![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouA series of thoughts I've been turning over in my head while I scrape popcorn from the ceiling, tear down the ugly ceiling beams, cover the paneling with drywall, plaster and prime and paint, and so on: it keeps the hands busy and frees the brain to ponder at length. Okay, pondering has reached maximum capacity and now I am at point of please to be getting additional inputting.
Here's the premise: you've met someone, and are solidly falling-in-love -- whether that be a love-at-first-sight or gradual drift from friends into something deeper. You might safely say that this person is "the one" for you; the first flush of lust/infatuation has become the brink of something longer-term.
Alrighty, now let's say someone you trust -- or at minimum has authority satisfactory enough to you -- explains that you are not, in fact, in love, and your experience/emotions are due to A) a magical spell, B) a drug/medicine, or C) due to tagging an ineffable instinctual landmine. (The last being inescapable/unstoppable akin to non-autonomous functions like heart-beat and breathing; I leave it open to your interpretation whether the landmine could have been avoided in the first place.) Those are the three options for externalities, with me so far?
What do you think would be the one aspect of your relationship that:
1a. Would prove to you that your relationship would continue -- as true love (forgive the romanticism but what else to call it?) -- even if A/B/C were removed from the equation?
1b. Could not be duplicated/mimicked by A/B/C and therefore by its existence indicates your love is real?
(I break those out because A/B/C may only inculcate but without damaging upon withdrawal: much like potting soil may boost a seed's preliminary growth but that at some stage the plant could survive on sun, water, soil without additional fertilizers.)
2a. Would the means make any difference in your reaction -- that is, whether the in-love is thanks to magical whammy, misfired neurons, or survival instinct gone haywire?
2b. Which of the three would be most offensive as a means of manipulation (or is it all-the-same)?
2c. Which would you consider most easily forgiven? (eg, "I can accept drugs but if you magic on me, that's way worse".)
3a. Would it make any difference if your in-love state were caused by a specific person's actions (as opposed to honest mistake/accident like tripping a long-dormant spell or drinking the wrong medicine)?
3b. Which would be worse: to learn it was purposeful, or that it was purely accidental?
4a. If you knew it was purposeful but didn't know the perpetrator's identity would not-knowing be better (or worse)*?
4b. Would you try to find out the perpetrator's identity, anyway?
4c. What if the perpetrator were the person you'd fallen in love with?
As an addendum to that last one, I find myself applying #1 and #2 specifically to the situation upon learning the falling-in-love was due to artificial causes. Would even determining that it's 'true love' be irrelevant, due to considering such acts/intentions completely unforgivable?
* the 'better or worse' idea could be applied to your sense of integrity, or to your faith/trust in the relationship... it could be that not-knowing assuages your sense of autonomy yet also causes you to doubt whether this person is really the one for you.
Here's the premise: you've met someone, and are solidly falling-in-love -- whether that be a love-at-first-sight or gradual drift from friends into something deeper. You might safely say that this person is "the one" for you; the first flush of lust/infatuation has become the brink of something longer-term.
Alrighty, now let's say someone you trust -- or at minimum has authority satisfactory enough to you -- explains that you are not, in fact, in love, and your experience/emotions are due to A) a magical spell, B) a drug/medicine, or C) due to tagging an ineffable instinctual landmine. (The last being inescapable/unstoppable akin to non-autonomous functions like heart-beat and breathing; I leave it open to your interpretation whether the landmine could have been avoided in the first place.) Those are the three options for externalities, with me so far?
What do you think would be the one aspect of your relationship that:
1a. Would prove to you that your relationship would continue -- as true love (forgive the romanticism but what else to call it?) -- even if A/B/C were removed from the equation?
1b. Could not be duplicated/mimicked by A/B/C and therefore by its existence indicates your love is real?
(I break those out because A/B/C may only inculcate but without damaging upon withdrawal: much like potting soil may boost a seed's preliminary growth but that at some stage the plant could survive on sun, water, soil without additional fertilizers.)
2a. Would the means make any difference in your reaction -- that is, whether the in-love is thanks to magical whammy, misfired neurons, or survival instinct gone haywire?
2b. Which of the three would be most offensive as a means of manipulation (or is it all-the-same)?
2c. Which would you consider most easily forgiven? (eg, "I can accept drugs but if you magic on me, that's way worse".)
3a. Would it make any difference if your in-love state were caused by a specific person's actions (as opposed to honest mistake/accident like tripping a long-dormant spell or drinking the wrong medicine)?
3b. Which would be worse: to learn it was purposeful, or that it was purely accidental?
4a. If you knew it was purposeful but didn't know the perpetrator's identity would not-knowing be better (or worse)*?
4b. Would you try to find out the perpetrator's identity, anyway?
4c. What if the perpetrator were the person you'd fallen in love with?
As an addendum to that last one, I find myself applying #1 and #2 specifically to the situation upon learning the falling-in-love was due to artificial causes. Would even determining that it's 'true love' be irrelevant, due to considering such acts/intentions completely unforgivable?
* the 'better or worse' idea could be applied to your sense of integrity, or to your faith/trust in the relationship... it could be that not-knowing assuages your sense of autonomy yet also causes you to doubt whether this person is really the one for you.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 28 Oct 2008 11:26 pm (UTC)What do you think would be the one aspect of your relationship that:
1a. Would prove to you that your relationship would continue -- as true love (forgive the romanticism but what else to call it?) -- even if A/B/C were removed from the equation?
If the other person (let us call them the SO, for convenience) weren't under the control of A/B/C then the proof, I think, would have to come from myself--I'd have to be reasonably sure I wasn't under the influence first (which I guess, with A or C, may not be possible). After that, I...don't know. I'm not sure what would be strong enough proof to myself that would erase all doubt. I'd always have a little bit of doubt in the back of my mind. That being said, it'd probably have to be something drastic, something I definitely would never do under any other circumstance other than loving SO.
1b. Could not be duplicated/mimicked by A/B/C and therefore by its existence indicates your love is real?
I honestly don't know. Even if there was something...I think I'd doubt it.
2a. Would the means make any difference in your reaction -- that is, whether the in-love is thanks to magical whammy, misfired neurons, or survival instinct gone haywire?
I suspect my first reaction, whatever the cause, would be disbelief. Beyond that...
The first two would be slightly easier to bear, I guess, in that the cause is external and therefore that means any outside control of my person by another could be ended (even if this means ending the relationship). They'd probably provoke more anger in me than fear.
The third is much scarier, because it seems to me that it'd bring the possibility that I'm doing it to myself, which then begs the question of whether or not the relationship could be truly said to be induced -- it might not be born out of love, but it's still the result of my own actions/emotions. Either way, the thought that something would be awful enough that the only way to survive was to make myself fall in love would also be pretty scary.
I'm not sure which one would make me feel worse for the hypothetical SO. Either way, the person gets to deal with a relationship that may be grounded on false pretenses, assuming the relationship was two-sided.
2b. Which of the three would be most offensive as a means of manipulation (or is it all-the-same)?
C would be more terrifying but not necessarily offensive, unless the instinct was intentionally provoked by an outsider. In which case C would more or less hold the same offense factor as A and B. So...I don't think there's any difference. All three methods would be based on forcing me to feel something I would not be naturally inclined to feel.
2c. Which would you consider most easily forgiven? (eg, "I can accept drugs but if you magic on me, that's way worse".)
Tough to say. It would depend on the circumstances and intent entirely -- if it was magic, it may have been an honest mistake, which is more forgivable than drugs. It's harder to "accidentally" slip love-inducing pills into someone's food. As for the third...I'm not sure. It would feel like a more fundamental violation of my self, I think, and that might be harder to forgive no matter the circumstances or intent.
no subject
Date: 28 Oct 2008 11:27 pm (UTC)3a. Would it make any difference if your in-love state were caused by a specific person's actions (as opposed to honest mistake/accident like tripping a long-dormant spell or drinking the wrong medicine)?
Hell yes. Mistakes are at least understandable, and at least logically forgivable (even if I might not be able to actually bring myself to forgive). Deliberately forcing it is both cruel and violating to me, and the SO (again, assuming two-sided relationship).
3b. Which would be worse: to learn it was purposeful, or that it was purely accidental?
Tough to say. Purposeful would bring questions of who would be powerful/smart/sneaky enough to induce the love, and then bring the fear of whether or not they could or would do it again -- and how I could prevent that, or if preventing a reoccurence would even be possible.
And accident...an accident would bring relief, at least that there was a very low chance of it reoccuring. But at the same time, it would be very, um, shaking? to learn that, because...well, I would assume being in love would be pleasant and full of wonder, and to learn that it was all the result of someone making a mistake would shake my trust in...uh...love. And the person who caused it.
Purposeful seems to inspire more fear, but accident seems to inspire more emotional fallout. I don't know which I would consider to be worse.
4a. If you knew it was purposeful but didn't know the perpetrator's identity would not-knowing be better (or worse)*?
On the one hand, knowing might assuage some of the fear that would come of knowing that it was purposeful, because at least you'd have a direction to be afraid in, as opposed to just generally fearful in all directions, if that makes sense. I think...not-knowing might be worse, because I'd feel like a target, never knowing if the perpetrator might strike again or from where. I'd have no way to take any precautions and feel like they were working, or feel like I was doing something about the whole situation. Sitting around and feeling useless and afraid would be worse that doing something and feeling afraid, I think.
4b. Would you try to find out the perpetrator's identity, anyway?
To the best of my ability, I guess. Which may not be much ability, but still. I think I'd try, if only to feel like I was taking some kind of action rather than being a sitting duck.
4c. What if the perpetrator were the person you'd fallen in love with?
End it and leave ASAP, as far as possible. I wouldn't want to even attempt a relationship with someone who felt forcing someone to fall in love was any shade of okay. Guilt and apologies would not change this, no matter how profuse.
Of course, I might not even have time to object before whatever caused the "true love" was applied to me again...
As an addendum to that last one, I find myself applying #1 and #2 specifically to the situation upon learning the falling-in-love was due to artificial causes. Would even determining that it's 'true love' be irrelevant, due to considering such acts/intentions completely unforgivable?
Whether or not it was irrelevant, I might still try, if only out of immediate denial that what I was feeling was induced...but in the end, I don't think the relationship would endure, whatever conclusion I came to. I would never trust my own feelings, and in the case of 4c and supposing I got away, would never trust the SO either.