Yeah, that’s how it goes, isn’t it? I’m glad you found the story relatable, though. That’s part of why I posted it here—for others to maybe see themselves a little bit in the traditions I come from.
———
Truth be told, I’m too lazy to go back and quote all the things I’m tempted to reply to, and I’m not even sure I should, at that. While I don’t expect any IGS thread to be all sunshine and flowers, I do want to keep this one from spiralling into further pettiness and darkness than what’s already touched it. (And I probably shouldn’t have dragged the old “my peers don’t like me” argument in here. I regret going there.)
Suffice to say that some of what I’ve seen here about love is… pretty depressing. I don’t say that to invalidate anyone’s views, just as you wouldn’t invalidate mine; but it does help me understand these different mindsets on the topic.
After all, my goal was to introduce the concept of love that I was raised in and that I continue to adhere to today. That this concept seems to be incompatible with the views of many of yours, from so many different parts of the cluster, helps me to understand why not only my relationship, but my approach to hot-button issues in general can be so hard for others to conceive of. And I’ve tried my best to illustrate it here.
This concept is the basis of everything I do, both by my own choice and as ordered by my superiors, who ascribe to the same. So… in short, I guess, if you see me do something that seems strange, the reason is probably tucked away in here.
We exist for the sake of one another, the flaw in the petty and cynical arguments here is in the attempt make love narrow.
Duty, loyalty, family, comradeship, these are all hollow in absence of love. If romantic love displaces all others, it speaks not to the intensity of the romance, only the weakness of a fickle heart.
I don’t think it’s pretty or cynical to place duty, loyalty, family, or comradeship above romantic interests. The real objective should be to ensure that love does not create conflict with personal commitments or obligations. Speaking personally, I had to hunt down and kill many people who I loved deeply as my kirjuun. I had known them for many years, in some cases I even thought of them as my own children. However, despite my love for them, I had as my duty to kill each of them as traitors. Even as they died, I still loved each and every one of them.
Killing the ones you love out of a sense of duty is an extreme example but I think the sentiment of being willing to experience personal pain and loss to achieve a greater good should exist. To do otherwise is just selfishness, regardless of what saccharine opinions are sought to cover up individual desire as an ideal to be pursued.
Several historical records refer to them as an empire. I don’t know how accurate that was, seeing as records of the time are spotty. It might have just been an Imperial label for them rather than what the Minmatar nation called themselves.
Some evidence suggests a head of state with at least significant figurative value, but to know if they were called something that translates “emperor” would be easier if we had, don’t know, surviving languages from the time and place of that evidence.
Sex is no commitment at all. That’s not to say that you claimed it was, mind, but often, when people speak of ‘lovers’ what they mean is ‘people with whom you are physically intimate, in addition to any other connection that may exist’. But then, sex is not love, and love doesn’t often respect any sort of logical or rational analysis.
There is no choosing a lover over kin… or kin over your partner. You must meet your obligations to both. If they come into conflict, you are obligated to both to attempt to find a way to resolve the conflict. It may well be that no resolution exists… but that does not release you from the obligation to find it. It only means that you will fail, unless conditions change.
But there is a difference between failure, and treachery. And I cannot help but see the latter in ‘gladly’ throwing either side ‘under the bus’. Or in expecting your partner to sacrifice themselves for your obligations.
It’s easy enough to think of that in the abstract, to say ‘oh, of course if they love you, they’ll make that sacrifice for you’, and from a removed, dispassionate place, perhaps that’s true. But that line of thinking is also manipulative, and venal. It leads to ‘If there’s trouble, my partner will be willing to take the fall for it’. So while an honorable partner should, in theory, be willing to jump under the bus, as you say… if they had an honorable partner, that person would move the stars themselves to prevent such a sacrifice from being necessary.
Or at least, they’d try. And quite probably fail. But of such failures are celebrated Tragedies born.
There are certainly cases when when choosing one over the other exists. Personal feelings aside, choosing to pursue a relationship that you know will cause a conflict between the two (in this case, a lover and Kin) is a betrayal to both, and you are purposefully putting yourself in that position. In the best case scenario it can be chalked up to Naivety - either not realizing the conflict exists, or believing the conflict to be irrelevant. It could also be a choice made on purpose - to actively choose the conflict.
You misunderstand my meaning, I’m afraid. Yes, there are situations where someone may feel they have to choose one or the other. No, they do not have to. They can choose instead to attempt to resolve the situation, even to change conditions so that the conflict is altered and can be resolved. They may fail in the attempt… but again, that is only failure. To choose one, no matter which one, over the other is treachery and betrayal. And nothing they do from that point forward can ever be trusted.
Not inherently. If that were true, then the Tribes themselves would fall apart. Marriage outside the Clan would be a betrayal of both Clan and Spouse—because there will be conflicts. They may be trivial ones, which can be easily resolved, but they’ll still be conflicts. Anyone who thinks those conflicts won’t happen is, as you put it, naive at best.
Rather, such a relationship is simply a further commitment to work to avoid the two coming into conflict when you can, and to resolve the conflicts when they can’t be avoided. Are some conflicts so large as to seem insurmountable? Of course. Should people avoid making commitments they know will inevitably draw them into insurmountable conflicts? Duh.
But where some see ‘insurmountable conflict’, other see a motivation to work harder, reach higher, to find another way. If they fail in the attempt, well, they failed. People have a tendency to do that, from time to time. But failures teach us what not to do. Betrayals teach us only who not to trust.
Love isn’t chosen or directed; actions are. Choosing a path that favours your people or your love is not is not a choice between them. It is the choice of who you want to be, a choice likely influenced by both.
Those who pursue love despite conflicts that seem insurmountable risk much, and fail often, but that failure can be forgiven. Never to have risked or have failed, is a failure of being that no forgiveness can ever salve.
Passion is feeling. So is attraction, affection, infatuation, loyalty, joy, and what ever other word that has been thrown around this thread.
Love on the other hand is indeed a choice. Love is a choice you make daily, through your actions towards the person or entity that is the object of affection. It takes work. There will be times where you hate the thing you love, question why you are doing it, but you do it regardless. That is love.
Pursuing a romantic relationship, despite the odds faced upon you is Indeed love, because that pursuit is an active choice. No one here I think has questioned the sincerity of Melisma’s message - She is actively choosing to pursue her relationship, despite what we her peers, and what I can only imagine her other familiar connections must be saying. I believe her when she say’s she is in love.
One might say that that wasn’t really love at all, was it? Or that the love of the self and the choices and the allegiances one holds were loved more than the person. I’ve seen that happen. I’ve done that. So, really, I get it.
Understanding and agreement are two different things. I would go out on a limb and say a number of people here do understand your point. We just disagree with you.
Without speaking for her, I appears to me that Melisma was looking for acceptance when she talks of ‘understanding’ more than agreement. Based on her method of doing so, I would imagine it particularly being acceptance from a specific individual but that’s a layer of speculation I don’t wish to delve into.
However, expecting people to cast aside their prejudices - be they justified or not - because love conquers all is something I have recently discovered is a common trope in holonovels and seems a bit naive in real life. But I find the hope that the two sides may be able to be reconciled and be accepting of such a situation to be admirable.
The concern for me is that by putting one’s head above the parapet so in a time of increased tension, you make your personal life the target of public politics and that level of pressure can’t be good for a relationship. For instance, had a certain Caldari officer accepted my advances once upon a time, a long, long time ago, I see now that it could never have worked. The Caldari/Gallente cultural ‘baggage’ she has coupled with two very public personas that many would have liked to see be torn down would eventually have tipped the fine line from love to hate.
I mean, it didn’t help that she hates me and was disgusted by the idea but, so I am not accused of slander or libel, I was speaking hypothetically of course.