In love versus love

[Spark1111]

oh, yes! On this we agree.

 

And the "in love" part is easy, requires little effort to sustain, and I fear the ease of it all allows people to assume it will last forever.

 

Thus, they grow disillusioned when it does not.

 

And they assume there is something wrong with their partner, or they are no longer in love; or their needs are no longer being met.

 

They grow complacent and bored and blame their partner or the lack of the "in love" feeling as truly not being in love with the person any longer.

 

They do not educate themselves to the necessary effort and committment needed to sustain long term love and in love feelings by BOTH parties.

[TOWinNYC]

So basically, everyone who doesn't believe in my theory of "being in love" (which is: BEING IN LOVE encompasses ALL FOUR of the greek definitions - passion, deep love, friendship and affection) can't possibly imagine the following statement:

 

The couple has been married for over 50 years and are still in love with each other. According to some people, this is an impossibility.

 

I think it's really sad if you can't believe two people could still "be in love" with each other after all those years.

 

But the same people can wholeheartly believe this:

The couple has been married for over 50 years (no indication of what kind of marriage they had).

 

SO WHAT if they were married for x-number of years? What's the point if they weren't in love with each other?

 

That's not happiness, that's preserverance.

[Snowflower]

So basically, everyone who doesn't believe in my theory of "being in love" (which is: BEING IN LOVE encompasses ALL FOUR of the greek definitions - passion, deep love, friendship and affection) can't possibly imagine the following statement:

 

The couple has been married for over 50 years and are still in love with each other. According to some people, this is an impossibility.

 

I think it's really sad if you can't believe two people could still "be in love" with each other after all those years.

 

But the same people can wholeheartly believe this:

The couple has been married for over 50 years (no indication of what kind of marriage they had).

 

SO WHAT if they were married for x-number of years? What's the point if they weren't in love with each other?

 

That's not happiness, that's preserverance.

 

Huh? Where did anyone say this at least on this particular thread?

 

I know I didn't say this.

 

I'm confused.

[ladydesigner]

Very wise here.

 

That "in love" feeling is given to you in the beginning of a relationship, or in any realtionship that prevents day-in-day-out interactions.

 

It is hormonal and biologically induced. It is WONDERFUL. It is also called "limerance."

 

It requires little effort other than being in close proximity to each other on an IRREGULAR basis.

 

With full time, around the clock committment, it fades in about 365 to 730 days.

 

Many people ignorantly assume that they are no longer "in love" when this easy stage of feelings passes. They are mistaken in that the continuance of it takes effort and daily committment.

 

People truly should read more....IMHO.

 

I believe THIS (bolded) I have never heard of any long term relationship, day in and day out through all the trials and tribulations, that has sustained that "in love" feeling I'm not sure if it is possible.

 

And yes I wish I had read more, knew more, talked with a counselor more. I never would have mistaken limerance for love. I did and I was wrong, dead wrong.

 

My love for my H is the sustaining love and I see that now. I was so naive and stubborn, stupid, to have not seen that. The love I have for my children goes above and beyond any love I have ever felt. To me that is the strongest love of all.

[jennie-jennie]

No, this is not my interpretation. But thank you for the benefit of the doubt.

 

While I do agree that it is used as an excuse/explanation for a WS...it's also a lie that the WS tells themselves to conduct the affair. Otherwise, why would almost every WS say this line to their BS at one point or another?

 

It would even be more confusing when the WS returns/stays to the marriage. If they are not "in love" (as the statement suggests) with their spouse, why do they return/stay? Ah, the age-old question!

 

I do not understand the supposed distinction that is meant when someone uses this statement. Someone either loves their spouse enough to want to be with them or they don't. Simple really.

 

I have loved but not been in love with my SOs because I was in love with another man, but then when the new relationship did not work out, the in-love feelings for my SOs were rekindled, so I see nothing strange with the scenario you are describing. It has happened to both me and my SOs several times.

[jennie-jennie]

Very wise here.

 

That "in love" feeling is given to you in the beginning of a relationship, or in any realtionship that prevents day-in-day-out interactions.

 

It is hormonal and biologically induced. It is WONDERFUL. It is also called "limerance."

 

It requires little effort other than being in close proximity to each other on an IRREGULAR basis.

With full time, around the clock committment, it fades in about 365 to 730 days.

 

Many people ignorantly assume that they are no longer "in love" when this easy stage of feelings passes. They are mistaken in that the continuance of it takes effort and daily committment.

 

People truly should read more....IMHO.

 

It doesn't fade for everyone. There are studies which show that. And I know it to be true, because the in-love feelings have never faded for me in my three long-term relationships until I was done with the relationship in question.

[ladydesigner]

It doesn't fade for everyone. There are studies which show that. And I know it to be true, because the in-love feelings have never faded for me in my three long-term relationships until I was done with the relationship in question.

 

See this is what I have always wondered if there are M couples out there that have been married...oh lets say 10+ years and still have those "in-love" feelings. I for one no longer have them. I love my H but those "in-love" endorphins are not there.

 

When I first noticed this happening was when I did feel "done" and I was confused by those feelings. I had a little one to care for and another on the way and had no interest in my H whatsoever.

 

I am slowly seeing my H in a new light and have actually started to enjoy his company again and his affection, not quite like it used to be though, before the "done" feeling.

[Spark1111]

It doesn't fade for everyone. There are studies which show that. And I know it to be true, because the in-love feelings have never faded for me in my three long-term relationships until I was done with the relationship in question.

 

So for you Jennie, the in love feelings ended when you stopped committing to the relationship.

 

Your committment sustained you far longer than having your needs unmet seemed to upset you.

 

I think we agree again.

 

I was committed to my marriage and deeply in love with my H.

 

He however was not,blamed me for not meeting many needs, found his OW and kept her secret for way too long.

 

So did he fall out of love with me, or stop committing to us?

 

Did I truly stop giving, giving, giving to him, as you did with your SOs, but still could not get my needs met by him?

 

Did he stop loving me? Or did he stop committing to me when he chose to have his affair?

 

Because there is a difference and you realize it. You have lived it yourself.

[Snowflower]

See this is what I have always wondered if there are M couples out there that have been married...oh lets say 10+ years and still have those "in-love" feelings. I for one no longer have them. I love my H but those "in-love" endorphins are not there.

 

When I first noticed this happening was when I did feel "done" and I was confused by those feelings. I had a little one to care for and another on the way and had no interest in my H whatsoever.

 

I am slowly seeing my H in a new light and have actually started to enjoy his company again and his affection, not quite like it used to be though, before the "done" feeling.

 

LD, is it possible that whatever "new light" you are seeing you H in is the start of a new phase of your relationship together?

 

You say it isn't like before that "done" feeling...but maybe your affection has reached a different (better) stage?

[Spark1111]

See this is what I have always wondered if there are M couples out there that have been married...oh lets say 10+ years and still have those "in-love" feelings. I for one no longer have them. I love my H but those "in-love" endorphins are not there.

 

When I first noticed this happening was when I did feel "done" and I was confused by those feelings. I had a little one to care for and another on the way and had no interest in my H whatsoever.

 

I am slowly seeing my H in a new light and have actually started to enjoy his company again and his affection, not quite like it used to be though, before the "done" feeling.

 

Yes, there is and they are studied to see what they do differently, or naturally may be a better word, that sparks their love for each other over the long haul.

 

Read up on it LD!

[xxoo]

Very wise here.

 

That "in love" feeling is given to you in the beginning of a relationship, or in any realtionship that prevents day-in-day-out interactions.

 

It is hormonal and biologically induced. It is WONDERFUL. It is also called "limerance."

 

It requires little effort other than being in close proximity to each other on an IRREGULAR basis.

 

With full time, around the clock committment, it fades in about 365 to 730 days.

 

Many people ignorantly assume that they are no longer "in love" when this easy stage of feelings passes. They are mistaken in that the continuance of it takes effort and daily committment.

 

People truly should read more....IMHO.

 

It doesn't fade for everyone. There are studies which show that. And I know it to be true, because the in-love feelings have never faded for me in my three long-term relationships until I was done with the relationship in question.

 

I'm not sure you are disagreeing, as Spark included this sentence:

"They are mistaken in that the continuance of it takes effort and daily committment"

 

I do certainly feel "in love" with my H of 17 years. I think he's awesome! Way more awesome than he likely is, lol! And while I don't experience that as requiring "effort", I do think it requires concious awareness and gratitude. I count my blessings daily. I'm so grateful for this guy who stands by my and thinks I'm wonderful, sexy, loveable, etc. In the moments that another person seems more fun and exciting (and, sure, it happens), I conciously take stock of what I've got

[Snowflower]

I have loved but not been in love with my SOs because I was in love with another man, but then when the new relationship did not work out, the in-love feelings for my SOs were rekindled, so I see nothing strange with the scenario you are describing. It has happened to both me and my SOs several times.

 

Perhaps because your love was always there for your SO and you decided to recommit to the relationship?

 

See, I think this whole "love but not in love" argument has more to do with choosing to be committed to a person and not feelings of love for the person.

[seren]

I agree with there being different kinds of love for different people, or indeed different things. While I have had long term relationships when I have said I loved, was in love, it was not until I met H that I truly felt and knew what being in love was/is. I just know that had we not had sustained love, we couldn't and wouldn't have survived the last 3 years. We have had, not in like, but the man just makes my heart sing, he is the person I intend being old bones with and despite the A, is still my love and the person who says he wants to crawl under my skin so he can be nearer to me.

 

I have had relationships in the past where I thought I was in love, but know that they just wouldn't have stood the test of time, sure they might have lasted chronologically, but to retain the in love feeling? No, certainly not enough to stay knowing all that I do. I never, ever stopped loving H, never stopped being in love, but at one point I really stopped liking his actions and so I hid my in love for self preservation, but had you opened me up and looked you would have seen his name running through my heart. I cannot choose not to be in love with him, but I retained and retain the ability to choose whether our relationship is good for me. If it was not or changed, then I would always be in love with him, but choose perhaps, to love me more and fix it or leave. We all have that choice.

[GordonDarkfoot]

The reason I left my SO was because he wasn't satisfying my needs enough.

 

 

That's a pretty vague statement.

 

 

This was after decades of being together and me always giving more than I received.

 

This is also pretty vague. How does one "measure" or "equate" who is giving what to who in a relationship? I mean you can look at particular specific tasks or things in a relationship and measure who provides more of that to the relationship, such as money, chores, and other concrete items. But intangibles? What exactly did you give, and how did you know you gave "more" of it than he did?

 

 

After all--if you stayed with him for "decades" then you must have been reasonably happy with the status quo for quite a long time. What event or incident made you decide that the status quo, after decades, was no longer satisfactory enough to stay?

 

 

 

We went through many hard times together, during which we struggled together. Still my SO was never capable of really committing to the relationship. Truth is I believe he loved me but wasn't in love with me. Yes, I believe that was the problem.

 

Well who left the relationship, was it you, or was it your SO? If you left the relationship, then however low his commitment level was, yours must have been less. Why did you decide it was a problem that he loved you but was not "in love" with you? Are you actually saying that it's not enough for you to be in a relationship that the other person loves you? What would have constituted his being "in love" with you? How would you have known? And, did you ever express these concerns to your SO?

 

 

 

 

The reason a WS wanders is often because there is some need that is not satisfied.

 

Yes, the need to have sex with other people. That certainly can't be satisfied in a monogamous relationship.

 

Also, if the primary relationship is not satisfying some "need," as you put it, that's still not a "reason" for cheating. It may be a reason for leaving the relationship.

 

But simply because my spouse doesn't satisfy some need of mine, which I guess it might be her obligation to satisfy, doesn't cause me to deceive her and lie to her, much less have sex with another woman. What possible "need" could I have that would "cause" me to lie to and deceive my wife, in order to facilitate having sex with someone else?

 

Are you saying WS have a "need" to lie and deceive, which can only be satisfied by having an affair? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

The problem jennie jennie is you're speaking in vague abstractions and platitudes, not specifics, and therefore, your words can mean anything you want them to mean. That might make you feel good but it provides absolutely no clarity in a discussion, and you'll just go around in circles. (Many cheaters do precisely this.)

 

If you really have a need in a relationship, first, you must be able to identify it and articulate it. All you've said is your ex-SO wasn't "in love" with you. That's not a "need" from your viewpoint. It may be a deficiency in your eyes that your ex-SO had. But it's not a "need."

 

A "need" would be this: "I had a need for my ex-SO to express that he was in love with me, which he was unable to fulfill." Let's assume that was the case. It still didn't provide you with a "reason" to lie or cheat (not saying you did, but that's your logic). It may have provided you with a reason to leave the relationship.

 

How does the fact that an SO is incapable of expressing "in love" create a need or desire to cheat and lie in the SO's partner? It doesn't. There's no logical or emotional connection there, at all. The connection you are trying to make, and that most cheaters tend to make, is after-the fact, to justify the affair after one has been caught, after the deceptions have been unsuccessful.

 

 

 

They need something which they find in the OP. It is not about giving in my opinion, it is about unfulfilled needs.

 

No, it can't be anything found in the OP, simply because the lying and cheating that is done by a WS is done by the WS, not by the OP. Also the fact that you could give your opinion, then simultaneously deny that you are giving your opinion, is symptomatic of a failed thought process on your part.

 

And, what is the "need" you are talking about, again? You said it was the need to have your ex-SO be "in love" with you. No WS could satisfy that need, simply because the WS is NOT and cannot be your SO. Yes, you may be able to find an OP to express an "in love" feeling to you, however, that is not your SO's expression of the SO's "in love" feeling which is what you claimed was missing from the relationship in the first place. It's a different person.

 

So what you're really talking about in terms of an unsatisfied "need" has to be something missing within yourself. It's not that your ex-SO wasn't "in love" with you. It's that his manner of expressing his love to you did not sufficiently cause you to internally generate whatever subjective emotional state you were seeking to experience. I'm not sure why you would believe that to be a deficiency in your ex-SO rather than a manifestation of your own inability to accept someone else's love. Especially not after a decades-long relationship. In any case, how could that possibly turn an honest person into a lying cheater? It couldn't, could it?

 

 

I guess we just have to agree to disagree here, Spark.

 

No, because the point isn't to start a debate, it's to look at the idea that M. Scott Peck was trying to communicate. Which is that real love is independent of the "in love" feeling that so many cheaters mistake for it. It's ironic that you don't even understand the point, because you've got a huge blind spot. You don't have to agree with it, or accept it, but you at least have to try to understand what Peck's point was, and you're just not trying.

 

He's saying that love is voluntary and volitional--a conscious choice. You're saying "in love" is more important to you (that's why you left your SO, right?). But you're completely ignoring the key point that "in love" is simply a response or reaction, it's not under autonomous control. Unlike "real" love it's not a conscious choice, it just happens. That being the case, "in love" is meaningless other than as a spur of the moment random emotion.

 

The Road Less Travelled is all about finding real meaning in one's life, and this passage just touches upon finding meaning in the concept of love.

 

You were in a relationship for "decades" yet don't even understand why you were in it. The logic of your situation must be that you were never happy in your relationship because ultimately you left it because it was unsatisfactory. You don't really "know" why you left your relationship because you have no explanation for why you stayed in it for decades in the first place.

 

That's because you don't understand real love. You think "in love" is more important. So rather than actually being able to make a volitional choice--a committment to love, as your SO apparently did, but which you could not--you have adopted a very nihilistic version of what "love" ("in love") means to you.

 

To you, "love"/"in love" is something that is worth compromising one's fundamental personal integrity for. You think that a WS is justified in cheating to "fulfill a missing need." So you elevate "in love" above the WS's need for personal integrity and honesty. But "in love" isn't a volitional choice, it's just something that happens.

 

If I decide I can become a liar and cheater just because one day I may meet someone who makes me feel "in love" in a way my spouse doesn't, then what I am really saying is that I never had personal integrity in the first place.

 

Why should I sacrifice all who I am as a human being just for a subjective emotional feeling of being "in love"? That type of attitude borders on the psychotic, and like I said is completely nihilistic.

 

It's the same attitude alcoholics and heroin addicts have. Eff it all, I just want my "high."

 

 

 

To me a love relationship with only love feelings, and not in-love feelings, is uninteresting.

 

You know what? Boring people are actually the people who "get bored" the most. Your love relationship was uninteresting, most likely, because YOU were, and are, uninteresting on a fundamental level, as a person. Perhaps that's due to being completely self-centered? IDK. Do you even have a "life" beyond LS? All I know is exciting interesting people generate their OWN excitement and are exciting to be around. Boring people sit around saying, "I'm so bored. There's nothing to do."

 

 

 

That is the relationship I have with friends. My former SO is my friend now, since the in-love feelings are gone and only the love feelings remain.

 

I'm glad your subsequent life has worked out so brilliantly for you.

 

Peace.

Edited August 4, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[GordonDarkfoot]

It doesn't fade for everyone. There are studies which show that. And I know it to be true, because the in-love feelings have never faded for me in my three long-term relationships until I was done with the relationship in question.

 

No, this can't be correct.

 

Because you definitely said in a previous post, to which I had responded at great length, that the reason you left your former SO after "decades" was that HE was not "in love" with YOU.

 

NOW you are claiming that you are associating the termination of your various LTRs with the fading/loss of YOUR "in love" feelings for your partner.

 

Those are two basically "opposite" perspectives. Aren't they?

[2long]

Gordon:

 

Great perspective! Thanks for contributing.

 

-ol' 2long

[jennie-jennie]

So for you Jennie, the in love feelings ended when you stopped committing to the relationship.

 

Your committment sustained you far longer than having your needs unmet seemed to upset you.

 

I think we agree again.

 

No, I do not think we agree. First of all, I know my exSO was not in love with me, he loved me yes, but a big part of the problem was that he was not in love with me, so while he in a way was committed to the relationship (as much as he is capable of being since he is kind of a commitment phobic) he had troubles really going for it because he was not sure I was the one.

 

My in-love feelings lasted longer than my commitment. I went looking (with my SO's knowledge) on internet dating sites while still in love with him. We were still having a sexual relationship. I could not bring myself to give him up because I was still in love with him, and he still satisfied as much of my needs as he had always done. It had always been the case that this was not enough, but I guess the sensation of it being too little grew stronger because by now we lived in separate cities.

 

My in-love feelings for him stopped when I fell in love (once again) with my MM.

 

I was committed to my marriage and deeply in love with my H.

 

He however was not,blamed me for not meeting many needs, found his OW and kept her secret for way too long.

 

So did he fall out of love with me, or stop committing to us?

 

Did I truly stop giving, giving, giving to him, as you did with your SOs, but still could not get my needs met by him?

 

Did he stop loving me? Or did he stop committing to me when he chose to have his affair?

 

Because there is a difference and you realize it. You have lived it yourself.

During our entire relationship I tried to make my SO understand and do something about my needs not being met. But he was content that his needs were met. I am a very loyal woman once I love someone so I still committed to our relationship for all those years. We raised three children together, although I carried most of the burden, both financially and otherwise. Deem of his surprise when I ended our relationship for MM. How could I just switch him for another man when our relationship was better than it had ever been? Three years later he is still asking that question.

 

Spark, I must ask you not to take for granted what I have lived and what I realize, because I do not recognize what you are describing.

[jennie-jennie]

Perhaps because your love was always there for your SO and you decided to recommit to the relationship?

 

See, I think this whole "love but not in love" argument has more to do with choosing to be committed to a person and not feelings of love for the person.

 

No, it was because the new relationship wasn't what I thought it was. Had it been that, I would not have gone back, just like I have not gone back this time when the relationship with my MM is much more fulfilling than the one my exSO and I had.

I am only in love with one man at a time. If my relationship with my MM would end today, I would not be surprised if I could go back and recommit to my exSO and awaken those in-love feelings for him again, since I still love him. But as long as my MM is in my life, my exSO stands no chance.

 

My exSO told me "I thought you would come back to me after a while with MM. I always came back to you." I told him, this was because the women he was with did not have what he needed, their relationship did not last. He too would not have come back had that not been the case.

[jennie-jennie]

That's a pretty vague statement.

 

 

 

 

This is also pretty vague. How does one "measure" or "equate" who is giving what to who in a relationship? I mean you can look at particular specific tasks or things in a relationship and measure who provides more of that to the relationship, such as money, chores, and other concrete items. But intangibles? What exactly did you give, and how did you know you gave "more" of it than he did?

 

 

After all--if you stayed with him for "decades" then you must have been reasonably happy with the status quo for quite a long time. What event or incident made you decide that the status quo, after decades, was no longer satisfactory enough to stay?

 

 

 

 

 

Well who left the relationship, was it you, or was it your SO? If you left the relationship, then however low his commitment level was, yours must have been less. Why did you decide it was a problem that he loved you but was not "in love" with you? Are you actually saying that it's not enough for you to be in a relationship that the other person loves you? What would have constituted his being "in love" with you? How would you have known? And, did you ever express these concerns to your SO?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, the need to have sex with other people. That certainly can't be satisfied in a monogamous relationship.

 

Also, if the primary relationship is not satisfying some "need," as you put it, that's still not a "reason" for cheating. It may be a reason for leaving the relationship.

 

But simply because my spouse doesn't satisfy some need of mine, which I guess it might be her obligation to satisfy, doesn't cause me to deceive her and lie to her, much less have sex with another woman. What possible "need" could I have that would "cause" me to lie to and deceive my wife, in order to facilitate having sex with someone else?

 

Are you saying WS have a "need" to lie and deceive, which can only be satisfied by having an affair? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

The problem jennie jennie is you're speaking in vague abstractions and platitudes, not specifics, and therefore, your words can mean anything you want them to mean. That might make you feel good but it provides absolutely no clarity in a discussion, and you'll just go around in circles. (Many cheaters do precisely this.)

 

If you really have a need in a relationship, first, you must be able to identify it and articulate it. All you've said is your ex-SO wasn't "in love" with you. That's not a "need" from your viewpoint. It may be a deficiency in your eyes that your ex-SO had. But it's not a "need."

 

A "need" would be this: "I had a need for my ex-SO to express that he was in love with me, which he was unable to fulfill." Let's assume that was the case. It still didn't provide you with a "reason" to lie or cheat (not saying you did, but that's your logic). It may have provided you with a reason to leave the relationship.

 

How does the fact that an SO is incapable of expressing "in love" create a need or desire to cheat and lie in the SO's partner? It doesn't. There's no logical or emotional connection there, at all. The connection you are trying to make, and that most cheaters tend to make, is after-the fact, to justify the affair after one has been caught, after the deceptions have been unsuccessful.

 

 

 

 

 

No, it can't be anything found in the OP, simply because the lying and cheating that is done by a WS is done by the WS, not by the OP. Also the fact that you could give your opinion, then simultaneously deny that you are giving your opinion, is symptomatic of a failed thought process on your part.

 

And, what is the "need" you are talking about, again? You said it was the need to have your ex-SO be "in love" with you. No WS could satisfy that need, simply because the WS is NOT and cannot be your SO. Yes, you may be able to find an OP to express an "in love" feeling to you, however, that is not your SO's expression of the SO's "in love" feeling which is what you claimed was missing from the relationship in the first place. It's a different person.

 

So what you're really talking about in terms of an unsatisfied "need" has to be something missing within yourself. It's not that your ex-SO wasn't "in love" with you. It's that his manner of expressing his love to you did not sufficiently cause you to internally generate whatever subjective emotional state you were seeking to experience. I'm not sure why you would believe that to be a deficiency in your ex-SO rather than a manifestation of your own inability to accept someone else's love. Especially not after a decades-long relationship. In any case, how could that possibly turn an honest person into a lying cheater? It couldn't, could it?

 

 

 

 

No, because the point isn't to start a debate, it's to look at the idea that M. Scott Peck was trying to communicate. Which is that real love is independent of the "in love" feeling that so many cheaters mistake for it. It's ironic that you don't even understand the point, because you've got a huge blind spot. You don't have to agree with it, or accept it, but you at least have to try to understand what Peck's point was, and you're just not trying.

 

He's saying that love is voluntary and volitional--a conscious choice. You're saying "in love" is more important to you (that's why you left your SO, right?). But you're completely ignoring the key point that "in love" is simply a response or reaction, it's not under autonomous control. Unlike "real" love it's not a conscious choice, it just happens. That being the case, "in love" is meaningless other than as a spur of the moment random emotion.

 

The Road Less Travelled is all about finding real meaning in one's life, and this passage just touches upon finding meaning in the concept of love.

 

You were in a relationship for "decades" yet don't even understand why you were in it. The logic of your situation must be that you were never happy in your relationship because ultimately you left it because it was unsatisfactory. You don't really "know" why you left your relationship because you have no explanation for why you stayed in it for decades in the first place.

 

That's because you don't understand real love. You think "in love" is more important. So rather than actually being able to make a volitional choice--a committment to love, as your SO apparently did, but which you could not--you have adopted a very nihilistic version of what "love" ("in love") means to you.

 

To you, "love"/"in love" is something that is worth compromising one's fundamental personal integrity for. You think that a WS is justified in cheating to "fulfill a missing need." So you elevate "in love" above the WS's need for personal integrity and honesty. But "in love" isn't a volitional choice, it's just something that happens.

 

If I decide I can become a liar and cheater just because one day I may meet someone who makes me feel "in love" in a way my spouse doesn't, then what I am really saying is that I never had personal integrity in the first place.

 

Why should I sacrifice all who I am as a human being just for a subjective emotional feeling of being "in love"? That type of attitude borders on the psychotic, and like I said is completely nihilistic.

 

It's the same attitude alcoholics and heroin addicts have. Eff it all, I just want my "high."

 

 

 

 

 

You mean you left your SO cause you got bored? LOL. Yeah paying the mortgage gets boring too.

 

You know what? Boring people are actually the people who "get bored" the most. Your love relationship was uninteresting, most likely, because YOU were, and are, uninteresting on a fundamental level, as a person. Perhaps that's due to being completely self-centered? IDK. Do you even have a "life" beyond LS? All I know is exciting interesting people generate their OWN excitement and are exciting to be around. Boring people sit around saying, "I'm so bored. There's nothing to do."

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad your subsequent life has worked out so brilliantly for you.

 

Peace.

 

You got almost everything wrong about my relationship with my exSO. I don't know why you bother to write so much about something you hardly know anything about.

 

I was not a WS. So that part of your argument falls.

 

I know that my exSO agrees that there was too much missing on his part in our relationship. So that part of your argument falls too.

 

Let's keep to the topic at hand instead of dissecting my former relationship.

 

The love that Peck describes is to me not enough for a love relationship. I agree that the in-love feelings are involuntary, not caused by will, but it is the man I am in love with that I want to commit to. It is the man I am in love with whom I am going to have the kind of love for that Peck describes. I choose to be with the man I am in love with. Without the in-love feelings I would rather be alone.

 

Once I am in love with a man, I am very loyal and will commit to our relationship for a very long time. I will not look at other men. I will stay by his side through thick and thin. But if a day comes when the cons outweigh the pros and I have had enough, I will not stay. And I definitely will not stay when in love with another.

 

To me the in-love feelings are necessary for me to want to share my life with a man. But remember I am a person who stays in love for decades, so perhaps that is why I crave this. For others who do not have this capacity, perhaps Peck's statements make more sense. To me it seems like an empty life.

[jennie-jennie]

No, this can't be correct.

 

Because you definitely said in a previous post, to which I had responded at great length, that the reason you left your former SO after "decades" was that HE was not "in love" with YOU.

 

NOW you are claiming that you are associating the termination of your various LTRs with the fading/loss of YOUR "in love" feelings for your partner.

 

Those are two basically "opposite" perspectives. Aren't they?

 

I said a big problem in our relationship was that my exSO was not in love with me. However the reason our relationship ended was when I fell out of love with him and in love with my MM. And the reason I even looked at another man was because my needs were not ever met sufficiently in our relationship.

[jennie-jennie]

That's because you don't understand real love. You think "in love" is more important. So rather than actually being able to make a volitional choice--a committment to love, as your SO apparently did, but which you could not--you have adopted a very nihilistic version of what "love" ("in love") means to you.

 

This statement is absolutely hilarious given what went down during the 25 years my SO and I spent together. He is a very self-centered, abusive, narcissistic man having commitment phobia and sexual and intimacy issues. Despite that I was in love with him, I loved him, and was deeply committed to our relationship.

 

To me the involuntary in-love feeling is the growing ground for making the voluntary choice to commit to love. I do not dispute the importance of altruistic love, I just state that when it comes to a partner the in-love feelings are the basis for making the choice to commit to such a love.

[jennie-jennie]

What is the difference between a relationship between two lovers and any other relationship?

 

Being in love. The feeling of being in love.

 

You love many people (the love Peck describes), but you are only in love with one.

[jennie-jennie]

So for you Jennie, the in love feelings ended when you stopped committing to the relationship.

 

Your committment sustained you far longer than having your needs unmet seemed to upset you.

 

I think we agree again.

 

I was committed to my marriage and deeply in love with my H.

 

He however was not,blamed me for not meeting many needs, found his OW and kept her secret for way too long.

 

So did he fall out of love with me, or stop committing to us?

 

Did I truly stop giving, giving, giving to him, as you did with your SOs, but still could not get my needs met by him?

 

Did he stop loving me? Or did he stop committing to me when he chose to have his affair?

 

Because there is a difference and you realize it. You have lived it yourself.

 

Spark, I think this is what happened. The commitment to our relationship waned because my needs were not met. I still was in love with and loved my SO though, but I became open to meeting a new love, since I was no longer committed to an unsatisfactory relationship. Once I met a new love, my in-love feelings were transferred to the new man. And eventually when I saw that that relationship was sustainable, I committed to him.

 

Had not the new relationship been sustainable, the new in-love feelings would have disappeared and I might very well have returned to my SO with returning in-love feelings for him. Had he at this point been willing to commit to our relationship and try to fulfill my needs, perhaps this relationship would now be sustainable and I would no longer be interested in meeting a new man.

 

Anthropologist Helen Fisher divides love into:

Sex drive

Romantic love

Attachment

 

I need all three for a relationship to be sustainable.

[GordonDarkfoot]

You got almost everything wrong about my relationship with my exSO.

 

I apologize if you feel that way. All I can do is use the raw materials available to me.

 

 

 

I don't know why you bother to write so much about something you hardly know anything about.

 

The process of thinking out loud is often helpful to achieve clarity.

 

 

 

I was not a WS. So that part of your argument falls.

 

Two responses to this--one, I didn't say you were a WS; but you did use your own personal experience as justification for why a WS would "stray." Second, other things you are posting in this thread indicate that you most likely have a pattern of forming emotional relationships with other men while still in an existing relationship. You've said you lose your "in love" feeling/relationship with an existing SO when you've formed an "in love" feeling/relationship with the next SO. That pattern may not qualify you technically as a "WS" but if you're forming "love"/"in love" relationships with another man while currently in a relationship, many people would regard that as fundamentally equivalent to engaging in emotional affairs. To the extent that that view is accurate, and that an emotional affair is as damaging as a physical affair, as many at LS believe, then as a matter of fact you are acting and thinking in a "wayward" manner.

 

Again apologies if you think I misunderstand but I'm basing my perceptions on what's contained in your posts.

 

 

I know that my exSO agrees that there was too much missing on his part in our relationship. So that part of your argument falls too.

 

What part of my argument? What you originally said was that you ended your decades long relationship with your SO because, while he loved you, he wasn't "in love" with you. The fact that you now reveal that your SO agrees with that viewpoint (actually you don't say your SO agreed that he wasn't "in love" with you, you just say your SO agreed that something was "missing", without clarifying what your SO thinks was missing on his part) doesn't disprove anything that I've said here.

 

 

 

 

Let's keep to the topic at hand instead of dissecting my former relationship.

 

That's fine, but then don't use YOUR former relationship as the basis for trying to support your argument about what M. Scott Peck said in the quoted passage.

 

 

The love that Peck describes is to me not enough for a love relationship.

 

Your use of the phrase "to me" again means you are supporting your position about M. Scott Peck based on personal experience. There's no way of doing that without bringing your own relationship experience into the discussion--which in fact is what you repeatedly do in this thread. You can't use your own personal experiences in relationships as support for a position taken in a thread such as this one, without subjecting your relationships to scrutiny, to see if your reasoning based on your own experience makes sense to other people who are reading what you are writing.

 

 

 

I agree that the in-love feelings are involuntary, not caused by will, but it is the man I am in love with that I want to commit to.

 

What M. Scott Peck is saying is that the viewpoint you've expressed right here is fundamentally erroneous, i.e. that the thought process behind it is fundamentally erroneous. I agree with him, and I think it's fascinating because your description of your relationship history exemplifies exactly what Peck is trying to convey.

 

You agree with the notion that " in love" is involuntary, but go on to say that you believe you can make a commitment (e.g. voluntary/volitional act) to someone who you believe you had no choice in "selecting" (being "in love" with) in the first place.

 

This is like being involuntarily thrown in jail and making a committment to your jail guard.

 

Now you may DISAGREE with all of this but it seems like you really don't comprehend the logical inconsistency of what you've said.

 

In reality I think there is psychological self deception going on. Obviously we have control over who we fall "in love" with because we can set boundaries on who we interact with, in the first place, and how far we let those feelings go if we start to catch a glimmer of the initial feelings of "in love."

 

Therefore the deeper point about what M. Scott Peck is saying is that even if you do not believe you are acting volitionally, in reality, you ARE, and therefore, you have no choice other than to accept responsibility for your choices.

 

It sounds like you have gone through much of your life believing that you are not making volitional choices about who you are in love with. Peck is saying that you are, we all are, even if we don't want to believe that. To believe otherwise, is to totally negate the value of your "love", "in love," or whatever you want to call it.

 

So why would lots of people insist that they really don't have a choice? Because when it's not your choice, then you don't have to take responsibility for the consequences.

 

Jennie, take a good long hard look at your own life. Do you accept responsibility for your choices, or don't you? A simple question. If you say "no", then that doesn't absolve you of responsibility for making them, but it does frequently lead to the making of poor choices.

 

 

 

 

It is the man I am in love with whom I am going to have the kind of love for that Peck describes. I choose to be with the man I am in love with. Without the in-love feelings I would rather be alone.

 

But according to you, since you don't choose who you are "in love" with, in the first place, you're not making a choice at all.

 

 

 

 

Once I am in love with a man, I am very loyal and will commit to our relationship for a very long time.

 

Actually this is not true, according to your own recitation of your track record. As soon as there is another man who you involuntarily fall "in love" with, you stop being able to be "in love" with your existing relationship, and hence are incapable of "loving" him anymore. So the extent of your commitment is completely involuntary, it's based on a negative, i.e. it lasts only until you find someone else to involuntarily fall "in love" with.

 

 

 

 

I will not look at other men. I will stay by his side through thick and thin.

 

This can't possibly be true based on your statement that your relationship-hopping pattern has been to fall "in love" with a new man, which then negates your ability to remain "in love" with the current relationship, causing the termination of the existing relationship and entry into the new relationship. You're obviously "looking at other men," if you weren't how could you fall "in love" with them?

 

 

But if a day comes when the cons outweigh the pros and I have had enough, I will not stay. And I definitely will not stay when in love with another.

 

How do you fall "in love with another" if you are "not looking at other men" and are completely "loyal" to your existing relationship?

 

 

 

 

To me the in-love feelings are necessary for me to want to share my life with a man.

 

That's fine, but do you realize that your "in love feelings" are internal, not external? IOW you, not your SO, are responsible for YOUR "in love" feelings? You first stated that you broke up with your long term SO because HE was not "in love" with you. As it turns out, it seems that what really happened is that YOUR "in love" feelings diminished or stopped, and that's why you broke up with him. And evidently that's happened on a repeating basis in your life, because you're getting yourself entangled in emotional relationships with new men while still involved in existing relationships.

 

Peck is saying is that the way to avoid what your life has turned into, romantically speaking, is to consciously DECIDE who you will love and let THAT govern your actions, NOT your "feelings of the moment." Again you don't have to agree but at least try to understand what he is saying.

 

 

 

But remember I am a person who stays in love for decades, so perhaps that is why I crave this. For others who do not have this capacity, perhaps Peck's statements make more sense. To me it seems like an empty life.

 

No, unfortunately, to an outsider, you are a person who has had three or four (at least) rather serious relationships which have been unsuccessful because you are never satisfied with the love that you have and are always looking for something better, all the while rationalizing your volitional behavior as an involuntary choice, outside of your control. Peck is saying that you do have a choice and even if you want to deny that you have it, you are stuck with your own life and therefore you might as well accept responsibility for how it pans out.

[GordonDarkfoot]

This statement is absolutely hilarious given what went down during the 25 years my SO and I spent together. He is a very self-centered, abusive, narcissistic man having commitment phobia and sexual and intimacy issues. Despite that I was in love with him, I loved him, and was deeply committed to our relationship.

 

Staying in the relationship for 25 years was your choice. I suspect based on some other stuff you've posted in this thread that the "real" reason you stayed so long in an unsatisfactory relationship was because you were raising three children with him, and there are a lot of practical reasons to stay together "for the kids" even if the relationship isn't very satisfactory.

 

Once the kids got old enough and you found an alternative, you jumped ship. A lot of women (and men) follow this pattern of relationship behavior.

 

 

 

To me the involuntary in-love feeling is the growing ground for making the voluntary choice to commit to love. I do not dispute the importance of altruistic love, I just state that when it comes to a partner the in-love feelings are the basis for making the choice to commit to such a love.

 

All I can tell you is if you're trying to refute M. Scott Peck's viewpoint, doing so by referencing your own relationship history isn't very persuasive.