OneOfMany

<more seriousness>

I think that the problem is that these confused people don’t have a very definite conception of what “love” is (for clarity’s sake, let this include any and all vague distinctions), yet also have this vague idea that whatever it is must only exist in the context of marriage. So they develop the belief that the developed and committed love based on lots of trust, respect, and yes, giving, etc. that exists in the context of marriage is the only form in which “real love” can exist.

My opinion on the matter: Love is just a raw emotion that can be channeled negatively in the form of superficial lust or emotionally unhealthy relationships, or positively in committed, healthy relationships (i.e. marriage), but generally begins in a more or less neutral capacity (which I would call chemistry, I guess). Also, marriage won’t magically make the “real love” (here I mean positive love) happen – it just sets up the framework in which it is most ideal for “real love” to develop. Likewise, chemistry before the marriage won’t necessarily make the “real love” automatically happen.

So really there isn’t any point in arguing either way, because it’s not like there is a magic formula that everyone must follow to make it work.

just my thoughts

Sometimes new shoes are just very stiff and need some breaking in…I’ve don’t usually have this problem with my heels, because I try to stick to only super-comfy ones, but I have it very often with flats. I either stick a band-aid to the back of my heel so it can’t chafe, or walk around with the backs of the shoes smashed in for a bit. ^_^

I went two years ago – do I get included in the MR CR count? ^_^

<serious>

I read the article too, and I have no idea what the author was trying to say. This is what I got: First, he equates chemistry/romance (which are automatically linked?) with physical attraction, which isn’t important according to a bunch of sources, but still is important when we call it “attraction,” not “romance,” then ends off with some vague, unrelated platitudes about “ahava” (love? romance? CHAS V’SHALOM) being generated by giving. Because that is EMES [insert arbitrary ma’amarim about emes]. And romance = Hollywood because the word comes from the ROMANS.

To me this sounds like someone got so caught up in decrying a particular terminology that they ended up losing any point they were trying to make along the way. Something that it seems a lot of people have a problem with when the words “love” and “romance” are put on the table (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/whats-the-torah-way-for-finding-a-spouse).

</serious>

I kapoosh. Was just making a joke…because I am Nymphadora the Purple and OneOfMany…eheheh

A pool table actually, but lol. ^_^

How about “marauding in my mukluks.” Sounds more epic. ^_^

What’s green, fuzzy, and if it falls from a tree and lands on you, will kill you?

Nerdy, not geeky. For that you would have to check out the “Post to Post – NOT” thread. ^_^

Great! Tomorrow I will go out galumphing in my galoshes. ^_^

heyyyyy I thought I was ThePurpleOne(OfMany)! 😛

What genre of literature do you like? ^_^

yentingyenta: Lol, I posted that first comment approximately 30 seconds after my Biology had class ended. just couldn’t resist. and prions rock. ^_^

torah613: halacha?

So seeing as you are going to a mixed college anyway…why exactly did you choose SCAS? There are many cheaper options (that would give you a better education to boot).

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are in my opinion the most remarkable example of Hashem’s hand as demonstrated through biochemistry.

definitely

purplicious: I don’t know, I don’t know much about Seminar…

The Discworld series by Terry Pratchett.

Go read a Discworld book.

Always the iron.

^_^ ^_^ ^_^