What is your definition of love?


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Wendy_BBW is offline Wendy_BBW Post #1  September 8,2009, 11:34am
Wendy_BBW's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Jul 2009

San Pablo, CA.

Posts: 74

See profile

Just curious to get everyone's opinion: How do you define love? How many times have you been in love?
 
  Reply With Quote
gothustartus is offline gothustartus Post #2  September 8,2009, 12:06pm
gothustartus's Avatar

is thinking about someone special

Veteran

Joined: Jul 2009

London, England

Posts: 1,753

See profile

I've been in love once with a mad reckless passion, a couple of times being slightly more careful, or at least slightly less careless. I have no idea how to define it though, it has felt different each time.
 
  Reply With Quote
Thaliana1981 is offline Thaliana1981 Post #3  September 8,2009, 12:16pm
Thaliana1981's Avatar

Wonders if she's revealing too much about herself too quickly...

Newbie

Joined: Sep 2009

Earth, Sol System

Posts: 37

See profile

Wow...tougher question than you'd think.

I've THOUGHT I was in love a number of times. Looking back, I don't know that any of them were truly love, except, probably, my ex husband.

I used to define love as butterflies in the pit of the stomach at the thought of the person, eager anticipation to see them again. I thought love was the way I felt so secure in his arms, so at peace even in moments of silence. I miss him terribly when he's away, and I'm happy to spend time even just sitting in the same room with him, even doing different activities. That used to be my definition of love.

But now, I don't know, because I feel all those things when I think about/spend time with my best friend. I look forward to every time I see him, I miss him when I'm not hanging out with him, when we hug, I feel finally secure and at peace. When we're both on our computers, checking our eharmony matches, or even when we're just sitting in the same room, all our silences are comfortable.

So, what is love? Is loving someone different from being 'in love'? If so, what is 'in love'?

I don't know the answer to those questions...
 
  Reply With Quote
trixie1868 is offline trixie1868 Post #4  September 8,2009, 12:49pm

what the bejeezus is going on round here?!

Virtuoso

Joined: Aug 2009

London

Posts: 4,703

See profile

Twice.

He was my first thought in the morning and my last thought at night and all the time in between was filled with an overwhelming desire to simply be close to him.

It sounds like drug addiction!

It was wonderful and painful and life changing and I treasure having experienced it above all my other earthly possessions.
 
  Reply With Quote
boccabum is offline boccabum Post #5  September 8,2009, 1:39pm
boccabum's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 974

See profile

trixie1868 wrote :
Twice.

He was my first thought in the morning and my last thought at night and all the time in between was filled with an overwhelming desire to simply be close to him.

It sounds like drug addiction!

It was wonderful and painful and life changing and I treasure having experienced it above all my other earthly possessions.
That's describing the emotional symptom of love, not love itself. IMO. Many time, those same "symptoms" are simply lust. To me, love is a lot more than that.
 
  Reply With Quote
boccabum is offline boccabum Post #6  September 8,2009, 2:21pm
boccabum's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 974

See profile

Here is my definition;
First, love HAS to be mutual, not one-sided.
It's a system that includes emotions and behaviors to each other. I know this will sound analytical but...oh well!

It has as least 4 major components. I figured this out after reading some things about what love is and after verifying through my own personal experiences.

You need:
Lust--sexual attraction between two people. It shows in admiration, respect and a desire to be intimate with each other. Without lust, people get bored and some end up cheating.
IMO: You can't know if your lust is sustainable with your partner without testing it first. If you get married to someone without first having sex, you're taking a big risk with your future for the sake of a theological principle.

An obligation--a commitment. To be there for each other. Forsaking all others. The obligation has to be voluntary. Not out of fear of loosing them or retribution. All major decisions are made together. If you can't follow through with your promises to your mate or can't see yourself doing that forever, you don't have love. If you try to destroy each other in divorce court, you never really had love.

Truthful and free communication--with emphasis on the truth. Willing and effortless communication of their thoughts, plans, feelings, and what they want. Most people can't be truthful to THEMSELVES and live their lives this way. And that's why most relationships fail.

Equality--neither partner is treated better than or is regarded more highly than the other. It's the opposite of being entitled. Neither partner has privileges or rights that are greater than the other. No princesses and no princes. While I think there should be defined roles, there are also entitlements that are wrong. If a man doesn't do housework because "that's just not man's work", or a woman expects to be wined and dined because "she's a woman and that's how you treat them" then there is no equality. I has to come from the start. You can't evolve equality over the course of a relationship. It's there at the beginning or it never exists.

You'll notice I didn't put any emotion on my definitions. Emotions of love are the RESULT of the above things. If you don't have each of these, you don't have love. You might have the emotions but they mask and trick us to believe we're in love. Most people I've known had lust. Just sexual attraction. They've turned this into an emotion they call "love". But without the other things, it'll fail eventually when the lust fades.
 
  Reply With Quote
jacsmit is offline jacsmit Post #7  September 8,2009, 7:21pm
jacsmit's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Feb 2009

Can

Posts: 213

See profile

trixie1868 wrote :
He was my first thought in the morning and my last thought at night and all the time in between was filled with an overwhelming desire to simply be close to him.
That's exactly how I felt about my ex - who apparently has NPD. I had strong feelings for her, and believed it was love - but my friends claim it sounded more like an obsession/addiction (not true/real love). So either the above is not what some/most people say is love - or there's more to it than what you've written above.

What happened in the above case with you?

Lately, after a lot of reading, reflecting, and talking with a few really close people - I feel love is more about giving - about what the other person wants/needs, what's best for them, to live and grow as a individual - rather than the feeling(s) one has towards/with them (but there are definitely feelings involved if you want to support/encourage a person in this way). Then again, there are all kinds of love - different variations, shades, etc. Maybe love is whatever you want it to be? (And I imagine people even have love/hate relationships with "love" )
Last edited by jacsmit; September 8,2009 at 7:29pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
jacsmit is offline jacsmit Post #8  September 8,2009, 7:49pm
jacsmit's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Feb 2009

Can

Posts: 213

See profile

boccabum wrote :
Here is my definition;
First, love HAS to be mutual, not one-sided.
Based on my last post, you may see that I disagree with the above. I'm just curious why/how you came to that conclusion. Because, being analytical as well, it has me wondering how anyone could fall in love based on the above unless it happened at exactly the same time. ;-P

boccabum wrote :
It has as least 4 major components. I figured this out after reading some things about what love is and after verifying through my own personal experiences.
Also interested in what books you've read (I'm always open to checking out new ones). One of the best ones for me on this was The Road Less Traveled by Scott Peck.

boccabum wrote :
Lust--sexual attraction between two people.
Maybe what you're describing is something that's required in a lasting romantic loving relationship - but it's contrary to what most books (including the dictionary) would say about lust and love not being the same thing. Perhaps they need to be amended tho to say that one includes (or transforms into) the other?

boccabum wrote :
An obligation--a commitment. To be there for each other. Forsaking all others. The obligation has to be voluntary. Not out of fear of loosing them or retribution. All major decisions are made together. If you can't follow through with your promises to your mate or can't see yourself doing that forever, you don't have love. If you try to destroy each other in divorce court, you never really had love.
Hmm, that sounds more like honoring your wedding vows; making a decision / commitment to agree to common rules. Rather than love. (not say the above isn't a good idea but it doesn't seem to be a requirement of/for love)

boccabum wrote :
Truthful and free communication
I wanted to disagree with you on this one... ;-) But it's a little trickier. This is definitely something that's required for longterm, happy successful couples. It may be something that comes spontaneously out of love (once one truly loves oneself, and the other person). But I imagine people can at least have the feeling of being in love - and even love other people (like parents, friends, etc) - without doing the above. But yes, true/pure/romantic/long-lasting/... love almost certainly includes the above.

boccabum wrote :
Equality--neither partner is treated better than or is regarded more highly than the other.
Not sure what to make of that one - although my initial thought is that love doesn't require it - if it's a giving/feeling towards the other person - maybe again this is like what you say above that love is conditional on it being mutual and given/received equally. (although it's really hard to pin down what equal would be exactly - like how equal can you make an apple and an orange? [ie. if it's the size and shape that matter, maybe you can get pretty close - but if you mean taste, etc.....]

I'll leave it there for now - the rest of what you write is interesting, and definitely something to think about.
Last edited by jacsmit; September 8,2009 at 8:33pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
j0hn8andy is offline j0hn8andy Post #9  September 8,2009, 8:49pm
j0hn8andy's Avatar

.....yes, she.....Sweeps past softly, without a sigh.....

Power Poster

Joined: Jun 2009

California

Posts: 5,102

See profile

Thaliana1981 wrote :
So, what is love? Is loving someone different from being 'in love'? If so, what is 'in love'?
trixie1868 wrote :
He was my first thought in the morning and my last thought at night and all the time in between was filled with an overwhelming desire to simply be close to him.

It sounds like drug addiction!

It was wonderful and painful and life changing and I treasure having experienced it above all my other earthly possessions.
I loved my first husband.

I was in love with my second. The one and only time in my life. It was a love with a wild abandon and a fierce passion. It lingers still, even though he's dead and gone now.

They are different. I busted my brains to try and explain the difference in another thread awhile back, and simply could not do it justice. I won't even try here, except to say that when it happens for you, I promise it will be unmistakable, and you will recognize it for what it is...

Trixie comes closest, though even she would probably say she didn't do it justice.
 
  Reply With Quote
peg099 is offline peg099 Post #10  September 8,2009, 11:59pm
peg099's Avatar

Sage

Joined: Sep 2008

Canada

Posts: 12,516

See profile

boccabum wrote :
Here is my definition;
First, love HAS to be mutual, not one-sided.
It's a system that includes emotions and behaviors to each other. I know this will sound analytical but...oh well!

It has as least 4 major components. I figured this out after reading some things about what love is and after verifying through my own personal experiences.

You need:
Lust--sexual attraction between two people. It shows in admiration, respect and a desire to be intimate with each other. Without lust, people get bored and some end up cheating.
IMO: You can't know if your lust is sustainable with your partner without testing it first. If you get married to someone without first having sex, you're taking a big risk with your future for the sake of a theological principle.

An obligation--a commitment. To be there for each other. Forsaking all others. The obligation has to be voluntary. Not out of fear of loosing them or retribution. All major decisions are made together. If you can't follow through with your promises to your mate or can't see yourself doing that forever, you don't have love. If you try to destroy each other in divorce court, you never really had love.

Truthful and free communication--with emphasis on the truth. Willing and effortless communication of their thoughts, plans, feelings, and what they want. Most people can't be truthful to THEMSELVES and live their lives this way. And that's why most relationships fail.

Equality--neither partner is treated better than or is regarded more highly than the other. It's the opposite of being entitled. Neither partner has privileges or rights that are greater than the other. No princesses and no princes. While I think there should be defined roles, there are also entitlements that are wrong. If a man doesn't do housework because "that's just not man's work", or a woman expects to be wined and dined because "she's a woman and that's how you treat them" then there is no equality. I has to come from the start. You can't evolve equality over the course of a relationship. It's there at the beginning or it never exists.

You'll notice I didn't put any emotion on my definitions. Emotions of love are the RESULT of the above things. If you don't have each of these, you don't have love. You might have the emotions but they mask and trick us to believe we're in love. Most people I've known had lust. Just sexual attraction. They've turned this into an emotion they call "love". But without the other things, it'll fail eventually when the lust fades.
To me, what you're describing are requirements for a healthy long-term romantic relationship, not love. Love itself isn't dependent on the other person or their response to you. Love is about your part of the equation - it's about giving - not about requiring anything in return.

While love can be the result of the four requisites you outlined, those are not necessarily prerequisites for love. Love can exist first, and result in the kind of system you describe. It can work in either direction.
Last edited by peg099; September 9,2009 at 12:07am.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« Being rich, does it help or hinder finding a match? | Dating | Monday, September 21st Dating & Weekend Roundup »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Problems with "I Love You" pixie11 Relationships 36 March 12,2011 12:36pm
What is Love? Robert_inSD Relationships 26 April 3,2010 11:40am
What Is Love? FaithNGod Christian Singles 42 September 20,2009 3:58am
Belief/Acceptance of Romantic Love TDIGZ Intelligent Conversation 10 August 23,2009 10:54am
MJ The King coriglnm Music 12 July 21,2009 9:37am

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“I do still eat and drink the things I shouldn't sometimes. I'd stop if I needed an Epi-Pen but none of my allergies are severe enough for that yet. I feel for you, Legend.” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Living Without....” discussion

“No, this is the ONE, with the Domestic Man among men that I hunger for... New Twist Like the great philosopher Dr. Phil says, "When momma's happy, everyone's happy".” –  tweet37

Join the “What kind of add you see on this board?” discussion

“I think you are projecting that if you are the one paying for the first few dates that the woman is a "pay to play" woman and if you were to marry her she would be so irresponsible that you'd be ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “who pays?” discussion

“That's disappointing. You've gotten a lot of tips about changing your settings and I hope it pays off when you do.” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Different Strategy” discussion

“ Happy Faraday, Birth... um I mean... Happy Birthday, Fara. I blame harnomygirl... typing her name messes with your mind.” –  dmi

Join the “The End Maybe Coming” discussion

“I thought she took the safer route and met him here first. Now that she knows he's fun, they'll throw caution to the wind, but gently.” –  harnomygirl

Join the “a match wants to meet me in a foreign country” discussion

“ I wouldn't be so sure he was ready (the way you mean it) with this new girl. He was calling you testing the waters while seeing her, right? This may just be how he is in relationships- this may ... ” –  FairOne

Join the “Reuniting with EX” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:23am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0