Agree. But I think the original post refers to acceptance as TOLERANCE, rather than simply acceptance of the truth.


I think that love is a feeling, but it is demonstrated by ACTION, ie: committment. And when I fall out of love, for whatever reason, that means the end of my COMMITTMENT if I decide to end my marriage. Therefore, my love is NOT unconditional. It is very conditional.

That may be, indeed.


I think, rather, that it's the other way around. Love is an action, and if the action is 2 commit 2 one's spouse, then the feelings can be wonderful.


Having gone through the experience of watching my lovebank drain 2 nothing, and knowing that my W's was empty, perhaps years ago, before I found out about her A 5 years ago, I can say, for myself at least, that when I fell out of love with my FWW, my commitment didn't end, because I knew that I made the choice 2 commit out of real love. And that, once we can both fully commit 2 one another again (really, better than we ever did 31 years ago, because we're not so young and s2pid as we were then!), then the feeling of being in love can re2rn.


Agreed. That isn't unconditional love.

-ol' 2long

Well, yes I did answer your question. But feel free to give us your take on that.

But, would you make that committment in the first place if you did not have feelings of love? I agree that committment is act of love, as you say, but I would call it more a demonstration of my feelings of love because it STEMS from that. For example, I can make a committment to my employer, but is not an act of love because it does not stem from any such thing. It is just a committment that I could make to anyone I DON'T LOVE for the right price. A committment in, and of itself, does not constitute love. Whereas, my committment to my H *IS* an actual demonstration of my love. Hope that makes sense.


I think that many people do have "real love" for their mate,[I know I did] but when the conditions in that marriage change, the committment is ended. That does not mean their love was any less than someone who did not end their marriage. How do you define "real love?"

"Why is unconditional acceptance so important? Because if you accept only in part, you can love only in part."

Yes I understand this ideal.


I find it very hard to follow through on all the time.

It is concousiness within me to remind to myself to be loving to my spouse in times I do not necessarily feel it reciprocated.

I do not believe unconditional loving is opening me up to abuse or doormat behaviour. On the contrary. Accepting my spouse warts on all is loving him fully for who he is - that is not the same as loving him for what he does.

As one person said if person whom we love unconditionally was behaving atrociously, than we can still love them unconditionally........... from AFAR......... VERY AFAR.

It would not be very loving to allow anyone believe that while they are fully accepted & loved for who they are that they may behave in any manner that is detrimental to any other person.

So yes we can love unconditionally and seperate out the behaviour to acceptable or not Which would of course include Loving Consequences - that is loving someone fully I believe in the truest purest sense.

Very interesting topic, thank you for raising it AJ.

"And if you love in part, your mate's self-esteem will never be complete."

I question this part.

From your own experience do you truly believe that esteem is based on the acceptance of others?

Doggone. Now I'm going to feel compelled to dig through the earlier pages of the hygiene products and find my post on love as a principle of action (i.e., "God is love...") and love as an emotion ("My hormones are in a state of flux--I'm in lo-o-o-o-o-ove!") I know. I know. You don't feel that I'm compelled to do it, but that isn't helping ME any...

Maybe after my nap.

t&l

P.S. Hello, AJ. Watch for my post later on when I get a chance. Neaksis said "gonads" in church today, and it wasn't the word she was trying to use at all. Funniest thing I've heard in church for a long time. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Snort.

mary1day, you had me until you said that you love your spouse for "who he is" rather than for "what he does." Our behavior is an extension of our character, and can't be seperated from who we are. For example, if I rape little children, I am not just "a good person who happens to rape," but a RAPIST. My actions define ME because they are an extension of my character. They can't be seperated.

Like you, I questioned the self esteem commentary. That implies that my self esteem is contingent upon the unconditional acceptance of my spouse. That may be true, in some cases, but it is sure not a sign of a very stable self image, IMO.

We can only hope God wasn't watching!!! WAY TO GO,NEAKSIS!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

"My actions define ME because they are an extension of my character"

I liked that statement when I read it first.

It does make sense in respect that it is comfortable to know that "my actions" are most often in line with my core values & my own sense of self worth, so therefore yes my actions are ususally ok'ish.

However when I do throw a wobbler, or screw up, I would not like to be defined by my actions, in fact I'd prefer my negative actions went by UN noticed ;D

Now that I have taken a closer look at it, my actions maybe an extension of me, as they give an image of me to others, but that is not the entirety of who I am.

I do not think I would like to be defined by what I do.

I prefer to be loved for who I am.

mmmmmm

& deeper I mull.

Dr. Harley’s program is based upon the premise that LOVE IS CONDITIONAL.

From someone that has been fighting against adultery and recovering for 19 months I can tell you that the love in my M is absolutely based upon conditional love.

The ability to employ love as an action word is entrenched in the bathing of ones mind in the glories of love.

It’s a near perfect circle that once started and NURTURED has no beginning and no end.

But let the conditions deteriorate to the point that one partner FEELS like there is no love, well, head for the hills because there is a storm a brewin' over the horizon.

This is why at least ONE person has to act like they are in love toward the other to kick start the machine of love.

You can say anything about love that you want, but if you don’t practice love then numbered are the days until you find yourself clutching an empty fist; where once it held on to unconditional love.

Back under the rock,

Ok my head is bouncing & I'm thinking out loud...

Yes Action is the key to showing our love.

It's a conundrum.

I want to love unconditionally & be loved unconditionally, yet I know I do react to actions too.

& I get completely what Plank is saying.

New question:
Is unconditional love really possible?

But why? Shouldn't we also be judged by our mistakes? And how we handle them? Arent' our mistakes part of who we REALLY ARE? Some of the biggest heroes I know are folks who screwed up the WORST, but handled their shortcomings with courage and grace and class. That is a very telling extension of a GOOD character. We are not judged based on perfection, because no one is perfect, but in how we HANDLE those imperfections.

Even our shortcomings define who we REALLY ARE. What we all really ARE are imperfect human beings who do good things and bad things. But if we are not defined by our behavior, then there is really no other standard by which to judge us.


And who you are is defined by your actions, good, bad and indifferent. What other way is there to judge a person?

Mary1day,

Are you looking for answers that would validate unhealthy relationships?

My guess would be that the enabler and passive aggressive would dance that dance the best.

If that’s what you are looking for, put your seat belt on, that’s an E ticket ride.

Of course God was watching! He just has a good sense of humor, that's all. And he enjoys seeing her blush deep purple, too. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

t&l

I also think a certain few persons also got a good laugh <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

I agree with ALL of you...but this statement spoke to me because throughout my relationship with DH, my love has been conditional...but too conditional. I think it's a matter of degree. To love your spouse through words and actions even when you are frustrated because of an argument or underwear left on the floor, etc. This has been a big issue for me, feeling like I didn't love him when he didn't behave according to the script of what I expected. One fight and I feel like I don't love him and that it just negated all of the other good things about him.

This is not accepting abuse, violence or anything else. That's an extreme and those things should never be tolerated. But accepting a spouse who occasionally leaves his drawers on the floor or doesn't put the cap back on the toothpaste...is accepting the little human foibles.

So my take would be, that love is conditional, but we should still strive to accept our spouses as imperfect humans who can and do drive us nuts. We all have to decide for ourselves where our line of acceptance is...and I guess that falls into boundary territory.

I don't know if I'm making sense or not! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Mel,

"But, would you make that commitment in the first place if you did not have feelings of love?"

I choose love for all I meet. (But I leave sex out of it.) Feelings mean little. Only actions can be counted up and stored away for later use.

Feelings can indeed, and usually do, come first in romantic love. But they always fade to one degree or another as fast as dopamine receptors reset. True commitment, by definition, does not. Thus, acts of love, romantic and otherwise, continue despite feelings or not-feelings.

This, commitment, is the rock-bottom basis of "for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness in health and death do us part,” is it not?


Perhaps I smell a trap here. Mel, are you are acting devil’s advocate? You say, feelings leave = so do you. But I know you of all people do not advocate throw away marriages.

This is where the Love Bank and I part company. I do believe it is a useful analytic tool to parse troubled marriages. But a real live love bank does not really exist, you know. I can tell you with certainty my feelings-of-love-bank was far into the red after D-Day 2. But my love-is-a-verb-bank was never overdrawn. Thus, I can say my love for my FWW is unconditional. It’s in how I define true romantic love.

UL does not demand I put up with evil and hurtful actions. As 2L posts, it isn’t UL to take it on the chin time after time never giving the perpetrator a chance to learn anything. That’s not even smart.

I think.

With prayers,

PS: Let me clarify choosing love for all I meet. I choose to act loving to OM by staying well away from him and altogether ignoring his existence. Not doing so would definitely end up being a committable kind of love.

This is what I had a hard time accepting because my FBH acted with this mindset. I didn't understand how he could still be loving to me after what I had done.

Aphelion, you are right, I am not saying that my commitment is contingent upon my romantic feelings of love. I am saying they STARTED that way and that is what differentiates a marriage commitment from, lets say, an EMPLOYMENT commitment. I would NOT make the commitment of marriage to someone that I did not have FEELINGS of love for. My commitment is my demonstration of love.

However, my commitment to my employer is not an act of love, so I am asserting that a commitment alone is not an act of love. BUT CAN BE.

That being said, my commitment to my marriage, ie: that demonstration of my love, is not unconditional. I may not feel love for my H next week, but I stand by my commitment. However, if he committed adultery again, I would end the marriage and not love him anymore.