Somebody to Love or Somebody You Love?

[Soul-shards]

This was about what people START OUT with in marriage.

I agree that dynamics can change over time. #1 sometimes evolves towards #2, but much less rarely, #2 turns into #1. In fact, I don't think the latter can ever happen. 

[DKT3]

18 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

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. []

Tons of people love the idea of love, yet it's often confused with lust/attachment and obsession (mostly unhealthy).

Love may or may not be a real emotion. What is real is commitment,  devotion and a very limited set of restrictions as to what you will do for someone. 

Love is all caring, wanting whats best for someone,  not whats best for them in relation to how it affects you.  

Some people are simply too selfish,  and only love selfishly.  This manifest in many counterproductive ways ie abuse, affairs and so on. Difficult to suggest one loves either the spouse or the AP, if so you would want whats best right? Surely,  one can't believe a split self is best.

Edited March 7, 2021 by DKT3

[Soul-shards]

2 hours ago, DKT3 said:

  This manifest in many counterproductive ways ie abuse, affairs and so on. Difficult to suggest one loves either the spouse or the AP, if so you would want whats best right? Surely,  one can't believe a split self is best.

A split self is not best, for sure, but if conditions lead to that, it will be there. People can't control whether their self gets "split" or not. It is absolutely possible to love romantically two people, even though the two loves will be different. This doesn't mean you have to sleep with both. 

[DKT3]

Sure you can....humans are very intelligent we usually choose both good and bad situations.  Its unfortunate that when doing the wrong things they love to play beyond their control.  Its rubbish.

No one has ever gone from 0 to in love, choices were made, own it.

[Soul-shards]

1 hour ago, DKT3 said:

Sure you can....humans are very intelligent we usually choose both good and bad situations.  Its unfortunate that when doing the wrong things they love to play beyond their control.  Its rubbish.

No one has ever gone from 0 to in love, choices were made, own it.

Maybe not from 0 to in love in one strike but that doesn't mean the observations and intriguing feelings developing in between were preventable. We see what we see, our hearts and minds follow where they have to follow. It is possible for humans to end up regretting 'correct' choices and cherishing 'bad' ones. Again, just a view. 

[pepperbird2]

9 hours ago, DKT3 said:

Sure you can....humans are very intelligent we usually choose both good and bad situations.  Its unfortunate that when doing the wrong things they love to play beyond their control.  Its rubbish.

No one has ever gone from 0 to in love, choices were made, own it.

Along with this, I would think that "love" (in whatever way one wants to define it) should want to make a person be their best self. You want to be someone that person would be proud to love back. The idea of being deceptive to them doesn't sit right, whether that's cheating sexually, emotionally, financially or what have you.

Just my opinion, but a relationship that's just plain passion with no depth often can't develop into anything more, simply because there's nothing more to develop. It may be many things ( desperation, dependence, an ego boost )  or what have you. That comes from experiencing "life" together, learning about each other and that sort of thing.

This thread very much reminds me of the "I love you but I'm not in love with you" phrase I've often said by WS to a BS. I've never really understood that myself. To me, they are one and the same.

[Wiseman2]

11 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

 People can't control whether their self gets "split" or not. 

I completely disagree with this statement. People can control this. In fact, if people had no control over thier actions the world would be like a drunken mayhem. 

[BaileyB]

14 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

People can't control whether their self gets "split" or not.

This kind of emotional reasoning is not particularly logical. 

It’s the kind of thing someone says to justify their decision to involve themselves with another person. Where, another may develop feelings for someone, chose not to attend or act on those feelings, and not “split” themselves at all. 

[Soul-shards]

10 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

I completely disagree with this statement. People can control this. In fact, if people had no control over thier actions the world would be like a drunken mayhem. 

 

7 hours ago, BaileyB said:

It’s the kind of thing someone says to justify their decision to involve themselves with another person. Where, another may develop feelings for someone, chose not to attend or act on those feelings, and not “split” themselves at all. 

It is not actions we are talking about here. We were talking about love, at the core of which is a strong and very much uncontrollable feeling. Actions may be subject to control but the LOVE itself is not.  Yes, the love bond may require that the two step away from each other for practical considerations (action) but that doesn't mean the love itself is not there. In some cases, it will always be there - distance, time elapsed, what not. In fact, this kind of sacrifice can reflect a whole lot more love than the reciprocal conveniences one derives from marriage.

One could make the case that a marriage trapping people in a world of commitments and pragmatics is hardly love. It's duty and correct behavior leading to social and emotional stability. 

But LOVE? No. It takes a lot more than this to have love. Some marriages have zero love despite excellent behavior/actions on the part of spouses, and some affairs happen based on pure love which would manifest all the benevolent actions in the world if circumstances allowed it. Unfortunately, A-s, by default, involve hostile circumstances, so it is heartbreaking when people fall in love with a married person. This doesn't mean they could have prevented that. 

[DKT3]

On 3/7/2021 at 9:23 PM, Soul-shards said:

Maybe not from 0 to in love in one strike but that doesn't mean the observations and intriguing feelings developing in between were preventable. We see what we see, our hearts and minds follow where they have to follow. It is possible for humans to end up regretting 'correct' choices and cherishing 'bad' ones. Again, just a view. 

Its not really a view, its illogical emotional bargaining.

Example from my life: some may recall me talking about a South American woman who was transferred up North to the States some years ago....instant attraction between us, very interesting woman.  I was her boss but not directly,  couple levels between.  I avoided this woman....period.  now, I could have done the irrational bargaining or made it seem as if I didn't have a choice and I had to get to know her...but I really didn't. She is still a interesting woman that I know very little about because my choice was to honor my wife and marriage.  Short-term thinking is tragic,  especially because life is long when one constantly makes poor decisions. 

Humans have free will, call it what it is, and stop making it sound like your A teenager who is a slave to immature emotions. You simply make the choice to be unfaithful everyday starting long before any "feelings " were involved. Own it 

[Soul-shards]

14 minutes ago, DKT3 said:

You simply make the choice to be unfaithful everyday starting long before any "feelings " were involved. Own it 

No, I didn't make that choice because I am yet to be physically unfaithful to my H. I simply noticed someone and could not deny his amazing qualities to which I was being consistently exposed. Feelings can develop from such continued exposure, whether we like it or not.

The choice to proceed with physical interaction - that comes later. It can be yes or no. Also, one must also have a high enough incentive to honor the marriage, as you out it. If the marriage match was never that great, the incentive will be low. 

As detailed above, I disagree feelings/love itself are a choice.  

Edited March 9, 2021 by Soul-shards

[Wiseman2]

12 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

One could make the case that a marriage trapping people in a world of commitments and pragmatics is hardly love.

People "trapped" in loveless marriages have the option to divorce.

[Weezy1973]

On 3/6/2021 at 7:17 PM, Soul-shards said:

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 .

My wife has a friend that had a very difficult childhood, including sexual abuse, and the types of men that give her butterflies are not the types of men that one would start a family with. They’re narcissistic, borderline abusive, emotionally unavailable men. 
 

Yet she wants a family. So what to do in this case? I think far more marriages / relationships fail because people jump in fully because they’re feeling butterflies and think that really has some significant meaning. It doesn’t. Butterflies signify nothing except the urge to procreate perhaps. They can often be the hallmark of a (very unhealthy) push/pull dynamic.

 

And to be clear, I’m not saying a healthy relationship can’t start with that butterflies / infatuation feeling. I’m just saying those feelings are rather meaningless, as enjoyable as they might be. 

[Weezy1973]

16 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

We were talking about love, at the core of which is a strong and very much uncontrollable feeling. Actions may be subject to control but the LOVE itself is not.

At the end of the day, we are our actions, not our feelings. If we want a healthy body, we need to eat healthy food and exercise, whether we feel like it or not. Thinking our feelings should push us to act in the right way is a recipe for disaster. I’m trying to teach my kid that it’s important to study, even if he feels like playing. Feelings shouldn’t be the drivers of our actions.

[Lotsgoingon]

OP, part of me wants to say, enough of the theory, tell us about your experience of love. Clearly, some personal experience has ignited this thinking. I'd love to hear it. 

I still think you are underestimating how unreliable the love feeling is in predicting a healthy bond over time. Nobody falls more madly in love, nobody feels more strongly that they have arrived at an amazing bond that will last forever, that will heal them fully---than teenagers. 

I don't think you or anyone else would think these teenagers are onto something. 

Yes, there is an involuntary element, a visceral element, to attraction for sure. That's the basics of attraction. You seem to be talking about a deep attraction. Well, lots of people have deep attraction early on ... lots of people go out on one day and they think, "this is the person I'm going to marry." 

But talk to those people ten years later. I have. These folks don't put much stock in that initial feeling they had. They really don't. They admit that the feeling was strong and clear. Ten years in, these folks generally do NOT think the feeling was insightful and right in helping them pick a partner. 

To try to quantify this: at time of overwhelming feeling, these folks were 99 percent confident they had found "the right" partner. 

Ten years later, if they were to put an estimate on how accurate that feeling was, they'd say it was 45 to 55 percent helpful, maybe even lower.  Those couples that are deliriously happy ... so many of them would say they got lucky.

Take the feeling of meeting "the right person" and add some emotional maturity and resilience (they can take care of themselves and nurture the other without getting overwhelmed) add in some similarities in key values and some resources, sure, good combination.

Take that same feeling and this time subtract emotional maturity and resilience on the part of the partners, have them have differences in key values, lower their resources, and you get a relationship that looks like any standard mediocre relationship. 

But hey, why not share your personal experience here. I love hearing personal stories. 

[Soul-shards]

2 hours ago, Weezy1973 said:

My wife has a friend that had a very difficult childhood, including sexual abuse, and the types of men that give her butterflies are not the types of men that one would start a family with. They’re narcissistic, borderline abusive, emotionally unavailable men.

Then the problem is her, not the butterflies per se. She gets butterflies from the wrong people, probably because there are certain things wrong with her too. Butterflies are not meaningless - they include a lot of information about who one is and what one attracts. Underneath superficial, functional, "opposites attract" traits - like attracts like.

 

2 hours ago, Weezy1973 said:

At the end of the day, we are our actions, not our feelings. If we want a healthy body, we need to eat healthy food and exercise, whether we feel like it or not. Thinking our feelings should push us to act in the right way is a recipe for disaster. I’m trying to teach my kid that it’s important to study, even if he feels like playing. Feelings shouldn’t be the drivers of our actions.

Our actions are often an extension of our feelings. It's not one or the other.

The food analogy is hardly appropriate as the tendency to gorge on bad food and be sedentary doesn't come from a sentiment, but from organic dysfunction.

As for the education analogy:  yes, it's important to study. But the dutiful child who wants to please mommy and society so he can get ahead by 'studying hard' could never equal the magnificent achievements of the child with naturally high cognitive abilities who has a passion for the subject (love! feeling!!) and who is internally driven to study hard and then SOME! The former is in a constant state of grit and effort. The latter is in the flow and will seek knowledge even when the teacher doesn't assign scholastic duties.

Once again we see the difference between duty and love. Duty yields utilitarian actions and outcomes. Love (the feeling) leads to magnificent, transcending actions and results - even outside socially approved frameworks.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Soul-shards

[pepperbird2]

19 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

 Unfortunately, A-s, by default, involve hostile circumstances, so it is heartbreaking when people fall in love with a married person. This doesn't mean they could have prevented that. 

Sorry, but I'm calling bull on that one. No one instantly falls in love. You (general) may certainly feel attracted to someone, but that's not love. You don't know the person. What love would be in that situation is projection and fantasy.

If you mean it sort of builds up over time, I might agree a bot more, but even then, it happens as a series of choices. I choice to send a message, go out for coffee, linger after work, talk on the phone, send a text, send a photo, what have you.

[spiritedaway2003]

53 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

Sorry, but I'm calling bull on that one. No one instantly falls in love. You (general) may certainly feel attracted to someone, but that's not love. You don't know the person. What love would be in that situation is projection and fantasy.

If you mean it sort of builds up over time, I might agree a bot more, but even then, it happens as a series of choices. I choice to send a message, go out for coffee, linger after work, talk on the phone, send a text, send a photo, what have you.

I would argue against the fallacy that it's nothing but pure projection and fantasy.  No one instantly falls in love - that I believe to be true (and I don't think the OP is stating that either).  But  having that initial (not necessarily instant) spark can more easily tun it ...attraction or more.

I would say that over time, as you get to know someone, that gradual attraction to someone -- if it ever evolves into love -- is no longer mere projection or fantasy.  Again, it's not the kind of love that is conventionally accepted (because diametrically, it hurts others).   But it is still love, in its purest form. 

Now, one may argue that you only get see the side of the person that s/he chooses to display.  Dare I say, don't we all?   As for whether you know or don't know the person -- again, that largely depends on the relationships and also, when one is put to the test.  

As for it happening as a result of a series of choice  -- I agree.  It's a series of choices and circumstances.

Edited March 9, 2021 by spiritedaway2003

[Soul-shards]

1 hour ago, pepperbird2 said:

Sorry, but I'm calling bull on that one. No one instantly falls in love. You (general) may certainly feel attracted to someone, but that's not love. You don't know the person. What love would be in that situation is projection and fantasy.

If you mean it sort of builds up over time, I might agree a bot more, but even then, it happens as a series of choices. I choice to send a message, go out for coffee, linger after work, talk on the phone, send a text, send a photo, what have you.

Yes, love can certainly build up over time from regular interaction that can't always be avoided or in which the two don't engage with the purpose of  'testing the waters.' There is no 'plan' or 'ulterior motive' in the interim... until the interaction reaches a point where the two realize A LOT has built up in terms of reciprocal attraction and admiration. At that point there is a history of mutual knowledge. 

You are correct that love doesn't happen as in:  "Hey, look, it's cute! Hey, I am in love!" I don't think one could even begin a conversation with someone who 'falls in love' in this manner. They'd probably have a hard time stringing words together anyway. Then again, you'd be surprised how many people are out there for whom love is exactly that - because it is the maximum  it can be for the way they are wired.

Love is not the same thing to all people. You can't go to someone like this and tell them "Listen, that cute thing you saw... - that's not love!". For you, it may not be. But for them - it is!  

The bigger point here is that for many - love, just like life, is more like quantum physics. It's not duality and clear cut 'choices.'  

Edited March 9, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Off topic

[Lotsgoingon]

1 hour ago, Soul-shards said:

 

Once again we see the difference between duty and love. Duty yields utilitarian actions and outcomes. Love (the feeling) leads to magnificent, transcending actions and results - even outside socially approved frameworks.

This statement is highly debatable. Care to provide some concrete examples here?

Seems to me that even the most passionate relationships at some point--multiple points!!!-- will require duty. If the relationship is mutually nourishing, then that burden of duty is lighter than if the relationship is not mutually nourishing. 

But share some examples, if you will, about the "magnificent transcending actions" of the love you're describing.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Lotsgoingon

[Soul-shards]

28 minutes ago, Soul-shards said:

Yes, love can certainly build up over time from regular interaction that can't always be avoided or in which the two don't engage with the purpose of  'testing the waters.' There is no 'plan' or 'ulterior motive' in the interim... until the interaction reaches a point where the two realize A LOT has built up in terms of reciprocal attraction and admiration. At that point there is a history of mutual knowledge. 

You are correct that love doesn't happen as in:  "Hey, look, it's cute! Hey, I am in love!" I don't think one could even begin a conversation with someone who 'falls in love' in this manner. They'd probably have a hard time stringing words together anyway. Then again, you'd be surprised how many people are out there for whom love is exactly that - because it is the maximum  it can be for the way they are wired.

Love is not the same thing to all people. You can't go to someone like this and tell them "Listen, that cute thing you saw... - that's not love!". For you, it may not be. But for them - it is!  

The bigger point here is that for many - love, just like life, is more like quantum physics. It's not duality and clear cut 'choices.'  

Great points, spirited - thank you.

Regarding humans' ability to 'instantly fall in love' ....see my previous post.

We say that because of our tendency to rally everyone to subscribe to one universally-approved definition of love, which usually boils down to what the 'average person' makes of love.  The trouble is love is not experienced by all the same way because people can be drastically different (fact). I think pepperbird mentioned that earlier too.

Our natural make-up impacts the way we experience love. Humans range from very simple creatures ("Hey, it's hot! I want to jump on it, I am in love!" - Believe them!) ... to extremely complex organisms who need 100 physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual criteria to harmonize just right for love to be triggered. The odds of some of those to find their true love in this life may be worse than many lotteries. So for such, most marriages they could theoretically get into would involve some level of 'settling.' 

I love your point about falling in love only with what one puts on display. I find it interesting how in an A context, people are incessantly reminded of this downside; yet the same audience glosses over the pre-marital reality where the dating parties do the same thing...only to discover later that the person they married had a few more crucial cards up their sleeve. But by that time, society dispenses the "compromise / work on your M" advice. Even in marriage, some partners continue to only put certain traits on display and hide others. 

Ironically, some AP-s are more likely to display their true, uncensored self in the context of an A exactly because it is not subject to social scrutiny and role validation. 

An example are cases of sexual dishonesty in the marriage (I can't do X with my wife because she is...well, pure, like 'the mother of my children'). In reality, they wouldn't mind doing X. 

I absolutely agree that inconvenient love often happens as a result of a series unplanned, non-targeted choices and circumstances that have nothing to do with an intentional "love search" or a 'yes/no' dichotomy. Interaction happens for other purposes, until the two realize there's a lot more there. 

We may be able to apply this binary thinking to the act of sleeping with someone (yes/no), but not to the process of falling in love with them.  

 

[Soul-shards]

2 hours ago, Lotsgoingon said:

OP, part of me wants to say, enough of the theory, tell us about your experience of love. Clearly, some personal experience has ignited this thinking. I'd love to hear it. 

I still think you are underestimating how unreliable the love feeling is in predicting a healthy bond over time. Nobody falls more madly in love, nobody feels more strongly that they have arrived at an amazing bond that will last forever, that will heal them fully---than teenagers. 

I don't think you or anyone else would think these teenagers are onto something. 

Yes, there is an involuntary element, a visceral element, to attraction for sure. That's the basics of attraction. You seem to be talking about a deep attraction. Well, lots of people have deep attraction early on ... lots of people go out on one day and they think, "this is the person I'm going to marry." 

But talk to those people ten years later. I have. These folks don't put much stock in that initial feeling they had. They really don't. They admit that the feeling was strong and clear. Ten years in, these folks generally do NOT think the feeling was insightful and right in helping them pick a partner. 

To try to quantify this: at time of overwhelming feeling, these folks were 99 percent confident they had found "the right" partner. 

Ten years later, if they were to put an estimate on how accurate that feeling was, they'd say it was 45 to 55 percent helpful, maybe even lower.  Those couples that are deliriously happy ... so many of them would say they got lucky.

Take the feeling of meeting "the right person" and add some emotional maturity and resilience (they can take care of themselves and nurture the other without getting overwhelmed) add in some similarities in key values and some resources, sure, good combination.

Take that same feeling and this time subtract emotional maturity and resilience on the part of the partners, have them have differences in key values, lower their resources, and you get a relationship that looks like any standard mediocre relationship. 

But hey, why not share your personal experience here. I love hearing personal stories. 

Hi Lotsgoingon,

This thread was indeed designed  to be rather theoretical.  You can read about some of my experiences of love on the OM/OW forum, if you find them relevant. There is no need to expand on them here. Of course, like all other humans, my views are informed by my experiences, but I also find reassurance in the knowledge that they are not EXCLUSIVELY informed by my experiences, but also by many years of observation, detached study and reflection on the human condition.

(In other words, I don't formulate my views based on navel gazing alone )

As for your examples, the very young have not completed their brain development so the causes of their butterflies can often be attributed to immaturity. The not-so-young but not-so-complex either (see my posts above) typically develop butterflies mainly based on lust. Soon, when that fades out, they find each other faced with the dud they were bound to select.

 

   

[Soul-shards]

33 minutes ago, Lotsgoingon said:

This statement is highly debatable. Care to provide some concrete examples here?

Seems to me that even the most passionate relationships at some point--multiple points!!!-- will require duty. If the relationship is mutually nourishing, then that burden of duty is lighter than if the relationship is not mutually nourishing. 

But share some examples, if you will, about the "magnificent transcending actions" of the love you're describing.

Of course even the most passionate R-s requite duty! Why do people inist on binaries?  But like you intuited, love makes the duty lighter. I would say it makes it very meaningful!

Then you'll hear people boasting about how they love to sacrifice themselves for their loved one! That's the transcending part. Putting their needs first, wanting them to be happy ... and feeling larger than life as a result. Etc.  When you're in love with someone, the duty and sacrifice parts are personally rewarding, When you are not...um, not so much.

[Weezy1973]

2 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

Butterflies are not meaningless - they include a lot of information about who one is and what one attracts. Underneath superficial, functional, "opposites attract" traits - like attracts like.

They are meaningless in that they aren’t a predictor of relationship success, health, long term viability etc. Butterflies  can be indicators of attraction, and as discussed, that isn’t necessarily healthy either depending on what one is attracted to. Chasing feelings (or butterflies) isn’t recommended if one s looking for a lifetime marriage. If one is just looking for that “high” and isn’t too concerned with lasting power, then by all means, butterfly it up.

 

2 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

Our actions are often an extension of our feelings. It's not one or the other.

Often they are. But they don’t have to be. It’s pretty much impossible to control ones thoughts and feelings, but our actions tend to be within our control. We can exercise whether we feel like it or not. It would be nice if we always felt motivated, but it’s certainly not necessary. 

 

2 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

The food analogy is hardly appropriate as the tendency to gorge on bad food and be sedentary doesn't come from a sentiment, but from organic dysfunction.

Not sure what you mean by organic dysfunction. Regardless, if you’re not driven by your feelings to eat healthy and exercise, you can still (and should) eat healthy and exercise. Often doing the right thing involves running counter to our feelings. Not saying that loving healthy food and exercise would be preferable, just saying the feelings (again) aren’t meaningful. What matters is the action.

 

2 hours ago, Soul-shards said:

As for the education analogy:  yes, it's important to study. But the dutiful child who wants to please mommy and society so he can get ahead by 'studying hard' could never equal the magnificent achievements of the child with naturally high cognitive abilities who has a passion for the subject (love! feeling!!) and who is internally driven to study hard and then SOME! The former is in a constant state of grit and effort. The latter is in the flow and will seek knowledge even when the teacher doesn't assign scholastic duties.

Again, yes I think we would all prefer that we were driven by our feelings to act in ways that optimize our health and success etc. But most successful people will tell you how hard they work. And by hard work, they mean doing things they don’t like or feel like doing in the moment, because it pays dividends in the future. Again, actions are meaningful, feelings not so much. Studying whether you’re passionate about it or not will bring success vs not studying if you don’t feel like it. If you don’t feel like studying, and follow those feelings as if they mean something, it means you won’t succeed.

[Soul-shards]

Weezy1973,

Personally, I do not find the analogies above about food, education, and hard work very relevant to the human experience of love.

Of course we all need to discipline ourselves in various areas of life so we can survive and function. This doesn't mean we need to invalidate love as a uniquely human experience that departs from a mysterious feeling and has an impact on marriage quality. Falling in love/experiencing those "butterflies" doesn't have to exclude duty, functionality, and hard work once the couple settles into a routine of life. I am not sure why these are even brought up for an 'either/or' contest. Could it be that those who have never known 'the feeling' need to convince themselves that all of those can substitute for love? Or ARE love? (I confess to being one of those until a few years ago.)

In fact  the strong feeling makes all those 'actions' so much easier. They become meaningful and deeply satisfying, not just effort. 

Otherwise, we could conceivably pick any decent person who commits to do all of the above and have a good marriage with them (which was pretty much the basis of transactional, traditional marriage).  IMO, a functional marriage doesn't equal LOVE just because it keeps working. It's just that: a functional marriage.   

So yes, I would add that the original deep emotions that result from an excellent match, are a great indicator of marital success over the long term! Note I did not say marital longevity, I said marital SUCCESS!  Otherwise, virtually all traditional marriages were 'successful' by the 'functionality' and 'longevity' criteria, feelings or not. That's because society did not allow divorces. It just needed people to function on the surface - at the exterior, never mind how personally unfulfilled. 

It is interesting that even under modern conditions, people still seem to confuse marital longevity and functionality (we successfully functioned together for 60 years!) with marital success (we had a beautiful, meaningful, passionate union with amazing memories, but we also functioned in day to day life, as required). 

If butterflies are considered 'unnecessary' even in the early stages of a R, you can imagine there will be nothing but duty and drudgery later on. I do acknowledge that some people get kicks out of living like this - going through motions with prescribed routines and duties, because that's how they are wired. Acknowledging my bias here: I am not one of those. I belong to a category who needs life to be pleasurable, purposeful and meaningful - in addition to functional. (It would be nice to see others acknowledge their bias too).

It is surprising how many moderns, presumably free to go find their 'great love,' unlike their traditional counterparts, end up advocating for a definition of love that boils down to the same ol' duty and drudgery prescribed by conventional/arranged marriages. Past or present, East or West - turns out marriage is a social institution designed for civilization functionality that may or may not overlap with (some) love.

LOVE in itself, by contrast, is not an institution. It defies social prescription when it needs to, and it happens when it's meant to happen, even outside institutionalized frameworks or boundaries of social ethics .

What I find even more interesting is the general reaction towards individuals' claims about their relationships. Few seem to become uncomfortable, skeptical, or take it as a personal affront when they hear about a couple who had a long, functional marriage (only info available is that they lived long and never divorced, no info about marital quality). 

Yet, when people declare a grand love (intense butterflies and the whole nine yards, whether in marriage or outside of it), the public is much more likely to roll eyes, express skepticism, sometimes even resentment or masked jealousy, apparently activated by FOMO. All the while, many married people with functional marriages but no butterflies, by their own admission, seem to need to convince themselves that what they have - whatever that is -  is love. 

Interesting aspects to observe and ponder over as people reflect on their own relationship views and histories.