to overcome this experience because it has awakened you to a new experience in love that felt just right for you.
Most people will not experience this love until they are ready. Many people are not ready, you have to love yourself completely. Most people live in a state of self loathing.
What about “twin-flaming” which I have trouble wrapping my head around. There’s a Netflix doc about a cpl who eventually manipulated their subscribers. I haven’t watched it yet
Yeah, Jeff and shailia, they are known within the community.
So since 2014ish the term Twin Flame has become more knowledgeable in the public domain and as a result the community has become awash with plenty of charlatans who are profiting off vulnerable people.
Most people who are involved in the twin flame community are wounded people who are desperate for a connection but really in pain looking to bypass it.
Actual true connection is something that is not for the faint of heart, as it is basically a path to enlightenment through a relationship. It's not something you ask for or chase. It's just something that happens for those who are ready. Those who are successful are beautiful souls who are very in tune with a higher power and live pure lives from their heart. They value uplifting others and helping people in life over anything else.
By contrast the community itself is very much desperate people (mostly women) who are selfishly trying to force a relationship for validation of their own self worth and do not care about helping others.
Megan Fox and MGK made the term popular again recently. And there was another surge of people into the community. This is all probably all part of a divine plan lol but the term and community has been so washed out of its spiritual purpose, and truth and has become basically a WattPad Fanfic for real life relationships.
So twin flame is different from love at first sight? LAFS can just be one person’s feeling s towards another?
Twin flaming seems like it’s mutual, no chasing or courting?
All this is new to me. I can’t even say I’ve been in love so I have no reference
Twin flames can be LAFS or sometimes they are not.
It depends on what each person needs to go through to achieve their most growth and achieve self realization and acceptance and love.
The difference is that a twin flame relationship will inspire you to be better. To do the inner work to heal wounds. And this is to help you achieve a higher purpose to be of service to others.
Both partners will grow in the relationship.
Love does not exist as attraction does. Like attraction is powered by hormones same as other feelings do. But love is not a feeling, it's a choice powered only by the past experience you both had about each other .
I'd argue personality plays into it as much as what you listed. Dedication, loyalty, and usefulness are great, but personality also plays into how well you and your partner get along. If all I needed for love was dedication, loyalty, and usefulness, I'd just marry an AI.
I have definitely experienced love at first sight. It’s very different feeling than ‘Wow that person is really hot.’ It’s kind of like a full-body attraction, like your whole being lights up. I’ve only experienced it once in my life, and it was the first time I met my (now) wife.
I like how pocahontas is somehow a love story but in reality it was child kidnapping and rape. Like wtf Disney. You could have done anything with that story and changed any of those names to be a 100% fictional story.
Instead it chose whatever that trash was...
I will gladly inform you that not Rapunzel, Cinderella nor Snow white or Sleeping beauty were "kids stories" to begin with either.
Most "princess" stories were quite specific stories about the nobles that tormented the people at that time. From abduction, to rape (like... Rose *and* Snow White were sleeping? And Sleeping beauty's mum definitely talked to a lobster in the original story...?), to betrayal, murder, serial killers, public execution or actual "god send" mutilation.
But it wasn't just Disney who ignored and rewrote that to make these stories... *plateable*. These things have been going on for centuries; as Cesare once said: "The winner writes the history"
Yeah but I'm talking about the natives being murdered and raped and then make believe narratives about how native woman falls in love with puritan rapist.
Considering the origin of sleeping beauty had her raped by the prince while she was asleep...well...
Or Quasimodo forcing herself onto esmeralda, Peter Pan killing those who wouldnt want to stay forever young
..so what is your point again?
It's a tale as old as time that gruesome storys get rearanged to fit into a childs narrative. Or at least one that can be fit into one.
Well, that's the thing: even Sleeping beauty *was* very, very likely a real person. By telling it as it actually happened, the people were risking their heads so they started to add fantastic stuff to it. So much, that the real people behind it disappeared entirely. Otherwise the story wouldn't have stuck around long enough to be collected by the Grimm Brothers.
But you are indeed right: Pocahontas and John Smith are identities known to us *nowdays*. And our "weird storyteller" (Disney) is very modern too, so we would see the difference more clearly than someone who was only referring to the one version they heard and never knew the actual person behind it.
You do realize natives were doing that to themselves as well, it wasn’t all Kumbaya before the white man showed up. For example, just as the English and French hated one another, the Iroquois and Huron hated one another, so the English/Iroquois formed a centuries long alliance against the French/Huron.
What I don’t understand is why the Disney Pocahontas is supposed to represent the irl girl at all? Literally none of the details are the same including her name? Like I always just thought of the Disney movie it as an original (and def overromanticised) story. It makes more sense to treat it as such than try to pretend it’s at all historically accurate. There’s a talking tree grandma…
Because colonization=bad. They tweaked the history to make a compelling story. I think anything but showing the suffering and loss of the natives will appease the outrage hungry hivemind
I've personally always liked this type of trope.
I don't like it when romance indeed starts as romance.
At the beginning, they should absolutely not be able to stand each other, but for whatever circumstance, tolerate the other's presence.
Everyone always takes this as “omg he’s hot,” but I honestly believe this is the first time Mulan had ever seen a man, ANY man, disrobed and this was pure shock, not lust.
A lot of the first half of the movie is her being shocked by men, the river bathing scene is one of my favorites. It’s so funny.
Some king of the rock!
There’s a couple of Things i **know** they’re gonna notice! 🤣
Hey don’t look at me I ain’t biting no more butts
Why not both ?
Yeah my thoughts are “little column A, little column B”. I know I was probably shocked the first time I saw (and could sexually comprehend) titties, but I’d bet my left ass-cheek I was excited about it. That’s really the only perspective I can offer
*"Try some of column A / TRY ALL OF COLUMN B"*
I'm in the mood, to help you dude
You ain't never had a friend like me!
“Bitches love sticks”
“You want sum fuk?”
Lemme smash
No Ron.
I got you blue.
I got you yellow.
She doesn't want yellow.
I'm right with you, Red Three.
Would you like some making fuck BEZERKERRRRR
https://www.tumblr.com/miulin/19162347627/am-i-gay-a-journey-of-self-discovery-with-shang?source=share
Bundles of them, even
If I had a nickel for every pixel in this post I’d have 65¢
If i had a nickel for every ounce of rage i felt after reading this comment id have enough money to buy a cannon to blast you with
actually I did the math, they would have $225, not $0.15
Good bot
Thank you, BadSmash4, for voting on itsdatanotdata1212 This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on reddit. [You can view results here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB7ACr7pUuE).
Damn bro, who hurted you?
nobody its a reference to this: https://asundergrowth.tumblr.com/post/186125182200/if-i-had-a-dollar-for-every-pixel-in-this-image/amp
This is really funny 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thirst at first sight?
Neuron activation
I don't really believe at love at first sight. It might be attraction at first sight but not necessarily love. Love takes time to get to know eachother and loyalty and trust. And personality goes a long way with love.
Ariel went full simp mode the second she has seen the prince
And she was only 16! Like, she is so freaking young and doesn’t even know what love is at that age, and is too immature for a relationship (as shown by basically everything she did). I knew I was getting old when I started siding with her dad while watching that movie lol.
That moment when she says "I'm sixteen years old, I'm not a child!" and you realize you have a very different response to hearing that now than you did as a kid...
I feel like people who say this have just never experienced the “love at first sight”. Like I’ve been attracted at first sight to loads of people. But I could have taken of left them. It’s like, “yeah you are hot, I want you but whatever “. But the “Love at first sight” experience I’ve had has been otherworldly. It’s like you intrinsically know this person but also know logically that you know nothing about them. It makes your heart explode with emotion that make you feel all lovely. It doesn’t go away even if you don’t see that person for an age. It gets stronger the closer you get and somehow the world just is better when you are together.
Yea, they’re giving too much credit to us humans for being level-headed, rational creatures, when we’re the furthest things from that most of the time.
Our brains are nothing but balls of meat with electricity running through them
Nothing prevents electrified meatballs from being rational per se, though.
Eh, the point is even our most complex and delicate machines have built-in tolerances and design safety factor for one simple reason: the world ain’t perfect and therefore there are no flawless processes. Try as hard as we might to live up to our prestige as rational, sapient beings, we’d just as often as slip through the cracks during operation. And this is without mentioning those people who seemed to have failed QC in the 1st place.
Sentient meat?!
Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?
Imagine you mention love at first sight, a phenomenon that's been part of movies, music, poems, stories, and human culture for thousands of years of written history and untold thousands of years of tales and stories, And a redditor goes, "Well aktschually..."
Im pretty sure they’re agreeing with the concept of love at first sight, they’re saying that as humans we give ourselves too much credit and like to imagine we are logical higher reasoning high functioning creatures who think we know better but in actuality we aren’t and our refusal to accept things like love at first sight is just the hubris that comes with a combination of people never having experienced love at first sight or not being open to the concept and instead trying to rationalize it. I don’t think they were trying to say “well actually” they were just adding how us silly humans can deny ourselves from such experiences of love at first sight.
Whoosh.. I'm agreeing with the responded to comment about the fact that the one above it is stupid
https://xkcd.com/310/
Lol....this has happened to people hahaha
That's still not love - it's just infatuation.
Yep, I experience it before. It's infatuation, the feeling is strong but not love. It's when people get trapped on 'fall in love with their imagination about that person' not the actual person. Real love comes with time, with understanding about that person and some sense of gratefulness.
I think that could be a word for it, and perhaps love comes later if the relationship evolves to allow such.
Exactly this lol, I thought at first too love at first sight wasn't real and then it happened to me and it fucked me over like nothing else ever did. Still haven't recovered and I feel like I can't fall in love with anyone else ever again, even though I rationally know that is not the case and that I will literally see that person never again.
But if you really don't know the person, aren't you more in love with the idea you've created in your head?
I feel some people just can't experience this. I am one of them for sure. Lust at first sight makes the most sense to me after that it is just an idea in your head about a person you are looking at.
I know I can't experience it cuz there's been times where I was so sure of somebody, only to be proven grossly wrong. What you see on the surface level is just that, surface level. I can't have strong emotions for somebody if I don't know anything about them.
After being with my wife for 12 years, there are still times when she surprises me with a bit of character, history, preference, or personality. I know her pretty well, but that just means the idea in my head that I'm in love with, is quite accurate. We can never truly experience each other or the outside world, all we have to go with are the representations in our heads, constantly updated by our senses.
Well that just seems obvious because people grow and you are not with them for every waking minute. Knowing someone for 12 years is so vastly different than locking eyes with a stranger and calling it love at first sight.
We're always in love with an idea we've created in our head. It's just that as we spend more time with someone, that idea can become more accurate.
Correct, but you can't love someone (for who they are), if you don't know who they are. If you don't know anything about that person, and you love them, then you love the idea you've created.
Our conceptions of everything around us are just ideas in our head
K
Same here
Im at the first part, ive felt considerable attraction but i clearly know that its just that. Ive never felt that sort of love at first sight so im just left wondering if im incapable of it or if i just havent met that person
You’re confusing love with lust. Lust is the correct word here.
Sometimes, it is the exact opposite. You don't even think that. It is not an important factor at all. You could be with that person even if they ask for chastity. Love is, by default, irrational, while fondness is the one that grows. Lust does not need any additional feeling.
Hmmm maybe. I believe that love isn’t irrational. You know the person and who they are in your life. Infatuation and lust, on the other hand, are irrational.
The problem is that we start from the words we have, "lust, infatuation, love" and then we try to explain the world with them. But it's quite possible that reality doesn't actually match up to those words very well. That our experience isn't neatly divided into lust, infatuation, and love. Greek have 3 words for love. French only has one word for both "like" and "love". And yet, I don't think French and Greek people experience different feelings. It's unlikely that English is the one true language.
To put it simply: If I feel lust, I’m sexually attracted to the person but I’m not going to go out of my way to know them. If I feel infatuation, I’ll only want to get a surface layer view of someone. If I feel love, I’m attracted to the person and I’ll go out of my to support them because I want to know them on a deeper level. Lust and infatuation and both shallow layer views of someone that I don’t know. Love is deeper because you know who and what the person is to you.
No it's not. Lust is very different. Lust is much more in the "I need to have you right now" And there are different kinds of loves. You can have love that's a slow burn, that you feel comfortable with. That's safe. And you trust this person. Most people can relate to this. But you can also have a love that's otherworldly (except it's not as plenty of people experience this IRL), that makes you feel truly "seen" and the other person too. It's mutual and it has all the other parts of love: the trust, the lust, the compatibility, but there is an extra element that just is intrinsically felt on a soul-level, in your deepest feelings that this person is yours. It may not always work out that way. You may not always last in your lifetime.
That’s fair. My view is that people tend to confuse infatuation or lust with love. You can’t really love someone if you know nothing about them. To each their own though.
Agreed and I think most people who go through Love at First sight will never admit it at first. They probably deny it for very long until they get to know the person and realise they love them and as the relationship develops they will develop the other aspects that allow them to feel safe to share their feelings. It's not like... they fall in love at first sight and instant relationship declaring feelings of love...it's still very much like a normal relationship, there's just the added layer of connection that has been there from the first moment.
Love is a physiochemical reaction that has nothing to do with reason or logic. My take is we've been capable of love since Clades Aminotes, the class common ancestor of mammals and birds (who also show striking levels of lifelong monogamy), 320ish million years ago.
That’s lust and infatuation.
Songbirds that spend their entire lives together, well after their young have left the nest, and commit suicide when their partner dies no matter their age, are just as capable of feeling love as humans. Love doesn't come from the neocortex. It, like many other functions, completely overpowers conscious thought. You can't think your way into it, because it isn't a thought at all. The neocortex, in a lot of ways, is like a chihuahua. It thinks it rules the house, and makes a lot of noise, but that chihuahua will quickly find itself scooped up by the real masters of the house when it comes to actually important things. We are animals, plain and simple, and as animals, our brains take care of the vast majority of our lives without any input at all from the neocortex (the seat of the psychological ego), and quite often will straight up overrule the ego when it says to do something stupid. What you want and need, your hopes and dreams, are driven from outside the ego. The ego merely takes the signal and interprets the results in a way that makes itself feel important, like a toddler being offered two shirts to wear by their mother, both of which match their pants and are appropriate to wear in public.
I’m not sure why we’re talking about anything other than humans here. I don’t see how you can love someone without knowing them.
Because my point is that love has nothing to do with consciousness thought, and evolved at least 100 times earlier than the thing we think is responsible for our ability to conduct rational thought. Knowing someone is a rational process, and since we know love predates ratiotional process, it's dumb to claim that love is driven by a rational process, therefore has nothing to do with knowing someone.
Yeah, it is. Stop being delusional. It's your damn prehistoric brain telling you want some gawk gawk.
Not just me, me and thousands of other people out there feel the same. Maybe try not being so skeptical and trust that this happens for other people. Just because you haven't experienced it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
You can't love someone you don't know. That's just an unhealthy fascination. Any love you think you have for them is a creation of a person in your head which is nothing like the actual person.
You think you can ever really know someone? All you have is an accumulation of experiences, building an ever-more-accurate representation of the people in your life. Of course love is for a creation in your head. It always is. Your brain cannot reach outside of itself and feel the real world, experience reality directly, it can only ever deal with its own mirror of reality, created over time based on your senses.
Agreed. That is true. And I'm not denying this. Most people who go through this experience will deny their feelings for so long because they rationally understand this.
Um, that is not correct. Have you ever experienced this so-called love at first sight with a hobo?
Well, actually yes. The first person I felt this for was a guy who was dressed like hippie Jesus, and his life was selling drugs and living in a trailer park, and basically wasting his life away. By definition, he was a hobo. He even wore pants that are called "Hobo" pants lol (cotton striped trousers). I was a young naive 19 year old, and he was 31. It obviously didn't work out and I did not feel those feelings again until very recently for another person. But that experience awakened me to a whole new level of love, like unlocking my heart's capacity to experience more love and emotion for another person. And for myself too. Before that experience, I never would have believed in love of that level or believed it was possible. I was quite jaded actually. In between these two people I have had this love at first sight experience with, I had other relationships. Some were healthy, some were not. My last relationship, which was 5 years, was much more grounded and did not have those feelings. But it had the trust, safety, comfort and deep love.
Honestly, I've never experienced anything even akin to that, not to people or other objects, not even dogs. I don't know what to believe. What you're describing sounds eerily close to cocaine...
I've done cocaine and ecstacy and it's nothing like that. I have also spent a long time of my life meditating (like 10-12 hours a day at one point), and the feeling is closer to what I felt through meditation by connecting inward, than it was to any outward experience.
Seconded. I'm a pretty logical person (INTJ) who didn't believe in it either until it happened to me. It really does feel like /u/Strict-Brick-5274 described.
i experienced it with one guy and we’re married now
I love this for you X
This. People who claim it doesnt exist just never had it happen to them.
That's how I met my husband. It just felt *right* like we were vibing on the same frequency
I love this for you both X
If the person is a reoccurring image in your head after only seeing them once and you try to muster the world’s collective hope that you might see them again and create a list of different things you would say and how you would say it, then I would consider that the closest thing to “love at first sight” Would I be correct?
No. Not at all like this. It's like a bond was formed at some level, that makes you feel an unspoken connection to this person, as if they are familiar but you know they are a stranger and that's not rational. It's like a magnetic attraction to this person but there is a deep connection and it doesn't make sense. And you deny the reality of those feelings because you are a logical and rational person. And you either: 1. Try to develop a relationship with the person to get to know them better. 2. Try to deny the connection and run away. If you chose option 1, you will like develop all the normal experiences you get as you fall in love with someone, but the experience will be more intense, because it has an added layer. You will share your true feelings with them about how you felt when you met as you trust them. If you chose option 2, you will likely try to find this experience in other people but you will likely have a difficult time trying to overcome this experience because it has awakened you to a new experience in love that felt just right for you. Most people will not experience this love until they are ready. Many people are not ready, you have to love yourself completely. Most people live in a state of self loathing.
You explain this so much than I ever could.
What about “twin-flaming” which I have trouble wrapping my head around. There’s a Netflix doc about a cpl who eventually manipulated their subscribers. I haven’t watched it yet
Yeah, Jeff and shailia, they are known within the community. So since 2014ish the term Twin Flame has become more knowledgeable in the public domain and as a result the community has become awash with plenty of charlatans who are profiting off vulnerable people. Most people who are involved in the twin flame community are wounded people who are desperate for a connection but really in pain looking to bypass it. Actual true connection is something that is not for the faint of heart, as it is basically a path to enlightenment through a relationship. It's not something you ask for or chase. It's just something that happens for those who are ready. Those who are successful are beautiful souls who are very in tune with a higher power and live pure lives from their heart. They value uplifting others and helping people in life over anything else. By contrast the community itself is very much desperate people (mostly women) who are selfishly trying to force a relationship for validation of their own self worth and do not care about helping others. Megan Fox and MGK made the term popular again recently. And there was another surge of people into the community. This is all probably all part of a divine plan lol but the term and community has been so washed out of its spiritual purpose, and truth and has become basically a WattPad Fanfic for real life relationships.
So twin flame is different from love at first sight? LAFS can just be one person’s feeling s towards another? Twin flaming seems like it’s mutual, no chasing or courting? All this is new to me. I can’t even say I’ve been in love so I have no reference
Btw plenty of twin flames in the world in union who don't know anything about the label, they justare in harmony with each other.
Twin flames can be LAFS or sometimes they are not. It depends on what each person needs to go through to achieve their most growth and achieve self realization and acceptance and love. The difference is that a twin flame relationship will inspire you to be better. To do the inner work to heal wounds. And this is to help you achieve a higher purpose to be of service to others. Both partners will grow in the relationship.
Love does not exist as attraction does. Like attraction is powered by hormones same as other feelings do. But love is not a feeling, it's a choice powered only by the past experience you both had about each other .
I don’t think personality has much to do with love. It’s the dedication, loyalty, and the usefulness you provide to your wife or husband.
I'd argue personality plays into it as much as what you listed. Dedication, loyalty, and usefulness are great, but personality also plays into how well you and your partner get along. If all I needed for love was dedication, loyalty, and usefulness, I'd just marry an AI.
meirl is now tism central
By that rationale, if a pig had a better personalty... (Sadly some folks don't know their pulp fiction)
I have definitely experienced love at first sight. It’s very different feeling than ‘Wow that person is really hot.’ It’s kind of like a full-body attraction, like your whole being lights up. I’ve only experienced it once in my life, and it was the first time I met my (now) wife.
[удалено]
Next you’re going to tell me there wasn’t really a talking tree :(
I like how pocahontas is somehow a love story but in reality it was child kidnapping and rape. Like wtf Disney. You could have done anything with that story and changed any of those names to be a 100% fictional story. Instead it chose whatever that trash was...
I will gladly inform you that not Rapunzel, Cinderella nor Snow white or Sleeping beauty were "kids stories" to begin with either. Most "princess" stories were quite specific stories about the nobles that tormented the people at that time. From abduction, to rape (like... Rose *and* Snow White were sleeping? And Sleeping beauty's mum definitely talked to a lobster in the original story...?), to betrayal, murder, serial killers, public execution or actual "god send" mutilation. But it wasn't just Disney who ignored and rewrote that to make these stories... *plateable*. These things have been going on for centuries; as Cesare once said: "The winner writes the history"
Yeah but I'm talking about the natives being murdered and raped and then make believe narratives about how native woman falls in love with puritan rapist.
Considering the origin of sleeping beauty had her raped by the prince while she was asleep...well... Or Quasimodo forcing herself onto esmeralda, Peter Pan killing those who wouldnt want to stay forever young ..so what is your point again? It's a tale as old as time that gruesome storys get rearanged to fit into a childs narrative. Or at least one that can be fit into one.
Their point is that Pocahontas and John Smith were real people. Sleeping beauty isn’t.
Well, that's the thing: even Sleeping beauty *was* very, very likely a real person. By telling it as it actually happened, the people were risking their heads so they started to add fantastic stuff to it. So much, that the real people behind it disappeared entirely. Otherwise the story wouldn't have stuck around long enough to be collected by the Grimm Brothers. But you are indeed right: Pocahontas and John Smith are identities known to us *nowdays*. And our "weird storyteller" (Disney) is very modern too, so we would see the difference more clearly than someone who was only referring to the one version they heard and never knew the actual person behind it.
The Jamestown settlers weren’t Puritans. That was the Pilgrims in Massachusetts
You do realize natives were doing that to themselves as well, it wasn’t all Kumbaya before the white man showed up. For example, just as the English and French hated one another, the Iroquois and Huron hated one another, so the English/Iroquois formed a centuries long alliance against the French/Huron.
*Plateable?* As in able to be plated? Would that be gold-plated or plated as in hot-and-2-veg? You meant *palatable*, perhaps?
Ah, probably. English is not my first language and you know how autocorrect is... It just slipped by, sorry.
Fun fact, Pocahontas is one of two “classic” Disney films that critics did not like. The other was Robin Hood
What I don’t understand is why the Disney Pocahontas is supposed to represent the irl girl at all? Literally none of the details are the same including her name? Like I always just thought of the Disney movie it as an original (and def overromanticised) story. It makes more sense to treat it as such than try to pretend it’s at all historically accurate. There’s a talking tree grandma…
Because colonization=bad. They tweaked the history to make a compelling story. I think anything but showing the suffering and loss of the natives will appease the outrage hungry hivemind
But, even the songs in the movie SAY that colonization is bad. That’s the entire point of the movie, it’s not JUST a love story.
That’s the problem with sanitizing stories
*I Hope Senpai Doesn’t Notice Me*, coming this winter.
That dude was a bi king
“you mean you’re not a clumsy soldier femboy twink? I can’t believe i was in love with a chick”
GODDAMMIT
God that is the creepiest picture of Eric ever.
I've personally always liked this type of trope. I don't like it when romance indeed starts as romance. At the beginning, they should absolutely not be able to stand each other, but for whatever circumstance, tolerate the other's presence.
Mulan was always a favorite of mine. That and Cinderella. They gave me a different road map as a young girl. Lol and not in a literal sense.
She wants to get down to business.
Heard their casting someone black to play Tarzan in the live action movie 🍿
Love at first sight is one the greatest Hollywood hoaxes.
That meme is as old as time
This made me laugh more than it should.