Somebody to Love or Somebody You Love?

[Fletch Lives]

Yes, there are many people who marry for love, and there are also marriages of convenience..... where the couple marry for other reasons, like status, appearances, friends, to have kids, etc.

You really need love because marriage requires some work and love is the highest payoff you can get! So marriage based on love has the highest chance of success.

[pepperbird2]

47 minutes ago, Fletch Lives said:

Yes, there are many people who marry for love, and there are also marriages of convenience..... where the couple marry for other reasons, like status, appearances, friends, to have kids, etc.

You really need love because marriage requires some work and love is the highest payoff you can get! So marriage based on love has the highest chance of success.

This then begs the question "how do you define love". It could be there's no pat answer, as it would be different for each person you ask.

[Fletch Lives]

If you go by your gut, you can usually tell when a person is crazy about you. They are a lot more fun to be with.

[Soul-shards]

7 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

This then begs the question "how do you define love". It could be there's no pat answer, as it would be different for each person you ask.

This statement is so true!

Natural variations in the definition of love plays an important role in this discussion. Like you said, pepperbird, some people just don't do...passion. They are not that intense and they don't need deep connection, butterflies, a sense of spiritual union and what not. They simply want to function well in the material world. If they meet someone nice, attractive and functional around whom they can be themselves, with no insecurities, and with whom they can cooperate well - they will process that as love, when another wouldn't have.

Others, who are more emotional/sensitive, may need deeper connection and a sense of "awe" or something. The meaning of love DOES vary a lot across human personality types, cognitive abilities etc. - and I think the danger resides in an individual being erroneously driven by someone else's definition, usually because it is more socially favored.

For example, these days you can read this fashionable statement everywhere: "Love is a choice. Love is not a feeling!"

People parrot it all the time. Counselors want us to internalize it because well, it's functional and gives people a sense of control.

But those like me disagree to a large extent, while accepting this is fully correct for others.

Personally, I don't think love is a choice.  Choosing to love someone is a rationalization of love - not love per se. Love starts with a mysterious feeling - God's je-ne-sais-quoi. Then good choices flow from there. But love itself is never a choice. People may choose to be committed, faithful, caring, dutiful, considerate, generous, honest, to do right by a partner in all ways - but none of that is love per se. That's duty - intentional stuff.

You can see this confusion in parental love too. Parents always say they love their children equally - yet research reveals parents often have secret favorites (which they don't even want to admit consciously bu children know because love is felt. That's even when the parents choose to act dutifully and equally towards all of their children to create the illusion love for all, as it is expected of all parents. The duty part and the actions tat flow from it are choices. The actual love is instinctive, uncontrollable, unruly and not subject to social ethics.

[Weezy1973]

3 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

For example, these days you can read this fashionable statement everywhere: "Love is a choice. Love is not a feeling!"

The variation I’ve heard is “love is an action, not a feeling” or “love is a verb, not a noun”. And to be fair I sort of agree with it. When we love someone, primarily, it’s about wanting that person to be happy. And that is shown in our actions.

Love isn’t how that person makes us “feel”. Mostly because it isn’t that person making us feel that way, it’s only our thoughts about that person that are making us feel that way. Our feelings stem from our thoughts.

[Cookiesandough]

50 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

 

Love isn’t how that person makes us “feel”. Mostly because it isn’t that person making us feel that way, it’s only our thoughts about that person that are making us feel that way. Our feelings stem from our thoughts.

Could you explain what you mean by this a little bit more? Isn’t it still a feeling, even though our own thoughts may be controlling our feelings like they do with a lot of other feelings that we have. We can feel a certain way about a person. Maybe we appreciate x characteristics about them( based on our own thoughts/values) and we develop a fondness for them, get those brain chem fixes when we’re with them, and “love” them? Ideally, this would say we can choose it with our thoughts,  however, the consensus ( at least within epistemology) is that the capacity to which we can control our thoughts and or our beliefs in which our values that make us feel endeared to something  likely stem seem at best limited. They are dependent a lot of our experiences and even genetics. 
Even if we are conscious of our thoughts and have the some control over them (can shift or pretend to feel otherwise), very few people would say that all feelings are completely  controllable (like  fear etc) without any convoluted unraveling. I don’t know 

———-

these kind of discussions about love are really difficult for me because the word is too abstract and all that you get are  platitudes like “love is a choice”,  but maybe that’s the point. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[Weezy1973]

25 minutes ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

Could you explain what you mean by this a little bit more? Isn’t it still a feeling, even though our own thoughts may be controlling our feelings

Our feelings are the product of our thoughts, but to be clear I’m not saying we control our thoughts. In fact, I’m not a believer in free will, so I’d say we definitely don’t control our thoughts. But the distinction is that it isn’t the person that causes the feelings. Have you ever gotten completely smitten with someone only for your feelings to change after some time with them? That’s because what you thought of them initially changed as you got to know them better. 
 

28 minutes ago, Shortskirtslonglashes said:

these kind of discussions about love are really difficult for me because the word is too abstract and all that you get are  platitudes like “love is a choice”,  but maybe that’s the point. 

Love to me is defined as wanting that person you love to be happy. It isn’t about how that person makes you feel. It is a genuine desire for that person to be happy. This is the same with parental love, friendship love, and yes romantic love. It’s a constant. It’s a bit different with a child’s love for their parent as Id describe that more as attachment. Children aren’t too concerned with their parent’s happiness. Not until they get older at least.

[pepperbird2]

4 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

This statement is so true!

Natural variations in the definition of love plays an important role in this discussion. Like you said, pepperbird, some people just don't do...passion. They are not that intense and they don't need deep connection, butterflies, a sense of spiritual union and what not. They simply want to function well in the material world. If they meet someone nice, attractive and functional around whom they can be themselves, with no insecurities, and with whom they can cooperate well - they will process that as love, when another wouldn't have.

Others, who are more emotional/sensitive, may need deeper connection and a sense of "awe" or something. The meaning of love DOES vary a lot across human personality types, cognitive abilities etc. - and I think the danger resides in an individual being erroneously driven by someone else's definition, usually because it is more socially favored.

 

Where I'm having a real problem with what you say is that it doesn't mesh with my personal definition of love. What you describe sounds more like worship. At least to me, that's not love at all. It's actually reflective of an inner deficiency.
I'll explain it like this.
I was a nerdy and geeky kid. Thin as a stick, great big glasses, socially awkward. I hit 14 and that changed. I actually became physically attractive, and suddenly, guys were interested. I still was incredibly socially awkward and never said much, but when a guy who was considered to be  the school catch asked me out, and was thrilled. That was the first and only time I ever felt the "passion" you talk about. It was like we were two halves of the same person, or so I thought.
The first time he hit me, those feelings allowed me to make excuses. The next time, same thing. When he put me in the hospital, you'd think they would be gone, but nope, they were still there.

At the time, i was absolutely besotted and convinced it was love. The thing is, it wasn't. It was me filling in a need in myself, and that's not love. Love doesn't hurt you like that. Love doesn't allow you to let someone hurt you and make excuses for it. Looking back, I didn't love myself, so how could anyone else love me ( in a romantic way)? I was lucky that I had a mom and dad who loved me unconditionally as their child.

Now I realize you may view this very differently. Like I've said all along, this is just my own opinion. We all bring our own experiences and attitudes to the table.

[Wiseman2]

Below is a great description of how judgement and inhibition of hedonistic impulses might be related to why some people fall in certain type of love or why some people may have affairs....or not.

"The Role of the Executive System

The role of the executive system is to handle novel situations outside of the domain of some of our more automatic psychological processes.  Five types of situations in which routine activation of behavior would not be sufficient for optimal performance, and where executive functions must kick in.

Situations that involve planning or decision making

Situations that involve error correction or trouble shooting

Situations where responses are not well-rehearsed or contain novel sequences of actions

Dangerous or technically difficult situations

Situations that require overcoming strong habitual response or resisting temptation

The executive functions are often evoked when it is necessary to override responses that might otherwise be automatically elicited by stimuli in the external environment. For example, when being presented with a potentially rewarding stimulus, such as a piece of pie, a person might have the automatic response to take a bite. However, where such a response conflicts with internal plans (having decided not to eat pie due to being on a diet), the executive functions might engage and inhibit the response".

[pepperbird2]

Whatever else, this is a really interesting discussion. Good food for thought.

Edited March 5, 2021 by pepperbird2

[hajk]

We Are Defining Love the Wrong Way
https://time.com/4225777/meaning-of-love/

The word is mostly used according to the first definition given in the dictionary: “an intense feeling of deep affection.” In other words, love is what one feels.

After years spent speaking with couples before, during and after marriage; and of talking to parents and children struggling with their relationships, I am convinced of the partiality of the definition. Love should be seen not as a feeling but as an enacted emotion. To love is to feel and act lovingly.

.......

And real love is not only about the feelings of the lover; it is not egotism. It is when one person believes in another person and shows it.

We would have a healthier conception of love if we understood that love, like parenting or friendship, is a feeling that expresses itself in action. What we really feel is reflected in what we do. The poet’s song is dazzling and the passion powerful, but the deepest beauty of love is how it changes lives.

Edited March 5, 2021 by hajk

[Soul-shards]

26 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Love to me is defined as wanting that person you love to be happy. It isn’t about how that person makes you feel. It is a genuine desire for that person to be happy.

Yes, but wanting that person you love to be happy and doing actions for them originate in a special feeling of affinity for them.

Love DOES start with a feeling. It certainly doesn't stop there, but it's founded on exactly that. I think it's irrelevant that it's your thoughts about that person that generate the feeling.

After all, the person is the stimulus which causes thoughts, which in turn cause feelings.

Te feelings are there or not. This matters.

[Weezy1973]

1 hour ago, Soul-shards said:

Love DOES start with a feeling. It certainly doesn't stop there, but it's founded on exactly that. I think it's irrelevant that it's your thoughts about that person that generate the feeling.

After all, the person is the stimulus which causes thoughts, which in turn cause feelings.

This assumes that your thoughts about the person are accurate. But so often they’re not. You’re interpreting the external world through your internal filters. It has very little to do with the actual person, but how you perceive them. 
 

Also having been in a few long term relationships I can say for me the feelings ebb and flow throughout the relationship, but because I loved my partners, I treated them well and wanted them to be happy regardless of how I was feeling towards them. Or tried to at least.

[Cookiesandough]

Thanks for elaborating. I think we can all agree feelings are not accurate in at least some sense. Like in fear of flying, our feelings are not accurate in the situation and that if you really look at things, you’re more likely to die in a myriad of other ways besides flying. But that doesn’t mean that those feelings are any less real or meaningful to us. People often try to push the fear out down or away or rationalize things, but looking at the statistics all day will not help if the internal mindset is set to something very different . ... irrational feelings. 
 

Can it be likened to love? It’s not completely rational. We may be drawn to someone for reasons that we do not even understand or think consciously think about. Perhaps because genetically they have physical traits that would provide us with the best offspring or something. Even if we don’t want offspring. Or because they say some particular thing, we assume they are intelligent or kind or anything else that would be impossible to know from that. And it makes us feel a certain type of way with seemingly no legitimate, rational grounding, let alone choice. 

Yea I think love is a choice is a choice is something I’ve been tempted to say as well. Because I, like so many others have experienced that loss of what people often referred to as “love“ but others consider some kind of “infatuation” stage. In this period, it does take more effort or choice to nurture said relationship than it did before. But there are at least enough warm and fuzzies or some other motive that we can choose to do this ( or some of us can, sometimes) Yea 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Shortskirtslonglashes

[BaileyB]

3 hours ago, pepperbird2 said:

It was me filling in a need in myself, and that's not love.

Bingo! 
 

Quote

This assumes that your thoughts about the person are accurate. But so often they’re not. You’re interpreting the external world through your internal filters. It has very little to do with the actual person, but how you perceive them. 

It’s obviously different, but I have two very dear friends who I have known in life. One is a childhood friend, the other I met while travelling. We carried on pal relationships for years telling each other everything from our mundane life experience to our deepest worries, fears, and secrets. I had a bad day, they would reflect my pain and tell me that it was going to be ok. I had a problem to solve, they would go through the pros and cons and help me make a decision. Something wonderful happened, I couldn’t wait to send that email because they would celebrate with me... I thought we were peas in a pod. We finished each other’s sentences. Twin flames... I travelled to meet both friends, and I could not have been more wrong. They are still wonderful friends, but it really showed me how easily it is to develop intimacy in an online relationship. How easy it is to project your own feelings, thoughts, and experiences onto another person.  It’s really easy to convince yourself that you think the same - you are the same person - when you have another person mirroring your every word. Your every thought. Your every feeling. Yes, it is about how you perceive that other person. And because you don’t experience this other person in real life, it’s very easy in interpret things though your own internal filter.

Edited March 6, 2021 by BaileyB

[DKT3]

Still amazed that adult humans going on about soulmates with someone they actually have no idea what a relationship with that person would look like. Oh we have wonderful conversations amazing chemistry...yet they maybe a slob that you would absolutely hate in two months....ridiculous 

[Dis]

8 hours ago, Weezy1973 said:

Love to me is defined as wanting that person you love to be happy. It isn’t about how that person makes you feel. It is a genuine desire for that person to be happy. This is the same with parental love, friendship love, and yes romantic love. It’s a constant. 

This made me cry because of what just happened...Just curled up with my ex in bed. He said he wanted to snuggle because we don't have much time left together and even though we're parting ways, we still want to love each other for the time we have left. I started to cry and I told him that after I leave I want him to be happy, in whatever way that means to him. Whether it means to be alone and find himself or find someone else to love him wholly and appreciate every aspect of the loving, selfless man he is. I cried and encouraged him to do whatever he wanted with his life that will bring him happiness and that I will always wish nothing but the very best for him. I said that during one of our last moments together. And I meant it. I really did. 

 

Yes, when you really love someone, you want them to be happy. And even if you realize that happiness isn't achievable with you, you will still pray to whatever God you believe in that they get there, with or without you. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Dis

[Soul-shards]

10 hours ago, DKT3 said:

Still amazed that adult humans going on about soulmates with someone they actually have no idea what a relationship with that person would look like. Oh we have wonderful conversations amazing chemistry...yet they maybe a slob that you would absolutely hate in two months....ridiculous 

Just in case you are referring to me - I am more than familiar with the physical aspects of the soulmate you allude to. I know what he looks, sounds, moves and lives like. A slob? At this point - I wish! Brutally the opposite of that, which doesn't exactly help my "step away' cause. 😉

[mark clemson]

19 hours ago, hajk said:

 To love is to feel and act lovingly.

The issue with this and the other definitions of love being put forth is not that they're necessarily not good, it's that they're still dependent on individual interpretations and subject to the variance of personality and human experience.

For example, does "act lovingly" mean you buy the other person stuff? Send them cards with "flighty words"? Perhaps they're not interested in such things. Go on adventures? Perhaps they're a homebody and most comfortable watching their kids play. Deep discussions? Maybe they're not that conversational? Sexual loyalty? Some people (not many) are actually fine with open relationships. Honesty? There are look-the-other way marriages and I've heard it quoted around here that "I'd prefer he have a discreet affair rather than break up our family." This represents a (small, but real) category of folks.

Is it a 50/50 split? If you feel very strong emotions for another, but don't act on them and continue on with your spouse in a way that makes them happy, who are you really in love with?

Since your brain mediates both emotions AND actions there is also the question of brain states/systems in play. For example, the VAST majority of LTR couples will not have the "giddy goosebumps" of new love - their love is much more "familial". Which feeling of love "really counts"? Is it the "if love is not madness, it is not love" view or the comfortable LTR state? Again, open to interpretation.

This is not to bash any definitions being put forward. Just to note that if the answers/definitions were straightforward we wouldn't have many discussions in threads about them.

Edited March 6, 2021 by mark clemson

[Lotsgoingon]

When we love someone, primarily, it’s about wanting that person to be happy. And that is shown in our actions.

This definition needs to carry a disclaimer. It does not work for someone like me, who is a recovering people pleaser, rescuer and someone with weak boundaries. I totally wanted various partners to be happy, and yes I would take action on this, lots of action. The problem was that I would lose myself in the process. And, stepping back, I now think that worrying about someone else's happiness can easily stem from assuming they are not happy, assuming they need my help.  A much smarter strategy is to partner with someone who is already happy. If I'm thinking of making someone happy early on in a relationship, I know I'm off my game, off my own center, focusing on the wrong thing. 

Sustaining a good marriage requires all kinds of things to work, and that's what makes discussing marriage so interesting. I recently heard an interview with Stanley McChrystal, former special-forces leader and a super smart and wise man. McChrystal recently wrote a book on leadership and his conclusion: you can't get leadership down to a formula because the context always matters and the personality of the leader matters.  One leader can act a certain way and get certain kind of results and another leader acting the same way won't get those same results. He himself said on some days, he was one kind of leader, and on other days, he was a different kind of leader based on the situation and his reading of what his followers needed.  

Marriage, I think, is like leadership. There are an infinite number of forms a good marriage can take. And frankly, I don't think any of these issues we're discussing matters if the two people are fundamentally immature.  I don't think any of these issues matter if the two people are emotionally wounded and uninterested in acknowledging and healing their wounds and uninterested in preventing their wounds from harming the relationship. . 

I didn't know that the divorce rate had dropped for millennials. Interesting. I did know this: the divorce rate for college graduates is far below the 50-percent figure randomly thrown around in discussions. My quick theories are that college grads marry later, which is better for choosing an appropriate partner. They tend to make more money, and money definitely helps (not guaranteed) when a couple is stressed. And my theory number 3 is that college grads go to therapy more often, individual therapy and couples, and that activity gives them more perspective and more help at overcoming their own wounds. 

https://themarriagerestorationproject.com/why-does-the-divorce-rate-decrease-as-education-level-increases/#:~:text=“The chance of a marriage,marriages among the college graduates.”

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Lotsgoingon

[Weezy1973]

1 hour ago, Lotsgoingon said:

When we love someone, primarily, it’s about wanting that person to be happy. And that is shown in our actions.

It does not work for someone like me, who is a recovering people pleaser, rescuer and someone with weak boundaries. 

So to be clear, wanting someone to be happy isn’t the same as being responsible for their happiness. The actions don’t necessarily entail doing something for that person. In fact, as has already been mentioned in this thread, it can mean breaking up with them. It can mean being happy that they have hobbies that keep them happy. Or any number of things, but the healthiest relationships obviously have both parties loving each other in the sense that they each want the other one to be happy. And the key to this is being aware that we’re trying our best to be happy ourselves all the time too. So when our partner’s happiness is part of our happiness equation (and vice versa) that lays a great foundation.

[Lotsgoingon]

Yes Weezy, totally agree. What's great is to be able to enjoy and bask in and celebrate someone else's happiness. Feeling good over a partner's good fortune and mood is also a way of simply paying attention to that partner, which is also a fundamental part of loving someone well.  

I cannot tell you the number of women especially (usually in their 50s and older) who spent years, even decades, of their marriage trying to make husbands happy without equally attending to their own happiness. But I'm a male recovering people pleaser, and I know guys like this as well. One of my close friends always is working to do things to make his wife happy, and she never seems to appreciate it.  

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Lotsgoingon

[Soul-shards]

Thank you for everyone's interesting views.

Personally, I don't think there any way around the feeling itself, as a foundation of meaningful, complete LOVE. At the core, love MUST start with a special feeling, the so-called "butterflies" - which might even develop over time, but they have to be there at some point . If this mysterious human condition is absent, I wouldn't call it love. It's just an admirable intention with follow-throughs. Duty and commitment.  

Love begins with strong feelings but if stops at that, it's just obsession or self-absorption. Under normal conditions and assuming reciprocation, the feeling itself should generate actions and choices that benefit the love interest, with the principle of beneficence in mind (wanting them to be well and happy and acting in that direction). 

I find the view that "love is NOT a feeling" disingenuous, prescriptive and controlling.

Without the original feeling, which is outside anyone's control - choices, actions and intentionality may be beneficial but they still boil down to duty, not pure love. And the problem is the recipient will KNOW it. They always do.

I've heard that from adult children whose parents had always acted in exemplary ways towards ALL siblings, yet all of them knew that mom's/dad's heart really was with one particular kid. Same for romantic partners. If it's there - LOVE is felt - above and beyond professions, commitment, duties, promises kept and follow ups.  

The "feeling" itself is the spiritual part of love. It is mysterious, irrational, inexplicable, and sometimes inconvenient. It may defeat social prescription or the two may happily overlap. Love ultimately speaks to affinity. It can be very unsettling because it is uncontrollable and humans want everything to be within their control. They want some narrative where if they put their mind to it, they can make love happen or make it stop, or prevent it from developing - as social circumstances dictate.

Based on my observations, it is not how it works. In the end, love will do its thing, even when the beholder can't follow up with too many acts of beneficence because conditions don't allow it. Likewise, lack of love will also do its thing, even when all expected acts of devotion and service are dutifully completed.   

Just a view, of course. []

Edited March 7, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Wiseman2]

Why can't it be both? Many relationships start out with the can't keep your hands off each other type of erotic love and passion and grow deeper into a contentment.

Personally, I don't see this in love/to love angst and dilemma. I view love as dynamic, not static or ridgid. Not either stuck with settling or happy in love.

I suppose one has to be happy with themselves first. Otherwise no one will be fulfilling.

 

[BaileyB]

6 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

Why can't it be both? Many relationships start out with the can't keep your hands off each other type of erotic love and passion and grow deeper into a contentment.

Personally, I don't see this in love/to love angst and dilemma. I view love as dynamic, not static or ridgid. Not either stuck with settling or happy in love.

I suppose one has to be happy with themselves first. Otherwise no one will be fulfilling.

Agree! Life isn’t black and white, you don’t necessarily have one or the other. 

Over the course of a relationship, one may move from one to the other many times... when the spark begins to die, if both partners are invested they rekindle that spark... it’s an ebb and flow. This is very normal for most relationships.