Had an interesting discussion in my Divorce Recovery class the other night. <p>We got on a discussion about love and what it is. Our discussion leader said that a lot of marriages get in trouble because people go into it with different expectations about what love is.<p>I have been doing a lot of thinking about it the last two days. We did have different definitons of love and how to show it. Perhaps if we had discussed it before-we wouldn't be in the position we are in now. <p>What is your definiton of LOVE?

this comes up all the time, and it is one of my um........ eppihany's (?). I (being the analytical type) felt sure love had only one meaning and was sought the same way by all.....boy was I wrong...... I now understand the word love is used in a number of different ways, from healthy, to downright toxic (as in I love you so much I must kill you, or beat you, or control you, or well....you get the message). It is a little bit like the word Christian. It is amazing the range of belief under the label Christian. When you suggest (politely) to someone that their use of the word Christian bares little resemblence to anything reasonable known about Jesus Christ and His teachings, people get downright irate...so what's the big deal, is only a word why do people want so much to claim it for their own? Who knows, but I do know now when someone tells me they are a Christian, I have to ask for more detail, otherwise I have little idea of what they believe. That is the point of labels, believe what you want, but use descriptive words so the rest of us have some notion of what you are talking about.<p>Love is the same way. Everyone wants to claim they "love" or are "in-love"...why? What's the big deal, live how ya want, who cares about the label? Well the fact is we do care, love is a very powerful word, it demands respect, and has consequences. So people just apply it willy nilly, thinking the label will somehow make the magic happen I suppose, or needing to reassure themselves all this emotional resources they are expending are for a good cause. You could ask this question all day and get no real answer, that's cause there is no universally accepted standard (or way of measuring it) to define love, and everyone is going to be very protective of their version of love.<p>But I do think we can define it, fairly closely. Love is essentially a psychological term, it is the label for the closest of human relationships (am only going to deal with romantic love here, not parent/child, or kin/sibling, or love of country, chocolate love, or brotherly love etc.) The spectrum of human interaction ranges from stranger to lover (as in-love, not a lustful sex oriented thingy). In-between are neighbors, co-workers, and aquaintainces and friends of varying degrees. IMO love is used way to much, and so has lost it's meaning. People regularly date someone and are in-love immediately, this is impossible, they are in-lust maybe, but love has a time requirement IMO. You cannot be in-love until you have exchanged a fair amount of psychological data first, over some minimum period of time.<p>I could write a book here (and I might) just on what I have observed re love from the hundreds of stories here at MB alone, but in the spirit of brevity, I will try to list what I feel are the components of in-love.<p>1. in-love has nothing to do with caring love, the deisre to be kind, and considerate, and helpful to another. One can feel (and act on) such love with anyone. One will care about their lover, but that is not the passionate love of a man and woman for each other. However, many marriages are one variation or another of caring love, and such folks take umbrage if one points out they are not in-love.<p>2. In-love requires the concious choice to love, a cognitive decision (hopefully after due diligence, cause one can be decieved), to "choose"....AND the emtional involuntary (meaning you can't not love the person) choosing of another. One cannot be decieved emotionally, if one is radically honest (often one is not though), cause one cannot talk themselves into (or out of) love emotionally. Unfortuneately, people often enter love (and marriage) with misgivings they have denied, cause they did not listen to their head or their heart. BOTH must be in harmony to be in-love.<p>3. Love is as MB describes IMO for the most part. Only it isn't "work". People in love follow rules of protection, poja, honesty, etc. cause they must, it is the nature of love. MB hopes to jumpstart a truelove that is temporarily in disarray by emulating loving behaviour. This will not work if people are not in-love in the first place (IMO).<p>4. Love is essentially about psychological fit. Human beings are complex, and have widely varying psychologies, people "get along" differently with each individual in their life. The "better" you get along with someone, the more you "fit". This has to do with temperament, coping mechanisms, problem solving strategies, aggression, communication strategies, focus, risk capacity, and a host of other things known and unknown. As well it has to do with our deviation from normalcy, no one is normal, and each have varying personality traits, and/or disorders, these things interact synergistically, neutrally, or negatively..... and their is absolutely nothing we can do to change it. BUT within narrow limits, we can clean up our act (so to speak) and make behavioural improvements, or select somewhat different paradigms, and thereby remove friction that is interfereing with realizing an in-love potential with someone (and therein lies MB ability to help).<p>The problem is people rarely go very deep in themselves (much less the object of their lust), and marry on a very shakey lielihood of compatibility or fit, and wreak the inevitable consequences. <p>5. If people fit, and successfully marry (meaning their personality traits mesh, instead of conflict) they will experience various things which IMO are what love (in-love) is about. First and foremost they will feel safe, they will not gaurd, or feel any need to protect themselves. People often express such hurt (when betrayed) that they did feel that way...but if you listen to the stories, in almost all cases the feeling was unjustified, there was plenty of evidence they were not safe, they just denied it. Remember the MIND and the emotions must be in agreement, denial is about deliberately ignoring obvious signs. People in-love do not mistreat each other, they do not use anger on each other, they are always safe in these ways. You say...but snl, that is unreasonable, people get mad, no one is perfect....and I say, that is true, but the patterns are immutable, if any of this happens on a regular basis, people are not in-love, they are playing at it, they are in a fantasy, a picture. And in fact, most are, I would guess at best only 10% of marriages are in-love. And because it is so hard to find, and do it right, people settle all the time for less, and spend the rest of their lives trying to convince themselves they are in-love, failing more often than not, but if the work hard enough, really really hard, one can reach a comfortable accomodation, and compared to what so many people are going through, can hardly blame em for calling it love.<p>6. After the fundamental of feeling safe, you have compainonship. People in-love want to be hooked at the hip, they want to be together all the time, and they mark time (when apart) by when they will next be together. There is no his stuff and her stuff, there is their stuff, they do everything (they can) together, and choose activities both can participate in. Whether it be going to the store for groceries, or a mutual recreational activity. There lives are completely intertwined, you cannot tell where one starts and the other stops, they are oneflesh, they are each others other half. They don't hurt each other, cause one does not hurt themself. It is a completely selfish behaviour, and has nothing to do with sacrifice or compromise. But this is not possible some say, people are too different.... that is true, and why if you do not fit well you cannot be in-love, you cannot make yourself do these things, they only happen when you fit right. And it does happen, not often perhaps, but people do live lives like this, and we all recognize how special it is when we see it. Also Harley noted in his fall in love book, people in-love do not need to affair proof their marriage, cause they will never want to stray.<p>7. In-love is also reflected in your sexual activity. People in-love are passionate for each other, they have no sexual issues (although one can suffer from some dysfunction as a result of foo, and such), arising from lack of desire. IMO all lack of desire is a reflection of the nature of the bond between two people. No matter how much we are in denial, our bodies don't lie, and we experience decreased sexual deisre when we realize we are not in-love. Because we are physical creatures, we can and do perform in varying degrees, but it will not last a lifetime, and we will always know it isn't quite right.<p>8. People in-love want nothing more in life than to wake up and look in the eyes of their spouse each day for the rest of their life. Everything else is secondary. I personally think the fundamental unit of our species is the matched (in-love) couple, not the individual. Such a couple is in every way, superior to an outcome of both folks being single. They are more productive, they live longer, they are more stable and so forth.<p>So what do we call marriages not in-love? I call em accomodations or dependentcies. There are many clear advantages to having a spouse, and as a quid pro quo many people marry and stay married for those benefits. The dependentcies are the saddest though. It almost wipes out all that is beautiful about love and intimacy. One (or both) parties enter a dysfunctional, or even toxic dance, one of chronic neglect, self-serving behavioir, walking on eggshells, anger, withdrawal, emotional game playing, manipulation of all kinds, but enough cooperation that the marriage one has is better than the fear of starting over with another (and doing no better), so folks are trapped, and spend their lives trying to convince themselves they love their defective spouse, and happiness is a decision (it isn't, it is how we measure our mental health), and that marriage is just about work.<p>Well, I could go on, I think there is lots more one can say about the patterns and behaviours of folks who are in-love, but that kinda presents how I see it in general. I think every marriage can sit down, and apply a set of standards that will quickly reveal whether they are really in-love or just think they are, it isn't that hard. What is hard is the repercussions when we realize we are not in-love with our spouse (or they do not love us...same difference, can't be in-love unless both are.... no such a thing as unilateral in-love IMO).

Thanks SNL,<p>It is a very thought provoking issue. Obviously, my H was not "In Love" with me. Wish I had realized it sooner. Too many crumbs were thrown out and I reached for every one.<p>Take Care Pat

Let me share something that I wrote to my Al-Anon sponsor shortly after I decided to go for my divorce a SECOND time. I struggled with my feelings of love for my H for a long long time - knowing that there was nothing to love, yet feeling love.<p>So here is the conversation that I had with my sponsor (her comments are preceded with the > symbol):<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>
This is what I have learned about love:<p>The emotion, as Steve Harley explained to me, is based on action. And the emotion feeds the actions. So yes, they can't be separated. <p>But there first must be a choice. Then action. Then emotions.<p>BUT this is in a love *relationship* where there is mutual cooperation and decision. As Steve told us, first one must decide to love.<p>Then you ACT according to the rules, based on respect, integrity, cooperation and honor. AND, you do your best to avoid disrespect, anger, dishonesty, etc. AND, you do your best to ACT in a manner that best pleases your partner (filling emotional needs).<p>If you have ACTED successfully, then your partner (assuming your partner has made the same decision) will begin to FEEL romantic love. And if your partner is cooperating by doing the same for you, you too will begin to feel those emotions.<p>And I have heard from various individuals that their experience has been that although their spouse was ACTING beautifully, they were unable to love their spouse until they decided to ACT also in reciprocation.<p>So you get only what you give....<p>And as romantic love grows, then your loving actions become natural, no longer a decision, but a natural outgrowth of your emotion of love and desire to protect your spouse from harm at all costs, as you would yourself.<p>
> Is what you are feeling really so weird? Or is it just more healthy? <g><p>It's just weird to feel healthy!! <G><p>>
> What do you think? Is love an emotion, an action or both? (I
> KNOW you love
> these philosophical discussions!!!)
> <p>Heehee, yes I do.<p>I think that in my case of "unrequited" love - it was because, 10 years ago, I made a decision and a vow to love my husband. Never had I changed that decision. And because he did do things that on the surface, seemed to fill my emotional needs, I was able to continue as long as I did (healthy or otherwise). I also put alot of action into my decision to love, and so I suppose it is natural that I got something out of it. I never understood that the fulfillment I was getting from it was because of ME, not him.<p>Part of the reason I was so easily sucked into the illusion was that I had never experienced real emotional fullfillment. So the illusion felt real.<p>So this is basically how I understand it. And Steve helped me to understand that a successful marriage meant that I got to have my own needs cared for by someone else. Spending the time that I have at the marriage builder's website has given me alot of understanding into what love and marriage really mean. And my own held up in comparison was so shallow.....<p>So, even though my attempt to reconcile with H has failed miserably, I WON!! And then, when I "learned the lesson", God let me let go of him....
<hr></blockquote><p>Of course the addendum to this insight is that after I let go, and went on to face my divorce, my H decided to love me 3 months later.<p>We've had it rough, and he's still an alcoholic. He still doesn't get it and still has a hard time meeting my needs.<p>But you know what? We have a better marriage now than we have EVER had in 11 years.

Interesting Bramble Rose,<p>A lot of similarities in our stories. Is there hope for improvement then?<p>I am not sure. I think it takes two to want to love. <p>Thanks for the thoughts. Pat

BrambleR,<p>Gawd, so much of what you said is true for me. I felt I made a vow to "love" my XH and that was not only my choice, but a vow I was determined to fill and keep. My illusion of feeling love back was like you said, getting was I was giving FROM ME.<p>So I made that choice, I acted upon my choice and felt the emotions. For me it was fulfilling. I'm not sure to this day that I was actually meeting my H's most important ENs tho. <p>BrambleRose Wrote:
Then you ACT according to the rules, based on respect, integrity, cooperation and honor. AND, you do your best to avoid disrespect, anger, dishonesty, etc. AND, you do your best to ACT in a manner that best pleases your partner (filling emotional needs).<p>So I have a question on the quote above. With an A, how can there be "respect, integrity, honor and honesty"? Those are contradictory to what an A is built on. [img]images/icons/confused.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Jo<p>[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Resilient ]</p>