I read this article with some scepticism - you can find it here (it's safe to read). It's called "How to fall in love with anyone: ask 36 questions and stare into their eyes for 4 minutes."
Before I read the article I scoffed that it was possible! But after reading the article, I realised my scepticism came from the understanding/definition of "fall in love".
The 36 questions are in-depth, long, and would take an age to ask and answer properly. They would definitely create intimacy between the couple, because there's a deep sharing of personal feelings, views, hopes, dreams and values. At the end of that time, I think the intimacy would be incredible. You'd know the other person so well, maybe better than anyone you'd ever known before.
To know someone that well, and then to stare into their soul for four minutes, would create a bond. A deep bond. Tantric sex uses a similar bonding process of staring into your partner's gaze as an initiation of foreplay. It strengthens the union, and centres the two people to each other.
So I have no doubt this method creates an intimacy and depth of emotion not often experienced by people.
But is this love?
And then, what is love?
My concern for the 36 questions and 4 minutes method is that it's quick. I wonder if it is something that will bind you for a serious length of time? Will it hold you through the horrible times you might experience? Will it cement your relationship in a mutual respect and admiration?
But then, is that love?
Darn! I don't know. That's what I think of as love - but then I waver. Does love have to be enduring an eternal? Can love be respecting another, with no time frame given?
And this is why I love/hate blogging. It makes me think and question too much. I start out thinking something and by the time I've argued my point, often I've changed my own thoughts!
So...do you have thoughts on the article, or love?
Before I read the article I scoffed that it was possible! But after reading the article, I realised my scepticism came from the understanding/definition of "fall in love".
The 36 questions are in-depth, long, and would take an age to ask and answer properly. They would definitely create intimacy between the couple, because there's a deep sharing of personal feelings, views, hopes, dreams and values. At the end of that time, I think the intimacy would be incredible. You'd know the other person so well, maybe better than anyone you'd ever known before.
To know someone that well, and then to stare into their soul for four minutes, would create a bond. A deep bond. Tantric sex uses a similar bonding process of staring into your partner's gaze as an initiation of foreplay. It strengthens the union, and centres the two people to each other.
So I have no doubt this method creates an intimacy and depth of emotion not often experienced by people.
But is this love?
And then, what is love?
My concern for the 36 questions and 4 minutes method is that it's quick. I wonder if it is something that will bind you for a serious length of time? Will it hold you through the horrible times you might experience? Will it cement your relationship in a mutual respect and admiration?
But then, is that love?
Darn! I don't know. That's what I think of as love - but then I waver. Does love have to be enduring an eternal? Can love be respecting another, with no time frame given?
And this is why I love/hate blogging. It makes me think and question too much. I start out thinking something and by the time I've argued my point, often I've changed my own thoughts!
So...do you have thoughts on the article, or love?
In Kylie Kaden's book, Losing Kate, she has a segment where they try this 'stare into your eyes for 3 minutes' theory... or it might not be 3 minutes, I can't remember exactly, but the theory was the same.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, they were already in love - they just didn't know it!
Oh, I've read that and now you mention it I do remember. Thanks, Lily.
ReplyDeleteCate xo