Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

:iconmakingfunofstuff: More from MakingFunOfStuff

Featured in Collections

Style-Tutorial and how to by liltcat

Helpful Works and Lessons by Axe-Cell

Writing by KitaMikichi

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
March 31
Submitted with Writer


923 (1 today)
51 (who?)
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

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.
An extension of:…
I'd like to ask everyone who sees this to please read the original first if possible. I felt like the first one didn't explain things far enough... I had more to say, (especially after this fight I got in after reading the Mark of Athena).

Might I take this opportunity to encourage everyone reading this to read C.S Lewis (no, not just Narnia). He has the BEST quotes, and makes fun of things 100000 times better than I can. Even if you just looked up some of his quotes, it would be well worth your time.

Read my other deviations making fun of stupid books:
Why you might want to reconsider writing about "bullies:"…
How to judge a book by its cover:…
Mary Sue is an attitude:…
Is your story too shallow?…
Most common cliches in story-telling:…
Problems with self-inserts:…

Side thoughts: The more I think about it, I really don't believe in labeling yourself as "gay" or "straight" or "bi." It implies that you have to act on -and furthermore think about in the first place- what your sexual attractions are. And no, I don't believe it's "natural," to overthink that and have to have an answer for it. Whenever people ask me "what I am," I just say I'm nothing. No, not straight. No, not asexual. I have a right to just plain refuse to play this game, as do others who don't care about it. Stop asking people how they feel about sex the same way you ask them about their age and their name. If I ever get married, it DARN well won't be because of how I feel about sex. People on deviantArt can ship as many kinds of pairings as they want, it doesn't mean real human beings are as uncomplicated as your Hetalia OCs and have no free-will whatsoever. Does anyone else ever feel the same way?

Hey, this is kind of irrelevant, but my good friend has a petition that maybe you could consider signing. It's about filters on dA not doing a good enough job and making the kids who look up fan art from My Little Pony and Phineas and Ferb have to see basically X rated material. Even if it doesn't bother you, remember that a better filter that others could turn on wouldn't hurt anyone, so be considerate if you can. Thanks:…
Add a Comment:
wilelle Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2014  New member Hobbyist Writer
Now I feel happy. In the book I'm writing I managed to avoid all the don'ts you pointed out, even though I thought I would add in tons of dumb cliches for sure. I thought I sucked at writing love stories, but based on this I'm at least passable. I guess being asexual helps me care less about the whole "attraction" part and focus more the truly important stuff.

Very informative, and I'll make sure to check out the rest of your pages to make sure I didn't screw up in some other area.
drop-of-amethyst Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2014  Student Traditional Artist
Very well-written and you made some great points, but I really disagree with one thing you wrote:

"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."

Personally, I think somebody can be in love and not want to get married or have kids. I mean, if you've been dating somebody for years, you certainly don't feel the same way towards them than you feel towards a sibling. Romantic love can exist without marriage/children.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that there doesn't have to be a point to love. There's no goal or anything. Maybe you're just in love with somebody and want to be with them. Relationships come and go, and a couple that has been dating for a few weeks could love each other just as much as a couple that has been married for years.

There's a million different definitions of love.

However, if you have a different opinion, that's fine of course :)
MakingFunOfStuff Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2014
Well, that was really the whole point of the essay.

I'm not claiming people *can't* be in love without goals. I'm questioning the point in over-emphasizing it if this is the case. Why should I take their relationship seriously and act as if it's important if it's essentially only something about their personal pleasure?

I think that's why soap operas get made fun of, and a lot of teen romance. It's love watered down to be for the least important things, but trying to act as if it's still the most important thing in the world... and it just isn't.

I think the meaningful part of their relationship is really just friendship and if they have no goals, why get into physical displays of affection? That's when things tend to get problematic and shallow.

Thanks for the comment and your input, btw. I like when people leave long comments, and to talk about things like this.
KitaMikichi Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2014  Student General Artist
THANK YOU!!! *round of applause*
Petitspas Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2014
Er wait...are you saying if you make out before marriage you aren't really in love ? XD 

You're also excluding something. Love can stay or it can vanish. And it has nothing to do with "it isn't love" it's just as "idealistic" as those romance you're accusing, and as idealistic as thinking you can only have a single love in your life. We change over time, people change over time, there's nothing wrong with that. You might have gotten along with a friend (friendship is a form of love) but over time it can change because the two of you became too different. It's the same with love. Waste of time ? Well...then any relationship basically is one, you never know if it will last or not, be it love, friendship, family, etc. 99% of your relationships are a waste of time then.

If it is true a lot of people just get into a relationship for the sake of it, it is also true that a lot of young people think they are honestly in love. The reason why it so quickly fades is because of their idealistic view of love and not because they weren't in love (of course you also have people convincing themselves they are in love). Most people think love is a one phase stuff when it actually has several phases. Most couples break up with the second one.

You also seem to be against sex for sex. Well...whether you want it or not, that desire is...natural...reproduction. Sure, you can say nowadays it is for pleasure and not reproduction, but if it is pleasurable it's for us to actually reproducte (initially). And whether you want it or not, a human body has hormones telling you to "reproducte". Now, we should not use that as an excuse for any behaviour. But what I want to say is, you can't blame people for sexual need. And as long as the two people clearly know there's no "love" well, I don't see anything wrong in that. Oh and scientists have a biological explanation for love too, by the way...
MakingFunOfStuff Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2014
Actually, I'm just pointing out that when you're a twerpy 11 year old, it's always going to be a waste of time. You're right people can change their minds. So why get in a relationship at a time in life when there is no point? It's unnecessary... At least, since I was talking about books, it's very annoying to be portrayed as something we have to take seriously.

When did I say I was against sex...? 
I mean, it is pretty stupid to have on a whim just because you "feel" like it, if that's what you mean.
Petitspas Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2014
Well, being in love when you're 11 is something I can't really imagine...but who are we tell people when they should start to have feelings ? I agree books have a tendancy to show unrealistic relationships.'s the aim...most books' aim is to sell dreams, not reality. The problem is when you are awaiting relationships like they are in books.

It was the impression I was having...sorry ?
MakingFunOfStuff Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2014
Wait, have feelings?
I'm not saying they can't have feelings. I'm talking about acting on those feelings as if they're the most significant thing regardless of circumstances and common sense. My whole point is that we're not slaves to our passions... if they can even be called such from 13 year olds, but hey.
It's even worse if that's how you treat sex, but that wasn't really what I even had in mind while writing this. Unless you mean the thing at the end, which was again, just about feelings (feelings about sex; otherwise known as your "orientation").
Basically you can sum up the whole deviation by saying it's dumb to take our fickle feelings too seriously. 
Maybe that's a selfish, shallow dream for books to be selling and encouraging?
Petitspas Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2014
I agree, we shouldn't be slaves to our passions, and we shouldn't be slaves to our reason either. Those both statements are true. But here once it really to anyone to tell someone when they should have their first intercourse (or any intercourse at all) ? It's something personal. People make mistakes in life, you can't avoid it, and it's as important as good experiences. And again, when can we say someone is really ready for it ?

Anyway, for 11-13 young people, yeah...I think they're just unable to tell stuff apart, but as I say below, fighting fictions won't solve it, it's fighting the wrong enemy.

Books, movies, everything sell us dreams (and not only regarding love), BUT the real issue is when people are unable to make a difference between reality and fiction. "Perfect" romance were already there in myths. You're fighting the wrong enemy. It's not those dreams you should chase, it's when people aren't able to tell things apart anymore. We are sold dreams to be able to forget about reality a little. Is it bad ? I personally don't think so. And in a way, it's honest. You can try as hard as you want, fiction will always stay fiction, it'll never be able to go to the level of complexity of a real human being. The relationship you'll create with characters (be it love, friendhsip, family, etc.- will always be idealized in some ways, be it negatively or positvely.
MakingFunOfStuff Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2014
I really wasn't talking about sex, so I'm not too sure what you're getting at. I was talking about "getting in relationships" like it's a fun little hobby for kids.

My concern for this happening in books is for the reason that it promotes it. They're presented in ways we're supposed to take seriously. And the thing is, it's EVERY book too. Yeah, it's fiction but when it's not treated that way it can cause problems. Imagine if every book was portraying selfish brats as role models until we just accepted it? Sometimes we need to step up and say enough is enough, and we're better than this. That's all I'm doing here.
Add a Comment: