What's Your Love Language?

[dUSt]

It's not just about how you receive love, but how you send it to others. There's nothing inherently selfish about quality time, physical affection, verbal affirmation, or any of the others. Can you make them selfish? Certainly. But there are few things that we can't taint. Humans are creative when it comes to tainting God's gifts.

 

Stop saying taint.

[OnlySunshine]

Stop saying taint.

 

What's "tainted", is that like "painted"?
 

[PhuturePriest]

Unfortunately, sometimes loneliness comes off as being clingy.  I know, having been one of those people.  <_<

 

There really is a double-standard made in society today. If a person you hang out with often says "I just need to be alone for a while", no one questions it. But if you say "I just really need to be with someone right now", you're seen as clingy and weird.

[Ancilla Domini]

What's "tainted", is that like "painted"?
 

 

I always thought it was a contraction of the three words "it is not." 't'ain't  But I suppose not... :P

Edited August 15, 2014 by Ancilla Domini

[PhuturePriest]

Stop saying taint.

 

I am a fickle yapping fetus, and I shall say what I want.

 

But really, at the end of the day you really need to change it back. :P

[veritasluxmea]

Look, I don't want to be harsh, but not having friends/being left out/being bored, lonely is kind of a normal thing to go through.

 

In my experience, people form tight, good friendships in three ways:

1)growing up together through school/church,

2) college, seminary/novitiate time,

3) when you go through an exclusive experience together where you work together and need each other- like mountain climbing, traveling to a conference and sharing experiences and living together through it, being in the army, and so on.

 

If you miss one of those periods- it’s difficult to form bonds with the people around you. I think you can still make acquaintances, friends, be in contact, and that sort of thing, but those are really where deep friendships start. (in general.)

I missed those periods and got stuck. I knew people, but it wasn't enough. It wasn't real friendships. The only way I found to get through it is to learn to really live with myself and enjoy my own company. I literally trained myself to be ok, happy even, with being on the outside. It’s hard, it takes time, it’s not fun, but it’s possible. When I did, I finally found myself… more free. I enjoyed what relationships I had, they were free from jealousy or insecurity, and they became a source of confidence and fun, not a source of wanting what I didn’t have. They’re still light friendships, but good ones, and ones I find myself enjoying, even though I’m not “one of the bros” or whatever. So… Just my two cents.

[Selah]

 

 

The word I would use is "uncomfortable" and this is because I like to keep these things private.  If you want to ask how I show my love for my family and friends then I'm more than willing to discuss this with you.  However, how I express my love for someone I'm romantically involved with is, IMO, none of anyone else's business except, God and my priest.  

 

 

And every person on a nfp board everywhere ever

 

(not directed at you, but holy crap)

[Nihil Obstat]

The only significant thing you've uncovered here is that extraverts struggle more than introverts, and people should pity us. :| Also, we have more ways to suffer for Christ, so we gain more merit in heaven and will therefore be exalted more. Suck it.

Nah, I do not care much about your suffering. :|
From a sort of philosophical perspective, the asymmetry is what I found interesting. It is unusual.

[PhuturePriest]

Nah, I do not care much about your suffering. :|
From a sort of philosophical perspective, the asymmetry is what I found interesting. It is unusual.

 

It is interesting how it works out that way. What are your thoughts on the double-standard I mentioned earlier? In case you missed it, I mentioned how if an introverted person says to a person who wants to hang out with him "I just need to be alone for a while", that's considered perfectly okay. But if an extravert says "I need to be with someone right now", people see him as needy and whiny. What do you think is the cause of this double-standard? Or do you debate its very occurrence?

[OnlySunshine]

There really is a double-standard made in society today. If a person you hang out with often says "I just need to be alone for a while", no one questions it. But if you say "I just really need to be with someone right now", you're seen as clingy and weird.

 

Sometimes, people still are criticized when they want to be alone.  Most people who are introverted like to be by themselves to recharge but are often seen as depressed or crazy because they don't want to be out with people their age. 

[PhuturePriest]

Sometimes, people still are criticized when they want to be alone.  Most people who are introverted like to be by themselves to recharge but are often seen as depressed or crazy because they don't want to be out with people their age. 

 

So people are either depressed and crazy for wanting to be alone after a while, or they are needy and clingy if they want to be around you? I suppose there's no winning in this society.

[OnlySunshine]

So people are either depressed and crazy for wanting to be alone after a while, or they are needy and clingy if they want to be around you? I suppose there's no winning in this society.

 

Nope, life's not fair. 

[OnlySunshine]

That's when you have to ignore society.  Unless you are feeling symptoms of depression, don't let people tell you that you must be crazy.  They just don't understand your personal needs.

[Nihil Obstat]

It is interesting how it works out that way. What are your thoughts on the double-standard I mentioned earlier? In case you missed it, I mentioned how if an introverted person says to a person who wants to hang out with him "I just need to be alone for a while", that's considered perfectly okay. But if an extravert says "I need to be with someone right now", people see him as needy and whiny. What do you think is the cause of this double-standard? Or do you debate its very occurrence?

I would hesitate to call it a double standard, except maybe in some grand transcendent sense. What it comes down to is that you are free to seek companionship and reject companionship. That is all anyone can do. What nobody can do is force companionship, because that is the other party's prerogative. If an introvert wants to be alone, he goes home and sits in the basement and reads a book. Nobody else has to change their behaviour to accommodate him. In an extravert's perfect world, anybody will hang out with him whenever he wants. But free will does preclude this, so I cannot see it as some kind of injustice.

[PhuturePriest]

I would hesitate to call it a double standard, except maybe in some grand transcendent sense. What it comes down to is that you are free to seek companionship and reject companionship. That is all anyone can do. What nobody can do is force companionship, because that is the other party's prerogative. If an introvert wants to be alone, he goes home and sits in the basement and reads a book. Nobody else has to change their behaviour to accommodate him. In an extravert's perfect world, anybody will hang out with him whenever he wants. But free will does preclude this, so I cannot see it as some kind of injustice.

 

I suppose this is why extraverts typically have more friends than introverts. Not particularly because they don't want meaningful relationships, but because they need to access them more often than introverts do, and so having a wider range of friends allows them to do this.