Love vs. Love

[jeanne]

Over the months, there have been various threads that ask in some form or another "what do you love about your partner". I've noticed three types of answers, and I've found myself considering that fact for the last several weeks.

Type 1: I love my partner because of how they make me feel.

Type 2: I love my partner because of how they feel about me.

Type 2: I love my partner because of their characteristics/traits/etc.

Of course, for many people, all three of these 'types' are part of their love for their partner. But, I've noticed often enough to...well, notice...that sometimes the love is one-dimensional.

Which 'type' of love do you think is most important, and why?

[Zarine13]

I've never been in 'love' with someone that didn't 'love' me.

IMO it has to be a combination of the first two you listed (you have 2 #2's there ). What good is it to love someone because they make you feel all happy and fuzzy when they don't think the same of you?

Also if you love someone for their traits, it has to have something backing it up, otherwise it's a bit shallow. *I* need something more substantial.

[Kahlann]

catholic school morality class defined love as "the unconditional concern for the well-being of another."

I always found that to be the easiest and best definition.

Whether you're happy with your partner or mad at them because I thought it would be funny to offer him a cherry when I know he's badly allergic... I wasn't going to actually give it to him I was just teasing cause i didn't want it on my ice cream... We both still care about each other and want what's best.

[jeanne]

I've never been in 'love' with someone that didn't 'love' me.

IMO it has to be a combination of the first two you listed (you have 2 #2's there ). What good is it to love someone because they make you feel all happy and fuzzy when they don't think the same of you?

Also if you love someone for their traits, it has to have something backing it up, otherwise it's a bit shallow. *I* need something more substantial.

Can somebody please explain that whole 'counting' thing to me again?

[TwistedTails]

Can somebody please explain that whole 'counting' thing to me again?

Trying to explain counting in a "Love" thread is just not going to work. Love is the only place where 1+1=1

[damyanti]

I usually get castigated on these threads, but whatever...that never stopped me before.

I’m a love atheist. I don’t believe love is real. I think it’s instinct and social calculation that makes people bond with each other. There is no mystical or supernatural love, there is no "the one"...its brainwashing. Love is real as much as Valentine's Day is a real Holliday, . Only the processes of the brain, that produces the "feeling of love" is scientific.

Once the "hormonal crazines" wears off, at best, what you are left is caring for another person. Love only goes so far- many people 'love' one another for personal gain, such as the relief of loneliness or boredom, or an increase in status, popularity, etc. The number one reason people stay married is Money.

I have the same emotions as other people but I don’t kid myself into thinking that Love is a real emotion. We all care about well being of people close to us, but it doesnt mean there is any real love. Because Love doesnt exist.

Love is any of a number of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection and attachment. The word can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure to intense interpersonal attraction. It is not a single feeling but an emotion built from two or more feelings. And it is not permanent.

Once we have couple of feelings of affection and possibly passion we get an urge to say the words in order to bind the other person with us. Why? Codependence.

Children can't truly love their parents, children are naturally very selfish. They don't become aware of other people's needs until they are older. A baby cries because it wants something, a toddler throws fits because it wants something, and requires someone to fulfill its needs. It grows fond of the parent because it fulfills its needs. "Romantic" bond is no different, we grow fond of the person who fulfills our needs.

One of my favourite sayings is, "Its a good thing they had placed Love into books, because that is the only place where its possible."

[LolitaDoll]

I'd have to say a combination of the first 2 but of course there has to be part of the third as well, imho.

I've fallen in love with others that didn't love me, so that of course is possible but I can't be with someone that doesn't love me as well and vise versa, I can't be with someone that loves me while I don't love them.

I'm fortunate enough to have found someone that fits all three listed types. I am madly in love with him and the way he makes me feel about myself and I know he is madly in love with me and I how make him feel. He has wonderful characteristics that heavily out weight the few flaws he does have. In my opinion, I feel in my heart is the one for me and is my soul-mate.

These are just my personal opinions, of course. I know there are many that disagree about love and such which is perfectly acceptable.

[Ozme52]

Well, maybe part of jeanne's point is that being asked why you love someone... or what their best traits are, and getting an answer that focuses on oneself, makes one wonder where the focus really is...

and of course... in my case... it is indeed all about me...

But seriously, I think that while love and/or admiration has to flow both ways, if you can't verbalize it in any terms other than how he or she makes you feel, or that you love or admire him or her because they chose you... perhaps one is more infatuated than in love.

Or at least... that's my first thought... maybe I'll have something better later.

[Zarine13]

I've fallen in love with others that didn't love me, so that of course is possible but I can't be with someone that doesn't love me as well and vise versa, I can't be with someone that loves me while I don't love them.

Yes! This!

I am so not articulate

[Willsubmit2]

love...I love my Dom so much it aches when I'm away from him for too long. It hurts my heart when I think of him while i'm at work. I love his scent even when it's on his pillow and blankets. My life revolves around Him as His does mine. It really is complicated to define the love my Dom and i have for each other. I just know He's the one i've been waiting for all my life.

[bip0lar]

A quote from Love Actually came to me while i was reading the previous posts. This 11 year old boy is sitting with his step-dad somewhere close to the river in London, and his step-dad asks him what the matter is, fearing the worst. So when the boy tells him that he's in love, the step-dad starts giggling, telling him 'oh, i thought it was something much worse'. The boy's reply was "Worse? Worse than the total agony of being in love?"

Perhaps it's some kind of masochism [well, another kind of masochism] for me to be looking for love even though the feeling isn't fuzzy or sweet or anything nice, because reciprocation is missing. But that's romantic love, which I presume is what we're talking about here.
I've fallen in love with boys, I've fallen in love with guys, I've fallen in love with men, I have occassionally fallen in love with girls, but what i got back, at most, was affection. And i'm not complaining, affection is good--but not always enough.
I understand --and see it, in how i act-- that loving somebody does not depend on whether they love you back [but whether that is good or bad i do not know]. I also don't know whether it would be easier to only love somebody when the feelings are mutual, but I'm guessing that in hypothetical-land that would be exceptional.
However, because of the lack of reciprocation when it comes to feelings, I have come to understand that you either love somebody for completely selfish reasons, because YOU need/want to give something to them or, accordingly, for altruistic reasons, because THEY need/want something and you feel you should give it to them if you can.
I don't think i could apply the love i've felt [in a romantic context] in any of Jeanne's categories other than the second number 2 [lol]. It never made me feel good, it most often made me feel bad, but still, i couldn't change my emotions.
sorry if i rambled on, love's a bitch.

[girlgalwoman]

Type 1: I love my partner because of how they make me feel.
but also I love my partner despite how he made me feel.

Type 2: I love my partner because of how they feel about me.
but also I love my partner despite how he felt about me.

Type 2: I love my partner because of their characteristics/traits/etc.
but also I love my partner in spite of his characteristics/traits/etc.

I think love is a choice, but it is also an emotion. If I left my master, I would grieve and be terribly sad, but ultimately I would find someone else. I think love persists.

I am still a romantic at heart, and I do believe in love. It can be painful, but it can also be cathartic. I keep thinking "love conquers all." Even if it is not true, you have to have faith and believe it if your love is going to survive.

In the end, it is a choice though. You have to choose to stay with someone, and I believe if you choose love, if you choose your relationship, even when it is difficult sometimes, even when it would be easier to move on or to leave someone behind, even when it would be less painful emotionally to run, if you stay, then I think you achieve a stronger and more transcendant love.

Those are my two cents.

[DowntownAmber]

I’m a love atheist. I don’t believe love is real. I think it’s instinct and social calculation that makes people bond with each other.

What's not real about that? Regardless of where you think emotions do or do not come from, and I do agree that love is borne of science so complex most of us will never fully understand it, it is still very much real. Maybe is not a rainbows-dribbling-gumdrops-over-a-field-of-heart-shaped-posies kinda' fairytale, but a feeling is still a damn tangible noun in my book.

To me, love is a response to the the strongest values we hold - where those values come from is a whole 'nother post, but love is that which we desire that reflects us the most deeply, whether or not what we desire is a "good" or a "bad" thing.

I love J because the traits I see in him I respect and often aspire to, I recognize the beauty of characteristics in him that I hold dear. In turn, he "sees" me, and he adores in me the things I am proud of and wish most to share. We understand each other at a level that is deeper than most friendship based relationships, and it is important for each of us to both be known and understood as a partner. We each have emotional eyes that can discern the particular colors of the other, and hands that can feel the texture of the other with heightened sensitivity.

Borne of science? Sure, but who says science can't evolve a soul? Why does an emotion have to be lesser than a beautiful and amazing bit of humanity because it is an evolutionary product? Yeah, love litters the pages of books, but all the pages of books came from within the heads of men, and that to me makes it even more real.

[damyanti]

Frankly dear Amber your post is just a bunch of gibberish. Love as Love does not exist....that is not to say we dont feel.

Usually when people counter my argument with yours they are either pumped full of hormones or (for one reason or another) lying/making it up.

[damyanti]

It always leaves me more than a little flabbergasted when people in arguments about "love" use as evidence how their significant other feels about them....despite the fact it always proves ungrateful to speak in someone elses name. They love you? Really? Do they? It always turns out...they really dont, not so much.

Then again perhaps my values are set too high, .

[suchaminx]

damyanti - I have been enjoying reading this thread but your reply to Amber has just made me really angry!

Why it is gibberish because someone doesn't agree with you and as for accusing someone of lying/making it up I think you are totally out of order

I am going to stop there before I say something I might really regret but I just couldn't let it go with not saying anything

Even if we don't agree with others we can respect that have the right to their opinions just as we have ours

minxy

[damyanti]

Why it is gibberish because someone doesn't agree with you and as for accusing someone of lying/making it up I think you are totally out of order

Gibberish is a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but has no actual meaning. The common theme in gibberish statements is a lack of literal sense, which can also be described as a presence of nonsense.

People who say "love" are magically bestowed virtues of fidelity and truthfulness? Those who evoke love never leave their partners, never cheat, never say it because they want something? They never use it as a smoke screen to hide their selfishness and or dishonesty? They never say love when the truth is lust? People who say "love" never say it without meaning it?

It has been my experience that people who swear by love the most (and feel threatened by my attitude) behave in the manner that confirms my opinion.

In real life "love" never has a "happy" ending. I have yet to see a couple who is flamboyant about their great love actually say it without hiding betrayals. Been there, done that - I prefer the truth and honesty. If I had a dollar for every time when a person who had betrayed and caused hurt to their partner said they love them....I make no apologies for thinking they are liars.

As for making up, LOL...when it comes to men women always read into things what they want it to be the truth not what is.

Fairy tales sound good, but they are made up wishful thinking ....if people want to take that personally they should ask themselves why, because its their problem. I dont care what people tell themselves in order to get through another day, but I have zero tolerance about being patronized over not being a "believer".

[bip0lar]

yes, but damyanti, why is it that in your lovely theory you assume that what you call true love [even though you don't believe in it, i get that] doesn't involve betrayal, or anger, or quarrells? I don't know, if you want to see this notion of love as something utopic and fairy-tale like, then, sure, i don't believe it exists anywhere in the world right now. But i wouldn't go as far as saying that love, despite its shortcomings and drawbacks exists. [the image that always comes to my head when talking about this stuff is an adorable couple i met in the train once, they were feeding each other grapes and giggling like schoolchildren. they had been together for about 50 years, FIFTY EFFING YEARS and their faces were still glowing in each other's presence]
I don't want to try to persuade you that love exists--frankly, even if i tried it apparently would not make a difference--but, just a little note in case you feel like keeping it in mind: no matter how good a knowledge one has of the language and what exactly each word means, there's also the tone in which one writes--and, heck, even i felt a bit angry at your tone. But i'm sure a cup of tea is exactly what i'm missing..

[damyanti]

It wasnt my intention to anger anyone, but I understand why that is....from our early age we have been conditioned to search for something uncatchable. Most people spend their entire lives trying to fill their emptiness with Imitation Love, but all they achieve is an ever-deepening frustration, punctuated by brief moments of superficial satisfaction.

We all want to feel loved. The lack of unconditional love is the cause of most of our anger and confusion. We think about it, hope for it, fantasize about it, go to great lengths to achieve it, and feel that our lives are incomplete without it. As a result people pretend it does exist, that they are the lucky ones who caught it and if only I could find it I would believe it too. Right, . It is not so much about lying to others as it is to ourselves. Where do you think “The wife is always the last to know,“ comes from?

Why cant we admit what relationships are really like instead of all this pretending? Men drive me crazy because they have been trained that that is what women want so they talk nonsense. They cant grasp that I want reality and not "pretend utopia". I have learned that the day the man tells you he loves you is the day he starts lying to you...not because they are bad, but because they feel they can no longer be honest with you.

What is wrong with passion and lust and partnership? What is wrong with admiting who we are and what our needs are instead of playing these games? Why cant we honestly just say "I care about you (a lot)," instead we have to build it up into something it is not. Because that is not how we were raised, thats why.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres. Love never fails. —I Corinthians

This piece of poetry describes the exact characteristics of "real love". When was the last time you met someone who feels like that? The problem is actually with trying to search “Love” in our daily lives...what we should be looking for is Compatibility.

What we confuse for love today are (at best cases) Lust, Infatuation, Affection, Fondness. And there is nothing wrong with that. However the difference between those and "love" is selflessness and permanence. Real Love is caring about the happiness of another person without any thought for what we might get for ourselves....and I have yet to see that.

[DowntownAmber]

I hate to interrupt such a beautifully ruptured thread, but I fell I should stop giggling for a few minutes to do so.

damyanti: I am curious as to your strong reaction to my post seeing I was agreeing with you up to the point where you opposed the reality of your own description of love. I agree much of what makes up love is indeed, as you stated, "instinct and social calculation." Most emotions are. My point was, simply, that the source does not make an emotion or state of being any less "real." As thinking people, we have developed a language to discuss these complex forms of our own thought patterns and actions and, yes, these descriptions have been over-romanticized and simplified and turned into a plethora of gum drop nonsense. Oh well. *shrugs* Not my problem, I don't play my games on that particular field. I guess it's just a more appropriate option for me to say I am in love with J than to say, "this is my boyfriend J. We're in an advanced state of evolutionary bonding brought on by my need to communicate and have my desires understood and met in an intellectual, material, and hormone fueled female reproductive way." But, I digress just to humor myself - simply, I am not sure how my post makes my position out to be an "argument" or a "hormone pumped" counter to yours?

If you feel my post was indeed gibberish of the "Love as Love" variety (not even sure what that means, what else do you want love to be other than itself?), please point out to me where and I will happily clarify where you misunderstood. Perhaps just the use of the word "love" alters your perspective into a fairytale definition of the term, but I assure you, the Objectivist Amber gave up that connotation a very very long time ago, if I ever held it to begin with. I'm not sure where you read into my post that I think love is selfless and never falters and blah blah, but if it says that then someone altered it after I wrote it...lol! You and I, damyanti, exist in a very similar reality; we are just using different words and a different attitude of delivery to describe it and that seems to be causing some, frankly, laughable frustration. You seem to be reacting to being "patronized over not being a believer" and I haven't actually seen anyone, including myself, do that to you. The defensiveness is truly not needed in this conversation, as it visibly permeates the thread with the tiresome reek of teenage cynicism (i.e. the way to be cool is to think nothing is cool). Why be caustic when there really are positive ways to both discuss and express love?

Negativity is so overrated unless you're my cat and even that only gets her tossed outside.

And thus ends my interruption of your regularly scheduled thread.

[ffion]

...I don’t believe love is real. ...I have the same emotions as other people but I don’t kid myself into thinking that Love is a real emotion. ...Love doesnt exist.

so do you believe other emotions are real? how about sadness, happiness, loneliness...?

[ffion]

i wonder... is this an academic discussion of something that has to be experienced to be understood? if so, discussion is premature until one has undergone the experience, and if one does not believe in it, can one experience it...?

if so, it will surely hit like a tonne of bricks when the realisation dawns that it is in fact "real".

[cadence]

I don't typically use the word love and I find that everyone is trying to dissect the word, when in all actuality it's what you interpret it to mean to you.

I never used the word much, because most of my friends used the word too loosely and every man they met or were involved with they loved. I found that the word was tossed around too casually.

I've used the word with my family and a few friends. I can just as easily give them a hug and an action has now replaced the word alltogether.

My boyfriend and I do not use the word at all even though we have shared a life of over twenty years together.

I've said I love you to my Dominant. I didn't use the word because it was expected of me or that I should. I said it because I meant it, because I wanted to at least be able to say that I truly appreciated that he was a part of my life.

So to answer jeannes question, I'll say that there is no one thing that is more important than the other. It's a combination of things that make me "love" someone.

If we can get along, if we appreciate each other, if we enjoy each other's company, if we can weather the good times and the bad and still mangage to function as individuals.
That's what is most important to me.

[denuseri]

Well this is a topic that many before us have discussed.

What is love does it exist, what defines it. Why do we feel the way we do? etc etc, Everyone from to the ancients to the present day has decided for themselves just what it is to them or is not.

I have often found that those who are most angry and bitter about love are actually really still hurting from how a relationship turned out eaither for themselves, thier parents , a close friend, or sybling as opposed to thier having never felt lit for themselves. Worse still are those that feel as if they will never experience the joys and anguish love can bring and no matter how much they want to deny its existance. We should be supoportive as opposed to combative. We should show them that hope still lives. That love is indeed still possible.

I placed the following quote in the religion/philosophy section but it applies here just as much.

In the words of Stewart Chase:


"For those who believe no proof is nessesary, for those who do not no proof is possible."

Or perhaps it is as my favorite poet said so long ago: It is my favorite line of his, and thats probably why I use it as my signiture, it points to the duality of love.

Then said Almitra, Speak to us of Love. And he raised his head and looked upon the people, and there fell a stillness upon them. And with a great voice he said:
When love beckons to you, follow him,Though his ways are hard and steep. And when his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound thee.

KAHLIL GIBRAN'S, The Prophet

[thepast]

Your friendly neighborhood admin here... Just to remind folks... this thread is on the Main Boards, not in Politics or Religion. Thus, the leniency for posting flames or other derogatory comments towards posters is very low to nearing nonexistant. So just a reminder...

"You are X" = NOT allowed.
"I disagree with you point about...." or "I disagree with you on insert idea" = allowed.

Stay on topic. Don't veer left or right into slamming people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You can agree to disagree, but their opinion is their opinion. If ya don't like it & get angry, don't post. Otherwise, post but be respectful.

This is your warning, so please be advised further commentary directed at an individual will result in the post being pulled and admin action taken.

The end.

[lily27]

Getting back to jeanne's original question, I think there is a fourth (third? lol) "type". I love, because I love.

I was just thinking about Master and trying to fit him into one of the catergories, but I can't. I love him because I love him. The end.

I could give you a list of things that I love about him, but that wouldn't explain WHY I love him. (I could also give you a list of things that drive me nuts, but that is neither here nor there....) I love him just because I do.

If you expand your definition of love beyond the romanitic type (and assuming that you do in fact believe in love) and ask yourself why you love your parents? Your siblings? You children? It is probably not something you can explain. You just love them.

I love Master.
I love my family.
I love my friends.
I love my child more than life itself.
I love Candy Cane Chocolate Fudge Crackle ice cream.

Why does it have to be any more complicated than that?




[I have had a couple of glasses of wine this evening.... apologies if this post makes no sense at all.]

[damyanti]

so do you believe other emotions are real? how about sadness, happiness, loneliness...?

Please read my whole posts. I already answered that, made it clear, more than once.

Though you do hit on the spot...is Love really an emotion. We all pretty much have the same and rather clear definition of what sadness, happiness and loneliness feels like and what they are. But "Love" is not a (singular) emotion its a conglomeration of other emotions.

[damyanti]

If you feel my post was indeed gibberish of the "Love as Love" variety...

To me, love is a response to the the strongest values we hold...

We each have emotional eyes that can discern the particular colors of the other, and hands that can feel the texture of the other with heightened sensitivity.

This was just to answer your question, but I really have no interest in explanation. I already heard all the flowery descriptions I can stomach.


In fact everyone can have the word, people misuse it so much so often it no longer holds any meaning.

To get back OT, I think Cadence gave the best answer.

[damyanti]

Why does it have to be any more complicated than that?

The smart ass answer would be because I have to question everything, LOL.

But that is just it...if its Love it shouldnt be complicated. If you have to question, if there is constantly high drama, if you do things that you know will hurt another person, if you go from one relationship to another - it is not Love. If you are on again off again on again...it doesnt strike me as love.

I seriously doubt that anyone loves anyone (and this goes for more than just romantic love). We do right by them, we spend time together, we bond, we stay together out of choice. We care...

...We settle...and call it love.

When we meet someone with whom we click, we are overwhelmed with hormones, we become completely crazy about the other person. It is almost like an addiction. Amber does pose a very good question...why is this less? Because it doesnt last. Because its flimsy. Because its addictive and because a lot of people go from one relationship to another trying to capture that feeling because they think its love.

If people do stay together after that it is out of habit, because its convenient, because its monetary sound policy, because they have been together for a long time and their lives are too entwined. Because they are afraid to be alone. And in lucky cases there is still affection.

People are social creatures, we have urges/needs to bond. It has been that way since the beginning of time. Why is that less worthy than "Love"? Romantic love as a relationship foundation is a rather new concept.

Today is also common to hear "I love you" when someone is merely in lust after you and they simply decide you tick all the right boxes of what they want. In fact this is the most common example. What grates me is the dishonesty of it. People cheat or do other hurtful things but thats ok because they "love" their partner.

Perhaps I am in the wrong and you are right that this is Love. But as I said in the post above you are welcome to it. It involves too much drama, too many lies, its too exhausting...because when you come crashing back to reality hurt of what you didnt find is all too real. And unlike the popular saying I dont believe that pain is love....he/she is just not that into you (and they probably never were).

[DowntownAmber]

This was just to answer your question, but I really have no interest in explanation. I already heard all the flowery descriptions I can stomach.

Hon, it's not "flowery" just because you don't understand the post. There's nothing even remotely "romantic" in either one of those statements, they simply express that our values set up what we respond to in other people which in turn triggers the love emotion or doesn't. Hell, we can even substitute the word "like" in here for more surface level interaction if you still want to proclaim love as non-existent for all of humankind. Let's say one of your core values is a sense of honesty. If you meet a dishonest person, do you respond to them with a desire to bond? Prolly not. Unless, of course, they offer you financial security and that is more valuable to you than your affinity for the truth. Security is a higher value, you respond to it with a greater sense of urgency and devotion. If you value wealth, you may react to that by being drawn to a person of means, or perhaps just the opposite so you yourself can feel wealthy by comparison. All still a response to your own personal sense of values. Not flowery at all, just basic stops on the logic bus line from apathy to what we each define as love. I agree with cadence, we each choose and shape our own very unique definitions for love, and we each make it real for ourselves. And, for most of is, it's more rewarding to have partners that we trust respond to what we consider our positive traits as well.

People are complex, our emotions (even the ones more simple than love) are multifaceted and always built from multiple building blocks. Yellow is a primary. Blue is a primary. Blend them, you get green. Green is no less real than the two colors that made it. Add differing amounts of each ingredient, or introduce a third, your end result changes. Same with emotions. Same with love. If the green ends up fading in the sun, no one goes back and says the the color you started with wasn't real - it just didn't last in its environment. Hopefully that metaphor was straightforward enough, and not so flowery as to be misunderstood.

Anyhoo, bottom line is that for me personally, I do what makes me happy with the people that are conducive to that, and the relationships in which I have busted out the "L" word have all managed to live up to the expectations I've had. In fact, over time, they've exceeded them. Maybe I'm just lucky, though I doubt that's it.