What do you believe are the psychological dynamics of your romantic love?

Occasionally I like to make a thread asking other posters how they experience romantic love with their partners. This has been a topic that has greatly interested yet frustrated me for about my whole life.

Regarding my romantic orientation I identify as a sadist empath. Meaning I can only feel romantic love in the context of a woman in pain or suffering. I believe a major component of this attraction is vulnerability. A trait that makes a woman extremely feminine in vibe.

Just as many women seem to find strength and dominance highly masculine in men, I believe many men find the other side of the coin.. weakness and vulnerability highly feminine in women. My attractions are far from unique in this aspect and I strongly suspect the vast majority of men share them.. the major difference is that these attractions seem to be hyper intense compared to the average man. So much so that my mind cannot romantically comprehend anything else.

James Giles has some interesting thoughts about this topic. I know the word sadism scares or upsets some people, but the underlying psychology is probably not as void of morality and decency as you might think.


I have always been insecure about these romantic attractions. During my Christian days I thought my mind was hopelessly warped and potentially evil. As I grew older and became an atheist and developed a deeper comprehension of this psychology and discovered the mechanisms and attractions are not as horrid as it superficially appears.. sadly the insecurity and shame still persists.

Sadism itself is just an expression of empathy, so logically we are capable of feeling guilt and whatnot. Psychological studies are finally picking up on this. Sadists Feel Sad After They Are Sadistic (newsweek.com). If sadism was just an expression of psychopathy (lack of empathy) I wouldn't be dealing with so much conflicted thoughts and emotional distress.

People sometimes wonder why I as a man in my early 30s is single and not married and this is the biggest reason. While the science isn't quote there yet.. I do find it humbling how much damage and heartache a few simple mutations and genetic lines of code can cause a person.

Life would be so much easier if I could just love like a normal person. Which I do not even know what the psychology of that is.. which is why I made this thread. Your turn.

Ahermit said:

The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] said 'beat me, beat me', and the sadist said 'no'.
Both imagine love as a transference of control from, or to, another person. Both are conditional.

Click to expand...

That is not true for me at all. Power dynamics have never been a particularly strong appeal for me. While the original usage of the terms sadism and masochism during the late 19th and early 20th centuries had more of power dynamic tone to them, the modern usage is much more open to interpretation and less tied to the concept of domination and submission.

True love is unconditional. The love of the truth for and from each other is central. Truth is being genuine, authentic, reliable, forgiving, supporting, unchanging, unconditional...

The ego-mind fears this truth. It fears the vulnerability and exposure of being invalidated / worthless; which it is anyway, for the ego-mind is only a self-fabricated story of worth so the mind can identity itself. The mind uses body senses to make sense of this world, but it cannot sense itself, so it fabricates its own meaning...hence the ego. In other words, the ego-self is a lie; and truth is its greatest threat.

Worldly people have been busy creating a whole world (life), regardless how twisted it gets for self, based on their own lie. This also includes their own understanding of what love is. Their psyche has been formed based on fear of their own truth. Basically we live in a fear-based conditional world.

Click to expand...

Admittedly I am having a difficult time comprehending what you are talking about. I want this thread to be civil and do not mean offense but the idea of "unconditional love" seems silly. Perhaps there are some genetic mutations where people are like that, still I imagine unconditional love isn't true for most. Which I don't know why one would strive for that. Sometimes it's best to break it off with someone. I believe even the new testament is fine with divorce if the other partner cheats on them.

Unless you mean something else by "unconditional love". Taking the concept literally, and I'm not sure why one shouldn't.

Ahermit said:

True.

When a person is unconditional they are open to the truth, and are truthful in a loving way. The are fearless of the truth. If the other person remains conditional, they will fear the truth, and strive to break away from it. often, in this world, the truthful find themselves in solitude enjoying the truth _ the greater reality. They are seen, but not seen, so to speak.

Everybody has a love for the truth, but most don't want to be with it for long. Denial dominates them. In short, the truth reveals that everybody is totally responsible for their own thoughts and actions. In other words, there is no longer a need for blame, control, emotional blackmail, role playing, and other conditionalities to get security (false-love) for self.

Though the conditional person will use conditionalities, the true person will 'know' that all this is fear-based and out of empathy will lovingly reveal help the other person to face their own fears. In doing so, the other person becomes free (the truth will set the person free from their fears). The true person can never be taken hostage, unless they compromise the truth.

Unconditional relationships support each other in truth, which is expressed a faithful loving way.

Click to expand...

Still unsure what you mean by "truth". Can sadomasochistic relationships value openness and "truth"? I find that we tend to be more introspective than most.. because we don't have the same luxury not to be.

Even within that group I consider myself highly introspective. One who highly values psychology precisely because I want to understand the truth of my feelings and the feelings of others. While I am insecure about my romantic inclinations I feel like I do understand the logic behind them quite well. The few women I've been with.. I've been quite open.. to the shock and amazement from them. I am not one to want to keep secrets from a potential partner. I believe the more that is understood and out in the open the healthier the relationship is.

I think there is a deep biological core for many romantic/relationship orientations. This core being the "child" and "parent" dynamic. Something born out of the evolutionary history of human neoteny. Neoteny being the retention of childlike traits.. physical and mental into adulthood. Women being more neotenous on average than men. Reduced brow ridges, smaller skeletal structure, large tear ducts, higher pitched voice.. etc. Being more neotenous has social advantages. Having more childlike traits piggyback's on the already evolved cues we developed to be more caring and protective of children. Women rather than men being more heavily selected for neotenous traits due to the fact women are much more valuable reproductively. One man can impregnate multiple women with ease, but a woman has to invest more than several months into a pregnancy.

People who focus too much physical looks can be classified as "shallow" but I do not think this is really fair. In reality I believe physical looks have deeper evolved psychological attractions behind them.

Women on average find tall, broad shoulders, muscles and a deep voice to be very attractive and masculine in a man. What do these traits signify? A man who is capable of strength and dominance, and able to protect their woman and probably also more easily climb the social ladder. On the flip side men tend to find youthfulness and neoteny very attractive and feminine in a woman. What do these traits signify? A reproductively relevant woman who has cues that elicit help and concern.

You end up with woman who desire dominate and strong men, and men who desire paradoxically weak and vulnerable woman. These traits are highly valued within the vanilla word or the various fetishistic ones. The difference being the degrees of extremity for feminine and masculine traits. Damsel and distress themes have been popular in fiction for centuries. The vulnerable woman (often in bondage) who is in distress and danger that needs a strong and capable man to save her. A common literary theme appreciated from people from all walks of life. Vanilla or more fetishistic.

While I believe people into BDSM are born more sensitive to neotenous inspired cues, adult baby lifestyle couples probably engage in a more extreme expression of it. The "child" and "parent" aspect cannot get much more literal here.. lol.

Hmmm.. not sure how to properly phrase this question. I created this thread in the hopes of getting a better insight into the psychology and appeal of more typical relationships. The only real reason I brought up my relationship style is to offer context in how to respond to my question. While I find suffering to be my romantic fuel.. what is yours?

I know couples go on romantic dates and whatnot, what are they getting from it?

Ahermit said:

Deeper introspection reveals that anger is a fear of not getting what one wants. Angry people are simply afraid. If they were 'honest' they would say that they are afraid. Observation, another part of introspection, reveals that the only way to deal with fear is to face it. Fear is a tension, it needs to be detensified. We deal with fearful people in a calm gentle way. So too is how the angry person needs to become _ it is an act of faith. Then anger becomes more 'honest' and the truth of it becomes revealed; such as, "I am afraid to be vulnerable and exposed as a person who cannot cope". Or deeper still, "I forgot that I am okay, that I have always been okay, and still okay regardless of what is happening".

If they remember the last bit, that they are always okay regardless, then there is no need to be angry or blame.

Click to expand...

I am still not sure what you are going with this? Are your posts just accusing me of things? I cannot help but wonder if they are, just due to the past of how people have treated me when I've shared my romantic inclinations. While I am someone who highly values and promotes free speech and tries my best not to act like an SJW, especially when my pet issues are concerned. I do not believe in just "respect" just for the sake of it or someone is a bigot if they feel differently. I am fine with and expect criticism in this thread, but I do not want all my responses to encompass just that. I have stated in my first post that I do experience insecurity and guilt regarding my romantic inclinations.

I did not make this thread to sway anyone.. my 30 some years of life has shown me this is a mostly fruitless endeavor.. I simply created this thread because I genuinely want to know the psychology and emotions of how normal romance works.

I am honestly bummed out regarding how this thread has thus turned out. I do not get a lot of opportunities to ask these questions, and for whatever reason I cannot really find any answers online. When your romantic inclinations are more normal.. you're not really compelled to come up with terminology to explain them. They're just the "default". I brought up mine in the hopes of providing some context in order to respond too. If people think my ideas of romantic love are vile and fake.. fine.. but explain how I should mend my ways? How do I learn to experience romance in more normal ways? What is the psychology of it? What steps do I take?

Really.. I'd be thrilled if I could learn how. I wouldn't have to deal with so many burdens I do now. I certainly am not fearful and hesitant to know. You won't meet resistance on my end. I will ask questions and scrutinize things that I feel do not make sense or are deceptive.. but only in the best of faith.

Something I have always found curious and wondered about.. occasionally I watch romance films in an attempt to get a better idea of psychology and appeal of vanilla romance. The issue is.. most of them are filled with sorrow, tragedy and angst. If things do improve in the story that is when the credits start to roll. If non-suffering based romance is felt by others, why does it never seem to be worthy of any real screen time?

What I am talking about are more mainstream movies mind you. I've had the displeasure of growing up in a mostly female household and was consequently privy to having to consume a lot of women "entertainment". Like Lifetime Original movies. Some men joke as the "Wife beater" channel. Filled with creepy stalkers, sexual and physical abuse and murderous men who are often quite charming and good looking. When 50 Shades Of Grey became a global sensation it did not come as a shock to me.

Ahermit said:

Sharing my introspection, as a human being, into what is true.

No. I am just expressing what I know is true for me.

In society, most people, what is normal is tainted with what we want from the other person. It has a 'must get something in return' agenda for expressing romance. If they don't get what they want all sorts of psychological manifestations arise, such as anger, jealousy, suspicion, and other fear-based expressions. This is what is normal.

I think you are asking what is normal without it being tainted with self. If so, then the untainted normal romance is simply loving the love that loves you. That is, love what is loving you from the other persons heart and nothing else. If the person chooses not to express their unconditional true love, then what they do express is tainted. One can ignore it and simply keep loving the unconditional love (unfortunately now in bondage) in them. Just because we may not like where the other is consciously, does not mean we cannot still unconditionally love them.

All I am writing in these posts to you is what is true for me. All these posts have been expressions of what we discover from our own introspections of what is true about ourselves as a human being. If one goes deeper than the other is prepared to go themselves, then a threat may arise.

Societies 'normal' romances fear to go too deep. People tend to only like people who keep them safe from deeper truths about themselves. They appease them, in the hope of being appeased back. This is normally called co-dependency.

I am a hermit by choice, to get away from the games that people constantly play. They are hardly ever genuine or real (true) to themselves and others. It's a crazy world we live in.

Click to expand...

I'd imagine a person needs at least some conditions to feel romantic love. Being the opposite sex (at least for heterosexuals), having at least some resemblance of being physically attractive.. maybe the latter becoming less important with time.

I'm an atheist who is heavily into evolutionary psychology. The idea of just love for the sake of love.. especially in the romantic sense seems almost impossible.. more a feel good idea that has no real connection with reality. One might be able to fool their mind into thinking they are achieving this.. but if you peel back the layers.. I think people will still have conditions that need to be met. Also you cannot predict the future.. you do not really know if your love cannot be challenged.

I think the honest person acknowledges this.. and if someone claims otherwise.. well for me.. that'd be a strike against them.

Ahermit said:

We all still have an ego story about self, the root of all our fears. It perceives threats and challenges. It's who we are. Change is not about never feeling a challenge, nor fears, such as anger, jealousy, etc. The point is to be aware of what is truly happening with the ego-self, and then deal with it. The truth of the challenge / fear is in itself a fabricated story of not being okay to deal with it. A person of faith knows that they are okay regardless, and can deal with not-okayness of their own ego-self as it arises. Their 'knowing' to be okay keeps them open-hearted to the truth of what is really happening inside and outside of them... they become a person of discernment. A person who can remain genuine and authentic; a truthful, faithful and loving person.

Click to expand...

I do think this is interesting.. I tend to view love as suffering based vs non- suffering based.. yet some people view it as more.. spiritual based vs non- spiritual based.

As far as ego though.. I do view sadism as ironically less ego driven than masochism (in most cases). I know some studies indicate that subjects while in a state of masochism have a reduced capacity for empathy.

Sadism does require empathy for another to exist.. done for good or bad reasons.. it still needs empathy. Masochism not so much. Unless the relationship is abusive.. the sadist tends to do most of the emotional labor and caring. Really a reverse with what some people think goes on in such relationships.