“Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.” - C.S Lewis
This quote is about faith not love, but you can see how the same logic applies. If faith is not merely to "feel" as if you believe something, why should love be merely to "feel" that you like something?
In the end, faith is remembering you have reason to believe, and love is a choice about how you treat someone. Feelings are irrelevant. They are passing. They are constantly changing, and that's natural. They can indeed play a role in our decisions about relationships, but are a fickle factor to base an entire decision off of. It's like building a house on the sand. We're human beings with intelligence, and there is no such thing as a feeling so powerful we HAVE to act on it-that is fantasy.
What about circumstances? What about age? Can it ever be simply a waste of time?
On my last deviation, people argued that in Percy and Annabeth's case they "went through hell together," and therefore proved their love. Here is what I have to say after thinking about this:
Yes. That is love, but not necessarily romantic love. Would those characters have done that for any of their other friends? Yes.
What then, is the point of romantic love? Well, there is only one thing.
That they would go on an adventure together? Apparently not.
To be attracted to each other? No, otherwise it would be acceptable to cheat on your spouse with the next hot person walking by.
What's missing here? It's one simple thing that we seem to forget: the ONLY point of love being romantic as opposed to simple love that you have for your brothers and friends is... that you consider getting married and having kids.
"Hahahaha! But they're just kids. Why would you expect them to do a silly thing like that? How ridiculous. Everyone knows love is just about kissing and cuddling."
I wonder why then, this is the part of love that is so easy to make fun of. There is certainly a place for kissing and cuddling, but maybe... just maybe... we make it far too much of a focus in comparison to other parts of romantic love. It's gotten to the point where this is the only reason people get in relationships.
It makes sense that humans naturally have something that eases them into a huge commitment. Like C.S Lewis says, "It's on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.”
"Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last but feelings come and go."
Sometimes there is just no point in being in a romantic relationship, in which case we have the power to put those feelings on hold or let them die out. This can be sad sometimes, but despite what the corny soap-operas say, people are capable of moving on. They're made that way and do all the time.
Odds are, that crush you have on that guy at school isn't going to matter in the next year. Month. Week.
When two twerpy teenagers are only capable of kissing and, as someone once called them, the "pukey bits of being in love," that can easily be called making romance into too much of a priority.
Is romance just a fun, cute hobby, or is it a serious commitment? If we glorify only the "fun" part, then isn't it just like "a world in which trees were always blooming but never giving fruit, a world full of sign-posts that were leading nowhere?"
And furthermore sometimes aren't there other equally as serious (or more serious) of commitments that we can sacrifice romance for?
In Harry Potter (I think this is the only Young Adult book I've praised on here so far), Harry refrains from getting in a relationship with Ginny because he has things to do. He has to defeat Voldemort and he understands that. When he does get in a relationship with Ginny (after everything is completely resolved), he actually marries her.
They didn't act like Ron and Lavender who had no purpose or goals for their relationship other than selfish pleasure.
Is pleasure wrong? No. I'm just saying there's more.
I have read books that the author will have two teenagers make out, and then in some other part of the book, talk about them thinking of their future. Many times they say things like, "Would I ever actually marry Fang? I don't know if I see myself ever getting married or having a family. I'm just too much of a free-spirit."
It's all part of the way relationships are watered down in these stories. Yes, they're usually just kids who can't do anything else anyway. So why do anything at all?
From Maximum Ride:
Then somehow we slid sideways so we were lying in the cool sand. I was holding him fiercely, and he was kissing me fiercely, and it was...just so, so intensely good.
Sorry, what? Is this the only kind of thing we get in relationships for? Because it feels good? Whether we're kids or adults, boys or girls, 100-year-olds disguised as teenagers, animals, married, single, on the run, trying to defeat an evil villain and prevent a war, etc? Our number one priority is to "get in a relationship" which here only means consenting to make out with someone because you decide you have a "feeling" that you want to?
In the world of Young Adult literature there is only one kind of love: romantic love. The definition of which, they (indirectly or otherwise) tell us, means seeing a hot person, labeling them "your boyfriend," kissing them and then.........
Well, it never gets that far. The story always ends.
They get married? No, they ruled that out.
They break up? I guess so. It's the only thing left. See how this doesn't work?
"They're just getting practice."
As a wise person once sarcastically said, "Yeah, that's just what I want out of a wife. One who's had plenty of practice!"
There are plenty of successful marriages where nobody got any "practice...." But I suspect that's just a whipped up excuse people don't really believe anyway.
"Well, maybe they are going to get married."
Cool. So why are they making out nine years in advance?
"What's wrong with that?"
It's over-valuing something that is a very small part of something that is much larger. It causes us to lose sight of that larger thing... especially when it's mandatory of every eleven year old protagonist.
50% divorce rate? Well duh. Pleasure is not an end in itself. It's a factor, and one of the smaller ones. Relationships based on pleasure aren't true "love," no matter what we label them as.
"Real love is to will the good of the beloved." Romantic love is the same, with the addition of a commitment that you must will the good of. Why do Young Adult books forget this? Otherwise there is no point. Romance isn't something that appeared in human nature for no reason other than for stupid kids to clown around with.
"It's just puppy love."
Why don't books portray this as immature if that's what it is? Why is it portrayed as serious and important?
Why do we make fun of Twilight, but turn a blind eye to the crap from which it was spawned?
Enough of this shallow idea of love.
On a side note, what's with kids being encouraged to over-analyze and flaunt their "sexual orientations" these days? In the first place, since when is that a fun little game that we ask each other about in question tags?
Ten year olds:
1. do u like wafflez? :3
2. WHAT'S YOU SEXUAL ORIETNTASHION?111"
Well im attratced to anime characters who are boys but also some furries so I think im like bi or something
Seriously though, does ANYBODY reading your deviantArt bio need to know how you feel about sex? Why do we need to dwell on that at all? As if we had love all worked out in the first place. :l Fun times we live in.