“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the lack of posting, and would like to thank dear C for taking the initiative. Ideas have been circulating in my head, but unfortunately life has conspired to distract me. I felt inspired by C’s post, and so I’m going to continue in the same vein… I will most likely end up arguing against, agreeing with, extrapolating on and mis- and or re-interpreting the various points C made, so as to continue with the idea of “debatable’s”. Anyhow, I hope our views on such things can maybe give somebody out there something to think about, even if only for a moment. (I also wish that M would write something already – in fact, I wish he’d bloody well get in touch…). (Picture belongs to illbewaiting.deviantart.com I guess)

I would say, just in case there is anyone out there reading this that doesn’t have a homosexual pre-disposition to any extent, (which I suppose is unlikely given that our audience is probably mainly comprised of people from ‘MB’) that… well, I wouldn’t take C’s advice of finding out about ‘MB’ for yourself. I know that for the majority of people out there who are not gay, even considering homosexual acts can be perturbing, and as ‘MB’ is quite overt in many ways, there’d be no need to take a look at something that’s just going to make you feel uncomfortable. Thus I would disagree with C’s thought that “if you don't like it, you're a fool”, as I’m aware for some that it would simply be impossible to like. I do think it’s a pity that, whilst most gay people aren’t repulsed by the idea of heterosexual intercourse, most straight people can’t get their heads around same-sex sexual relations – that’s not to say they don’t accept homosexual relations, just that they can’t understand the attraction. Anyway, I myself was once very fond of ‘MB’. When I discovered it, it was as if I’d suddenly been freed from the shackles of isolation to express, discuss, and explore my sexual identity. I have found over time though that’s its become more of a place to seek attention than anything else, which is possibly one of the reasons for the soon to be implemented format change. But I digress, so now I shall move onto the deeper, more important ideas addressed by C.
Love, as Huey Lewis said, is a curious thing. It makes one man weep, and another man sing. The legend that was Johnny Cash called it a burning thing, which makes a fiery ring, bound by wild desire… Hendrix believed the power of love overcomes the love of power… Perhaps my personal favourite quote regarding love is “A man can be happy with any woman, as long as he does not love her,” (a prize to anyone who can guess who said that). Perhaps the most relevant quotes one has come across in regards to the ideas touched on by C are as follows: love is just a word until someone comes along and gives it meaning; and love is just love, it can never be explained. I was curious as to why C saw fit to “carefully tiptoe around that dangerous 4-letter word”. I mean, he states that he’d told people he’s loved them before and that it was met with… a lack of reciprocation or understanding, but I don’t see this as a reason to deny the feeling of its true significance by not recognising it for what it is.
I think when you get to the stage were you can say that you would do anything for a person and at least mean it a little, then it’s quite safe to admit to yourself that you love them, as opposed to doing so being ‘dangerous’. Indeed, if one gets to the stage where they feel as such, then they, in at least one way, have understood love. Sure, no one can fully comprehend love, because for everyone love is experienced differently, just like other emotions, but one can know how it feels when they themselves are in love. People who believe that you have to be a certain age to understand love are obviously mistaken, but one would say that someone would need to be emotionally mature enough to realise that they are in love. I would say that for most this maturity does not come until the later stages of development, and for a disconcerting amount it does not come at all, but there are plenty of young, intelligent, sensitive and well-rounded people out there who are perfectly capable of experiencing and appreciating love. As for C’s question asking at what age is it okay to name an infatuation "love"… again, I don’t see it as a question of age. There are different kinds of infatuation, and being in love is but one of them. Of course, there are more forms of infatuation that one is able to experience when they are less emotionally mature, such as idolisation, being sexually attracted to someone, or being obsessed with them in a non-romantic sense, but it is only when one has become more in touch with their feelings that they can experience a form a infatuation that encompasses all these things, true affection and more.
Thus, for me, an age gap would only be a concern if it gave me significant doubt as to whether the people involved in a relationship could comprehend, at least to some extent, the emotional implications of what they were involving themselves in, and I do believe that a lot of younger people would be unable to fathom such things. Saying this, there are many young people I know who would form better romantic relationships then many older people I know, so again it’s more a question of maturity as opposed to age. By extension, I believe that if both people in a relationship wish to have sex with one another because of the way they feel for each other, they should be allowed to do so (though I think perhaps people below the age of say ten or eleven are, more likely then not, not going to be emotionally mature enough and thus should probably refrain from sex – plus the fact that they are probably not very sexually developed (and also as it is very much verging deeper into the taboos of modern society).
As for “true love”: I’m sorry C, but any reasonable person should realise that the notion of a perfect, almost pre-determined love, which you refer to as “true love”, is a ridiculous one. As I cannot really be bothered to fully elucidate, I would refer you to the words of a lyricist you know well, the illustrious Tim Minchin: “Look, I'm not undervaluing what we've got when I say/ That given the role chaos inevitably plays in the inherently flawed notion of fate/ It's obtuse to deduce that I've found my soul-mate at the age of 17/ It's just mathematically unlikely that at a university in Perth/ I happened to stumble on the one girl on earth specifically designed for me/ And if I may conjecture a further objection love is nothing to do with destined perfection/ The connection is strengthened, the affection simply grows over time.” However, the definition you come to for “true love” I do both agree and disagree with. “The strongest (feeling) of infatuation that one has ever felt towards another person”… This would imply that some prior experience in the romantic realm would be required for one to comprehend their experience of true love. Hmmm… Okay, sure, one can learn of their capacity for affection and romance by, as you say, going from the love of today to a more deep or significant or heart-felt one tomorrow, and one can measure further feelings of love against these past experiences and deduce how intense their infatuation is, but… it just doesn’t strike me that this is what allows for true love. The definition I prescribe to is different, and is perhaps one some people will have trouble understanding, or rather differentiating from a standard definition of love. It is essentially as the term suggests: true love is love that is true. It is beautiful in its truthfulness. Two people who care for each other more than anything else, who are completely open with each other, who would (like to think that they would) do anything for each other, and who always act true to their feelings for each other. Some might say ‘isn’t that just love?’, but of course we all know that someone can love another yet not care for them more then everything else, not be completely honest with them, not go to the greatest lengths to earn their love, and not always act truly according to their emotions.
Finally, I come to relationships built solely on electronic converse and discourse. I’ve tried it, and, well… whilst it can elicit emotional ties, the majority of the time these can never be fully realised or consummated. Also, in being physically separated from each other, one is not gaining a reasonably full perception of the other involved, and so if one was ever to meet the other for real, their idea of the other formulated in virtuality may differ from how they are in reality. However, this is not to say it can’t work, and I’m sure it probably has for some, but for me… let’s just say I wouldn’t want to start another relationship this way.
I am a bit startled by the revelation that the person you have felt the most for in your entire life is one you know only through the internet, C, but then again, this is you… I jest XD I am happy for you, and a little jealous (though not that much because of the whole being an ocean apart thing) and I think that your ending sentiments in your post were very heart moving, if perhaps a little mawkish. Well, now that I am also sufficiently out of steam, and deeply apologetic to those who have bothered to read this tripe in its entirety, I believe I should call it a day for now.

Sincerely, and with much love (haha)
J xxx

p.s. C, are those two guys in the yaoi pic in your post from an actual series? Please let me know! ;) Oh and in other news, I finished KH: 358/2 Days the other day... so sad. Why can't Axel just admit he loves Roxas!?!?!?