Signed Up:
Nov 01, 2012Comments: 0 · Posts: 473 · Topics: 64
I've seen the trailer of that movie. Watching it I was like you know they are married so don't get involved. People should really raise their children so that they know not to interfere in someones else relationship.
Signed Up:
Feb 27, 2012Comments: 72 · Posts: 1411 · Topics: 9
Stick with the one who loves YOU. Your heart will be safer..
..Something gravitated you to him to begin with..so stick with him.
Signed Up:
Jul 30, 2007Comments: 3 · Posts: 10583 · Topics: 206
You will probably be happier and disappointed less often if you marry the one who loves you.
Signed Up:
Mar 19, 2012Comments: 273 · Posts: 5457 · Topics: 33
I would pick neither. It'd be safe with the one who loves you, but you would be wasting opportunities to find a mutual love, and in the end, not be completely satisfied. If I chose the one who I love, but didn't love me back, I know I would be holding them back and wouldn't be able to live with myself. Besides, I'm a difficult person, and only someone who truly loves me can usually handle being with me. No doubt they would get fed up and leave. I would wait until I found someone that loves me just as much as I love them before I get into marriage, which I would surely regret with either of the before mentioned options.
Theres no such thing as mutual love. Love is a solitary thing. ???First of all, love is a joint experience between two persons ??? but the fact that it is a joint experience does not mean that it is a similar experience to the two people involved. There are the lover and the beloved, but these two come from different countries. Often the beloved is only a stimulus for all the stored-up love which had lain quiet within the lover for a long time hitherto. And somehow every lover knows this. He feels in his soul that his love is a solitary thing. He comes to know a new, strange loneliness and it is this knowledge which makes him suffer. So there is only one thing for the lover to do. He must house his love within himself as best he can; he must create for himself a whole new inward world ??? a world intense and strange, complete in himself. Let it be added here that this lover about whom we speak need not necessarily be a young man saving for a wedding ring ??? this lover can be man, woman, child, or indeed any human creature on this earth.
Now, the beloved can also be of any description. The most outlandish people can be the stimulus for love. A man may be a doddering great-grandfather and still love only a strange girl he saw in the streets of Cheehaw one afternoon two decades past. The preacher may love a fallen woman. The beloved may be treacherous, greasy-headed, and given to evil habits. Yes, and the lover may see this as clearly as anyone else ??? but that does not affect the evolution of his love one whit. A most mediocre person can be the object of a love which is wild, extravagant, and beautiful as the poison lilies of the swamp. A good man may be the stimulus for a love both violent and debased, or a jabbering madman may bring about in the soul of someone a tender and simple idyll. Therefore, the value and quality of any love is determined solely by the lover himself.
It is for this reason that most of us would rather love than be loved. Almost everyone wants to be the lover. And the curt truth is that, in a deep secret way, the state of being beloved is intolerable to many. The beloved fears and hates the lover, and with the best of reasons. For the lover is forever trying to strip bare his beloved. The lover craves any possible relation with the beloved, even if this experience can cause him only pain.??
?? Carson McCullers, The Ballad of the Sad Caf? and Other Stories