Love or In-Love, WTF?

[James]

Infatuation usually fades yes. But generally fades because people have poor relationship skills. Both with themselves and others.

A lot of people kill their own infatuation by being nervous because they feel so strongly. So they talk themselves out of it or dwell on perceived flaws. They kill their own buzz.

Many people feel out of control when infatuated.

The second thing is the lack of relationship skills. You have to maintain an infatuated feeling in your partner that is no longer unconditional.

The say infatuation is a truer kind of love because it is unconditional, many times we carely know the person yet.

In studies of the most successful, closest couples, they are able to maintain an infatuated state continously throughout their relationship because they have superior relationship skills. Skills as in actions.

Its not hard to develop those skills you just need to identify them and practice. They are actually pretty obvious lol. If you think about it you will figure them out.

An example usually is a long term couple that is so expressive that it makes everyone a little ill LOL, especially their kids.

I agree that most people fall into a different kind of relationship as time goes on, mostly based on time shared and security.

But hey thats their loss LOL!!! They make me chuckle. But the cool thing is, they don't know the difference anyway. So as long as they never get the joke, they are ok.

Originally posted by sigmagrrl


You are correct. I don't want to put words into anyone's "mouth", but I think what Cream may be referring to is the diminshed feelings of euphoria. THESE do diminish, it's only natural. What it should be replaced with is a deep, deep longing for a continued connection with your partner, on virtually every level (physically, emotionally, etc).

Speaking from observing others, many people freak out when that lust goes away. But it's not a bad thing, it's just different. I have never experienced a relationship that outlasted the lust phase, but I watched my parents for almost 35 years, and they still craved each other....I want that...

[justamom]

KSig RC , you brought to light a very important point from which an excellent discussion evolved.
I DO agree the word "love" is bandied about, and as KSigkid and others suggests, it's "definition" IS used as a cop out. So much easier to use as an excuse than being blunt-"I do NOT like you that way, I will NEVER like you that way."

Still, maybe it was due to the passions of youth, but there were two individuals in my life who I honestly FEEL I loved with all BUT my libido. Like a brother perhaps, but more like the closest friend in the world.

James-In studies of the most successful, closest couples, they are able to maintain an infatuated state continuously throughout their relationship because they have superior relationship skills. Skills as in actions. How many years are they talking about? After knowing my Hubby over 30 years, I really don't feel like he "infatuates" me, nor I him. Here we come full circle though and what I find funny is the fact that we ARE best friends. I love him with my WHOLE self. If the term "infatuates" means I can still "surprise" him and he me, then yes, I would agree with that statement.

[AXOLiz]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Realistically, the term "love" is abhorrently subjective, and if the "love card" is played in a scenario where it has no real relevance ("I love you but I'M NOT IN LOVE!!HARHARHAR"), it's a cop-out and is being used as double-speak to make the guy feel better.

You can love your friends, as some have said - but I would (and will) argue that this type of love is 180 degrees left of center from "LOVE!!!" in the traditional sense. You can "love" your parents and your friends, but anyone who thinks you easily scale back from LOVING (sic) your boyfriend to loving (sic again) your boyfriend is probably working the situation to her advantage.

Look, love is just like any other subjective term - definition is the hardest part, and as such it will be abused by the definer to his/her best advantage. Hell, I've done it, and I very well know that 70% of you all have too - but you DO NOT mean the same thing when you say "I love my friends!" and "I'm in LOVE!!!!"

I had this same conversation with my best friend only two days ago. She's not sure if she's capable of really loving THE guy (who, for the record, doesn't exist yet, so this was a totally pointless argument). I told her that by looking at the strength of her friendships, you can tell she can love her future perfect man. She thinks I'm full of s--- because she didn't love her last boyfriend. So here's how I explained it:

You love your family, even if you don't like them.
There are friends that you like, but don't love.
You can both like and love your good friends, but you don't loooove them.
You can loooove a guy you're with without really liking him or loving him.
You can like and loooove a guy without loving him.
You can like and love a guy without loooving him.
In a strong relationship, you're doing all three.

Here's what all that BS means. The "loooove" part is when you're "in love" with someone, aka romantic, attraction-type feelings.

"Love," whether you have it with a friend or a romantic partner, that part of it's kind of the same across the board. I consider it the feelings of caring, respect, admiration....basically, all the aspects of a close friendship.

"Liking" someone involves being able to carry on a conversation and spend time with a person for more than 5 minutes without wanting to vomit or choke them or both.

When you're talking about most healthy long-term relationships, they contain all of those aspects to a degree. Obviously you liked the person, that's how you got together. You were in loooove with them when you found you were attracted to them and liked getting all over them. The love part grew as you became closer and wanted to spend time with that person whether they were putting out or not...basically like a close friendship. That friendship, respect and admiration "love" is enhanced by the romantic feelings and attraction which is what makes it special, but it doesn't make loving a significant other 180 degrees away from loving a friend.

Most of the couples I know that have a strong, lasting relationship are friends above all else. As I told my friend, if you would stay with someone even if their goodies fell off in the war, you know you love them. Doesn't mean you're not attracted to them or that you don't love the intimate part, but that person's a valuable part of your life regardless of the physical aspects...just like your close friends are. Unless they're "friends," but that's a whole different ballgame.

So a girl who says she loves someone but isn't in love with them has caring, friendly feelings towards the boy. However, once the initial excitement wore away (which it inevitably does) and the physical, romantic parts calmed down (ditto), she didn't love him enough as a friend to want to stay in the relationship. Once it got to the point where they had to actually talk and be good friends, she probably realized that she only really liked him when he was putting out all the time.

[KSig RC]

Look, I think you've taken my post in a far too negative light - I'm not inordinately pessimistic, but I was simply stating that by the very usage "love" and "Loooooove" (as you put it) are not the same thing, and two separate words would cast a different light on things.

Having strong, friendly feelings for someone, but nothing else, obviously means you're not "in love" with them - so why fuck around and say "well i DO love you, but i don't LOOOOOVE you"?

Because it's a cop-out, plain and simple - the goal is to use semantic differences to ease the impact of the words.

Now, let's just change the equation here - "in love" will be replaced with "A" and "friendly love" will be replaced with "B". I prefer to look at it like JAM does - when you've found your ideal partner (for most people), you'll reach high levels of A and B. When you pick a roommate, you'll look for high levels of B. When you break up with a boyfriend, you've lost A, so you use B to make him feel better - EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE THE TRUTH, that's still the point, right?

Think about it - why alter the very definition of the word? b/c it's beneficial to do so - but it doesn't make it any less of a cop-out

Originally posted by AXOLiz


I had this same conversation with my best friend only two days ago. She's not sure if she's capable of really loving THE guy (who, for the record, doesn't exist yet, so this was a totally pointless argument). I told her that by looking at the strength of her friendships, you can tell she can love her future perfect man. She thinks I'm full of s--- because she didn't love her last boyfriend. So here's how I explained it:

You love your family, even if you don't like them.
There are friends that you like, but don't love.
You can both like and love your good friends, but you don't loooove them.
You can loooove a guy you're with without really liking him or loving him.
You can like and loooove a guy without loving him.
You can like and love a guy without loooving him.
In a strong relationship, you're doing all three.

Here's what all that BS means. The "loooove" part is when you're "in love" with someone, aka romantic, attraction-type feelings.

"Love," whether you have it with a friend or a romantic partner, that part of it's kind of the same across the board. I consider it the feelings of caring, respect, admiration....basically, all the aspects of a close friendship.

"Liking" someone involves being able to carry on a conversation and spend time with a person for more than 5 minutes without wanting to vomit or choke them or both.

When you're talking about most healthy long-term relationships, they contain all of those aspects to a degree. Obviously you liked the person, that's how you got together. You were in loooove with them when you found you were attracted to them and liked getting all over them. The love part grew as you became closer and wanted to spend time with that person whether they were putting out or not...basically like a close friendship. That friendship, respect and admiration "love" is enhanced by the romantic feelings and attraction which is what makes it special, but it doesn't make loving a significant other 180 degrees away from loving a friend.

Most of the couples I know that have a strong, lasting relationship are friends above all else. As I told my friend, if you would stay with someone even if their goodies fell off in the war, you know you love them. Doesn't mean you're not attracted to them or that you don't love the intimate part, but that person's a valuable part of your life regardless of the physical aspects...just like your close friends are. Unless they're "friends," but that's a whole different ballgame.

So a girl who says she loves someone but isn't in love with them has caring, friendly feelings towards the boy. However, once the initial excitement wore away (which it inevitably does) and the physical, romantic parts calmed down (ditto), she didn't love him enough as a friend to want to stay in the relationship. Once it got to the point where they had to actually talk and be good friends, she probably realized that she only really liked him when he was putting out all the time.

[AXOLiz]

But what if that's really how the girl feels? I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying since maybe I'm just confused, and if this at all comes off as harsh or taking you too seriously, I apologize because that's not my intent (and is why I hate talking about stuff by posting messages).

Basically, by saying, "Well, I still love you," the girl is saying, "I don't want to be with you anymore because I'm not attracted to you like I used to be, but I do care about you more than the average person."

The general belief is that guys fall in love with girls they're attracted to, but girls become more attracted to guys they love. Girls' attraction to guys generally grows stronger with time...not the "DAMN I WANT TO JUMP YOU!" kind of attraction, but in general, the more you grow to care about someone, the more attractive you think they are (way to apply something straight out of my major, my advisor would be proud ). Girls tend to become emotionally attached more quickly than guys just through spending time together, and guys tend to become more attached through the physical aspects of the relationship.

So I guess it just makes sense to me (or maybe only to girls) that a girl could still REALLY love a guy she isn't attracted to or doesn't see in a romantic light. However, maybe guys, since their love is greatly dependent on attraction, would see that as the girl just trying to soften the blow since they'd never be in the relationship to begin with if they weren't attracted to her, and they definitely wouldn't have grown to love her without that attraction.

That's why I don't see it as a cop out necessarily, unless the girl is just saying that and doesn't mean a word of it, in which case she should just get right to the point.

For the record, I'm not the type of girl to beat around the bush, I'm more the, "Look, it's not going to work," type. So if you're saying girls should just suck it up and say what they really mean, I agree with you 100%. I've never been one for leading people on just so you don't feel like you're being mean.

Originally posted by KSig RC
Look, I think you've taken my post in a far too negative light - I'm not inordinately pessimistic, but I was simply stating that by the very usage "love" and "Loooooove" (as you put it) are not the same thing, and two separate words would cast a different light on things.

Having strong, friendly feelings for someone, but nothing else, obviously means you're not "in love" with them - so why fuck around and say "well i DO love you, but i don't LOOOOOVE you"?

Because it's a cop-out, plain and simple - the goal is to use semantic differences to ease the impact of the words.

Now, let's just change the equation here - "in love" will be replaced with "A" and "friendly love" will be replaced with "B". I prefer to look at it like JAM does - when you've found your ideal partner (for most people), you'll reach high levels of A and B. When you pick a roommate, you'll look for high levels of B. When you break up with a boyfriend, you've lost A, so you use B to make him feel better - EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE THE TRUTH, that's still the point, right?

Think about it - why alter the very definition of the word? b/c it's beneficial to do so - but it doesn't make it any less of a cop-out

[Peaches-n-Cream]

Originally posted by sigmagrrl


You are correct. I don't want to put words into anyone's "mouth", but I think what Cream may be referring to is the diminshed feelings of euphoria. THESE do diminish, it's only natural. What it should be replaced with is a deep, deep longing for a continued connection with your partner, on virtually every level (physically, emotionally, etc).

EUPHORIA is a better word for what I mean.

[sororitygirl2]

I've joined this conversation a bit late, but I think it is entirely possible to love someone and not be IN LOVE with them.

Don't you love your friends, relatives, pets, etc? But are you in love with them? I hope not!

You can love many people througout the course of a lifetime, and many people at once... You can be IN LOVE with many people throughout the course of a lifetime, but only one at a time.

I think, for many people, being IN LOVE shows a level of commitment that love does not...

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by sororitygirl2
I've joined this conversation a bit late, but I think it is entirely possible to love someone and not be IN LOVE with them.

Don't you love your friends, relatives, pets, etc? But are you in love with them? I hope not!

You can love many people througout the course of a lifetime, and many people at once... You can be IN LOVE with many people throughout the course of a lifetime, but only one at a time.

I think, for many people, being IN LOVE shows a level of commitment that love does not...

ie they're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

So when you 'scale back' on a significant other, attempting to parlay one into the other is a cop-out, an attempt to soften the impact of the words to make it easier on both parties.

If that's how you feel, fine, go ahead and say it - but all I'm saying is that the reason why these two things exist under the same name is not purely coincidence, it is that most of the time usage is a cop-out. Every instance I've seen, including WHEN I DID IT, it was a cop-out . . . I'm sure there are exceptions, but as a general rule, that's what I'm saying. If you don't have the sexual attraction or whatever it is that makes you in love, OF COURSE you won't be in love with them - but "in love" and "love" are apparently two very different things, according to all of our posts, and by simply renaming your emotional attachments you do not make any more clear the situation. This makes it, to my mind, a very clear cop-out - one party uses it as a crutch, under the guise of making it easier on the other party (regardless of the truth of the statement - which is an entirely different argument).

Therefore, in response to the original post (by James), I think that the whole thing is prattle - most people aren't versed well enough in their own emotions to explain how they feel and deal with the consequences, so "I love you but I'm not IN LOVE with you" was created to cop out.

Does that make any more sense? I feel like I'm repeating myself, but maybe restatement will lead to a little bit better understanding.

[James]

bump