Thanks pep : )

Cyn,

Being "in love" sounds much more mature and a justifiable reason to act a certain way. I mean how retarted does it sound to risk family, friends and finances because I was infatuated with someone.

"I did it for love"
"We are soulmates"
"She/he showed me how to love"
"She/he awoke feelings I thought I'd never feel again"

Statements like these...which I have both heard from and said to my lovely wife, go alot farther in the rationalization of our actions. I said them because it gave me a reason to act like what made me feel good at the time.

More of my $.02

So does this mean you were infatuated and not in love? Therefore not really being in love with 2 people at the same time but in love with one and infatuated with the other? And of course I suppose it all depends on how one defines love.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Cyn1018:
<strong> So does this mean you were infatuated and not in love? Therefore not really being in love with 2 people at the same time but in love with one and infatuated with the other? And of course I suppose it all depends on how one defines love. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">short answer...
yes
yes
and yes it depends on how love is defined. I guess if there was a simple definition on what it was to love, things would be a lot more cut and dry. That is the cool thing about love. It is always changing, never static. How you and I defined love 10 years ago is probably a lot different from how we would today and I suspect it will change again as time goes on (not really a short answer, huh?)

During my affair, infatuation would be the perfect description, although while I was in it I would have called it love. I couldn't see clearly to be honest. The OW had all appearances of being close to perfect. Deep down I think I knew something was wrong with her and our relationship but never really explored it. Plus it was easier to think of it in the more the more grand definition of love than labeling it "infatuation." If love is blind, I think infatuation is blind, deaf and dumb.

At the time if you would've asked me I would have said I loved both my wife and the OW. What snapped me out of my "fog", if you will, was a simple kiss on the forehead from my lovely wife. I believe at the time she was in NC from OM. That kiss made me feel better than anything the OW was giving me.

Right then I knew who I loved.

God Bless

Originally posted by Cyn1018:

Maybe it's this way with WS and OP. They think they are in love because of the strong sexual feelings.

I think this is very astute.

Strong sexual feelings may very well convince the WS they are "in love".

I think a strong sexual connection is THE bond that glues MEN to their affair. (has anyone ever heard of a WH sticking by the OW if the sex is lousy? I have not)

I think it is less so for women. For women, I think it is conversation that is the strongest bond.

I am speaking in generalities, of course, there are exceptions.

Pep

<small>[ June 01, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Pepperband ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> But we CAN’T choose to “fall in love” (romantic love) because “falling in love” is a feeling and NOT a choice.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">True </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Therefore we can’t help “falling in love” with someone outside marriage </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">False. We can keep ourselves from falling in love withsomeone outrside our marriage by making ourselves emotionally unavailable to them, and by refusing to let them meet our most imporant emotional needs. This may also mean making ourselves physically unavailable to them. Of course, it is much harder to summon the will to do this if those needs are not being met in your marriage, because the "pull" from the oportunity to have an unmet need met is much greater than the "pull" to have a met need met double.

In our marriage, pre-affair, my needs were less well met than my wife's, but she had an affair, not me. Why? - Because I protected myself from innappropriate attachments by putting boundaries on my relationships with other women. I did not let myself get into situations where they could meet my most important emotional needs.

BTW - Beautifully said, Pep. Hard, but true. And I second your comment to d_rose.

I too thought I felt that way-
love is such an amazing word-
I realize now-what I shared with
OM was not love-infatuation, that
beginning stage of love when all
is new & exciting. everything about
each other is fascinating. WHAM-
as soon as OMW found out-he went
from LOVE, to wanting out-I was
still "in love"-live & learn-I am
thankful everyday I came out of my
"fog" & still have the UNCONDITIONAL
LOVE of my H! Praise God!

Who cares if they can feel love for two people at once? It's not an admirable quality to love and hurt two people at once.

It's one of those WS baloney games when they're in the fog. Don't listen to it, don't try to understand it, and don't try to reason with it.

It is hard to try and make sense out of all of this when obviously one can't.
I talked to my best girlfriend last night and she assured me that yes you can be in love with 2 different people at the same time but each in different ways. She of course has been married twice and is now single.
Then from what I gather it would be safe to say that infatuation is the fog, and true love is what is left when the fog has lifted.