I love you but I'm not "in love" with you.... and limerence

[Hope Shimmers]

I wish more people understood what "loving" someone means. I remember saying this years ago.... but it never seems to change.... people who are married keep using the reason "I love you, but I'm not IN LOVE with you".

 

That just means they are missing that initial limerence feeling. But that feeling ALWAYS fades.... it doesn't matter who the person is. And then you are left with what love is really all about.... family, history, commitment.

 

I don't really have a point.... except maybe that people might better understand the way they feel.... maybe they will think twice about what they put at risk in an A.

Edited March 15, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[HPrynne]

The "in love" feeling does not necessarily fade. For most couples, it does, but it doesn't have to. There are ways to nurture a long-term relationship to increase the likelihood of retaining those feelings.

 

 

I felt them in my relationship with my H for well over 10 years. It took major betrayal and neglect on his part to finally break down and destroy my deep "in love" feelings for him that had until that time remained very much alive. When the change occurred, he noticed it quite quickly.

 

 

Can Love Last a Lifetime? | Psychology Today

 

 

I spent years putting everything I had into our relationship, our life together, and resolving our problems; communicating with him very directly about the problems and my feelings so that we would have the opportunity to work on and resolve them; and seeking support and help for him. He chose to do essentially nothing until it was too late, and even then did not address the primary issue. He failed to respond to any of my pleas, entreaties, etc. until after I had fallen out of love, well more than 10 years into our relationship.

 

 

I do not feel the same way now as I did before the "ILYBINILWY" moment. I care about and love him, as a friend and companion of many years, and someone who will always be important to me, but I am not in love with him, I do not want to share a bed with him, and I do not want to be married to him any more.

[FoolishOW]

The "in love" feeling does not necessarily fade. For most couples, it does, but it doesn't have to. There are ways to nurture a long-term relationship to increase the likelihood of retaining those feelings.

 

 

I felt them in my relationship with my H for well over 10 years. It took major betrayal and neglect on his part to finally break down and destroy my deep "in love" feelings for him that had until that time remained very much alive. When the change occurred, he noticed it quite quickly.

 

 

Can Love Last a Lifetime? | Psychology Today

 

 

I spent years putting everything I had into our relationship, our life together, and resolving our problems; communicating with him very directly about the problems and my feelings so that we would have the opportunity to work on and resolve them; and seeking support and help for him. He chose to do essentially nothing until it was too late, and even then did not address the primary issue. He failed to respond to any of my pleas, entreaties, etc. until after I had fallen out of love, well more than 10 years into our relationship.

 

 

I do not feel the same way now as I did before the "ILYBINILWY" moment. I care about and love him, as a friend and companion of many years, and someone who will always be important to me, but I am not in love with him, I do not want to share a bed with him, and I do not want to be married to him any more.

 

 

I think the above is a very succinct way of expressing the essence of the quote that opened this thread. Love does change throughout the course of a marriage, but when you've reached the point of the idea above, it seems to me, it's time to move on.

[Grumpybutfun]

This seems like such common sense that you think it wouldn't need to even be said, but it expressly does. Love and limerence are at opposite sides of the spectrum. One exposes people to the very core, good and bad, while the other exposes nothing except infatuation and topical sentiments like admiration and lust. Internal reflection and growth as a person makes love inevitable because it starts within us and moves towards those who reflect healthy lives and abilities to share themselves without reacting with toxicity and internal sicknesses due to character defects. Limerence is a fleeting projection and doesn't require healthiness, specialness or any type of character development. That is why it is so popular and is the beloved of most unhealthy people...think drama masters or deep pits of unending need.

Love is only actually shown and felt by a fraction of those who think they are expressing and feeling it. Therefore affairs are allowed to take root because people have such a void in their understanding of their own nature, which in turn is an inability to feel or show love because they have no concept of it for themselves.

Best,

Grumps

[Speakingofwhich]

The in love feeling in a marriage doesn't always fade. I've had the experience in a long term marriage where it didn't. Where it still thrilled me to get a phone call from him and where my heart leaped when we happened to see each other somewhere unexpectedly.

 

Where nobody looked as good to me as he did. Where I'd have chosen him over any person on the planet.

 

And he felt the same for me.

 

The crazy in love feeling never left for either of us. I'm not prepared to write here about how our life together ended. But we never got to the place where we had just "family love." We always were in love.

[xxoo]

IME, feeling "in love" does not need to fade. I've been married more than 20 years, and still feel deeply in love. It's not butterflies and electricity, but I see him through the rose-colored glasses of being in love. He's so much better than other men in my eyes. I desire him. I crave his touch and his smell. I'm in love with him, and he's in love with me.

 

I've seen other couples who don't have this desire for each other. They love each other--care for each other and want a life together--but don't crave each other's touch, don't desire each other, don't see each other through rose-colored glasses. It's feeling in love that does that. And, if well-protected and cared for, it doesn't have to EVER end.

[Cakess]

The in love feeling in a marriage doesn't always fade. I've had the experience in a long term marriage where it didn't. Where it still thrilled me to get a phone call from him and where my heart leaped when we happened to see each other somewhere unexpectedly.

 

Where nobody looked as good to me as he did. Where I'd have chosen him over any person on the planet.

 

And he felt the same for me.

 

The crazy in love feeling never left for either of us. I'm not prepared to write here about how our life together ended. But we never got to the place where we had just "family love." We always were in love.

 

I'm sorry it ended...

I couldn't imagine any relationship with a significant other to feel like anything other than this. I never want to only feel for my husband the way I feel about...my brother.

[Speakingofwhich]

I'm sorry it ended...

I couldn't imagine any relationship with a significant other to feel like anything other than this. I never want to only feel for my husband the way I feel about...my brother.

 

Thanks for your kind words, Cakess! I agree with you.

[Tayken]

The in love feeling in a marriage doesn't always fade. I've had the experience in a long term marriage where it didn't. Where it still thrilled me to get a phone call from him and where my heart leaped when we happened to see each other somewhere unexpectedly.

 

Where nobody looked as good to me as he did. Where I'd have chosen him over any person on the planet.

 

And he felt the same for me.

 

The crazy in love feeling never left for either of us. I'm not prepared to write here about how our life together ended. But we never got to the place where we had just "family love." We always were in love.

 

Why not then if you are going to tell all this......i.e. why load the gun if you ain't going to shoot it? I don't think I can ever see my ex the way you described above

[Speakingofwhich]

Why not then if you are going to tell all this......i.e. why load the gun if you ain't going to shoot it? I don't think I can ever see my ex the way you described above

 

Because every loaded gun doesn't need to be shot. It's my choice whether I shoot the gun or not and I choose not to. How do you know whether it's my ex or my late husband? You have possibly made an assumption that it's an ex.

 

I really don't care to share much beyond generalities on a public forum about this very special relationship. If I did write about it, there may be false assumptions made, as the one above, and in the discourse I may be challenged to reveal more about a very personal R than I care to. So, I've shared all I'm going to share about it publicly for my own reasons. No offense.

[Hope Shimmers]

Thank you for the replies... there are some here that really make me think. I will say that I didn't know that people were able to maintain those same feelings for decades or more.

 

It's all so confusing. I never had those feelings for my H, even at the beginning (divorced now) but did for the ex-MM.

[waterwoman]

The in love feeling in a marriage doesn't always fade. I've had the experience in a long term marriage where it didn't. Where it still thrilled me to get a phone call from him and where my heart leaped when we happened to see each other somewhere unexpectedly.

 

Where nobody looked as good to me as he did. Where I'd have chosen him over any person on the planet.

 

And he felt the same for me.

 

The crazy in love feeling never left for either of us. I'm not prepared to write here about how our life together ended. But we never got to the place where we had just "family love." We always were in love.

 

 

That was us at 20 years (only married for 9 at that point) . It did change. Never thought it would. Kids, bereavement, stress, take their toll. Still value what we have though.

[cocorico]

And then you are left with what love is really all about.... family, history, commitment.

 

"Family, history, commitment" is not love - it is obligation. Love involves so much more than that - deep abiding caring, intimacy, passion, even lust if we're talking love between partners, rather than love for a friend or family member.

 

Little wonder so many disappointed spouses feel the need to look elsewhere for love if their partners feel that giving them "family, history, and commitment" is enough.

[Got it]

I wish more people understood what "loving" someone means. I remember saying this years ago.... but it never seems to change.... people who are married keep using the reason "I love you, but I'm not IN LOVE with you".

 

That just means they are missing that initial limerence feeling. But that feeling ALWAYS fades.... it doesn't matter who the person is. And then you are left with what love is really all about.... family, history, commitment.

 

I don't really have a point.... except maybe that people might better understand the way they feel.... maybe they will think twice about what they put at risk in an A.

 

Okay but there are times when you really are just not in love the person. It doesn't mean you do not have familial affection for them for a shared past but you are just done.

 

I got to that point with my ex husband and it has never changed. I have complete peace with my divorce and while I think he is a great guy I have never regretted divorcing nor do I think he has.

 

One can literally love but not in love with someone and it isn't just because there is no longer any limerance. Sometimes people are smart enough to understand that limerance left a long time ago but even the more mature love disappears as well.

[Got it]

"Family, history, commitment" is not love - it is obligation. Love involves so much more than that - deep abiding caring, intimacy, passion, even lust if we're talking love between partners, rather than love for a friend or family member.

 

Little wonder so many disappointed spouses feel the need to look elsewhere for love if their partners feel that giving them "family, history, and commitment" is enough.

 

I agree. Having had this in my first marriage I refuse to settle for it again. Looking back now, I see where my ex and I went wrong and, since we had been dating since high school, where it should have moved into just a friendship and not moved to marriage. But that is life and here for us to learn from.

 

Now I haven't been with my husband for 20 years but we are now closing in on 10 years and while the love is not the same as the first year it is still passionate, thrilling, and sweeter. I actually don't enjoy limerance and hate the emotional roller coaster. I have never felt this way about a man before where just the sight of him thrills me and still turns me on regardless how many times I have seen is nakedness.

 

The above is how I felt about my ex and I recognized he deserved more than that. And I deserved more as well.

[Hope Shimmers]

"Family, history, commitment" is not love - it is obligation. Love involves so much more than that - deep abiding caring, intimacy, passion, even lust if we're talking love between partners, rather than love for a friend or family member.

 

Little wonder so many disappointed spouses feel the need to look elsewhere for love if their partners feel that giving them "family, history, and commitment" is enough.

 

cocorico - I was trying to compare limerence to 'real love', not trying to define real love... so perhaps I didn't explain that well enough. I agree that 'family, history, and commitment' does not equal love. If that were true, everyone would be in love!

 

I do think, though, that building a life, history, and children together is a type of intimacy that is irreplaceable. That's what I meant. To use my ex-MM as an example... he was (is) unhappy in his M for many reasons which I won't get into, and he was (is) in love with me, but at one point he told me that "despite all of the issues/problems, after all this time, she is a part of me". That was really hard to hear, but it was enlightening.

[cocorico]

I actually don't enjoy limerance and hate the emotional roller coaster. I have never felt this way about a man before where just the sight of him thrills me and still turns me on regardless how many times I have seen is nakedness.

 

.

 

We didn't have "limerance" in our R. Love grew gradually over time several years into he R, and perhaps that is why the "in love" has lasted so long, and the passion hasn't faded - even after so many years.

[cocorico]

cocorico - I was trying to compare limerence to 'real love', not trying to define real love... so perhaps I didn't explain that well enough. I agree that 'family, history, and commitment' does not equal love. If that were true, everyone would be in love!

 

I do think, though, that building a life, history, and children together is a type of intimacy that is irreplaceable. That's what I meant. To use my ex-MM as an example... he was (is) unhappy in his M for many reasons which I won't get into, and he was (is) in love with me, but at one point he told me that "despite all of the issues/problems, after all this time, she is a part of me". That was really hard to hear, but it was enlightening.

 

I don't agree with the bolded. My father built a life, history and a family with my mother. It wasn't a very fulfilling life, for either of them, and the history was full of discord, and the family split apart as soon as the youngest left home. While he was certainly committed, tHere was no real intimacy. OTOH, he has since reM, built a new life which is fulfilling, and a new history that is full of happy memories, with his second W. They may not have kids of their own, but I like to think we form a good enough family even though she is not my bio mother and even though they only M long after I'd left home. So yes, I think he did a pretty good job of "replacing" the life / history / family set, with one that was much better for him and had real intimacy.

 

Also, if I look at my H - he spent 30 years of his life with his xW, including his youth and formative years, and so she saw aspects and phases of him that I never will. She bore his kids, which I didn't and won't. Do I consider her R with him to have been more intimate, as a result? I can't say I do. I get to see him live out his dreams, in a way she couldn't. I get to see him at a period when he can step back from having to be driven and career-focused, enjoying the fruits of his labours, having time and energy and interest to devote to his partner rather than just career and providing and kids. And, having step-parented his kids before they left home, we share familial bonds and a closeness that doesn't rely on my having housed them in my abdomen for nine months. I don't feel any less intimately included in his life - in fact, if I had to compared would say I was more intimately included as we share friends, career interests, intellectual and political perspectives, hobbies and interests etc that she simply didn't, and I am very close to his family in a way that she had no interest in being.

 

I agree that passion alone is not love. But neither is sharing an address and offspring for decades. Love is much much more than either, and more than both.

[OpenBook]

cocorico - I was trying to compare limerence to 'real love', not trying to define real love... so perhaps I didn't explain that well enough. I agree that 'family, history, and commitment' does not equal love. If that were true, everyone would be in love!

 

Really? That's not what you said in your OP:

 

That just means they are missing that initial limerence feeling. But that feeling ALWAYS fades.... it doesn't matter who the person is. And then you are left with what love is really all about.... family, history, commitment.

 

I'm with coco - that's familial love, and if you're trying to compare that to limerance vs. long-lasting love in a romantic relationship, you might as well be comparing apples and oranges.

 

If you are saying that many (most?) marriages settle down to familial love, then I would have to agree with you. Hence it's not surprising why married people seek the missing romance elsewhere - because it's long-dead in their own marriage.

 

Are we as a society underestimating that need for romance, even after we "get married and settle down"? Or are we overestimating the capability of marriage to keep romance alive - whether you call it limerance, or being in love, or whatever other label is handy (we all know what it is)? That to me is the real conundrum.

[cocorico]

Are we as a society underestimating that need for romance, even after we "get married and settle down"? Or are we overestimating the capability of marriage to keep romance alive - whether you call it limerance, or being in love, or whatever other label is handy (we all know what it is)? That to me is the real conundrum.

 

All of the above?

 

I think capitalism and the nuclear family, coupled with expectations of monogamy and fidelity, have led to a discourse around M that de-emphasises "romantic love" (or whatever you'd prefer to call it - the Greek "Eros" as opposed to "Filia" or familial love) in favour f familial love ver time - Eros is seen as important in getting people together, but Filia is seen as what keeps them together. It is important to a capitalist economy that relies on the privatisation of the preproduction of labour - essentially, hat children are reared in nuclear families - that Filia clocks Eros, otherwise parents would desert their offspring in search of "love" to a degree too great to be supported without a strong welfare base, which is anathema to true capitalism. So M has to emphasise the importance of family and commitment over romance, as a result.

 

Also, though, modern Ms are based more on "love" than on the more pragmatic requirements of the past - is he a good provider? Does she have the genes to spawn good offspring, and the domestic proclivities to sustain them? Etc. So M has to be seen as the "natural home" of romance, since expectations of monogamy and fidelity decree that you should not go in search of those on the High Street. In steps the media showing loving couples having it all - yes, you can, and if you're not enjoying it all, you're not doing it right! - and sets up the expectation that all your needs will be met once you sign on the dotted line. If M advertised baldly that, actually, in 97% of cases (yes, that figure is made up:p ) you will spawn offspring, the H will be tied into corporate servitude for the rest of his working life to pay for your slice of The American Dream while the W will turn into a domestic drudge, they would not get too many takers. So the elusive "having it all" has to be proffered as a realistic expectation for Joe Average.

[Hope Shimmers]

I don't agree with the bolded. My father built a life, history and a family with my mother. It wasn't a very fulfilling life, for either of them, and the history was full of discord, and the family split apart as soon as the youngest left home. While he was certainly committed, tHere was no real intimacy. OTOH, he has since reM, built a new life which is fulfilling, and a new history that is full of happy memories, with his second W. They may not have kids of their own, but I like to think we form a good enough family even though she is not my bio mother and even though they only M long after I'd left home. So yes, I think he did a pretty good job of "replacing" the life / history / family set, with one that was much better for him and had real intimacy.

 

Also, if I look at my H - he spent 30 years of his life with his xW, including his youth and formative years, and so she saw aspects and phases of him that I never will. She bore his kids, which I didn't and won't. Do I consider her R with him to have been more intimate, as a result? I can't say I do. I get to see him live out his dreams, in a way she couldn't. I get to see him at a period when he can step back from having to be driven and career-focused, enjoying the fruits of his labours, having time and energy and interest to devote to his partner rather than just career and providing and kids. And, having step-parented his kids before they left home, we share familial bonds and a closeness that doesn't rely on my having housed them in my abdomen for nine months. I don't feel any less intimately included in his life - in fact, if I had to compared would say I was more intimately included as we share friends, career interests, intellectual and political perspectives, hobbies and interests etc that she simply didn't, and I am very close to his family in a way that she had no interest in being.

 

I agree that passion alone is not love. But neither is sharing an address and offspring for decades. Love is much much more than either, and more than both.

 

As I said before, I agree with you that sharing an address and offspring for decades does not equate 'love'.

 

I'm sorry if this didn't prove true in your family, but for many families, the history, building of a family, and memories involved are something that can't be replaced. It is intimacy. If your H doesn't feel that way and you don't, then it sounds like you are good match.

[Hope Shimmers]

Really? That's not what you said in your OP:

 

 

 

I'm with coco - that's familial love, and if you're trying to compare that to limerance vs. long-lasting love in a romantic relationship, you might as well be comparing apples and oranges.

 

If you are saying that many (most?) marriages settle down to familial love, then I would have to agree with you. Hence it's not surprising why married people seek the missing romance elsewhere - because it's long-dead in their own marriage.

 

Are we as a society underestimating that need for romance, even after we "get married and settle down"? Or are we overestimating the capability of marriage to keep romance alive - whether you call it limerance, or being in love, or whatever other label is handy (we all know what it is)? That to me is the real conundrum.

 

I don't disagree with you at all. That was the point of my post.

[Hope Shimmers]

I really didn't mean for people to get defensive from my thread. Honestly cocorico, I remember you and so you probably remember me in that I am an ex-OW. In that position I would not judge anyone as I remember where I was, and if I had to 'choose sides' I would be on yours. But I don't think this is about 'sides' - I am just trying to sort out a lot of difficult emotions in light of what I and others have experienced. If you have experienced something different and better, I think that's great - it's just not what the majority of us have experienced from what I am reading here.