shadowplay Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) I was wondering this today. How different would relationships be without the existence of the word? What if the best you could say was that you really, really liked or cared deeply about somebody? Do we need the word as some sort of emotional marker in a relationship to assure ourselves that we've reached a certain level of intimacy and the relationship is moving on a normal trajectory, whatever that is? Is the word a symptom of insecurity, in that expressing it assures both parties that the other feels strongly enough? Without it, would we always be wondering how the other felt, how far we had progressed in the relationship? Or would we simply care less? Would we be more inclined to go with the flow and take actions over words? I guess in general I feel like the usage of the word is a bit silly, in that it carries undue weight. I also feel like a lot of people say it when they don't really mean it, because they feel obliged to as they've been together a long time and would be awkward not to say it. Edited December 19, 2009 by shadowplay
Boundary Problem Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 I agree. I think people use the word to assert territory, dominance and obligations on the other. When in reality a person's actions and intimacy will reveal every day whether or not they love another person. ie You don't need the word. You need the actions and intimacy. I think people use the word to describe a state of being with another. And when they are happy with that state of being (which isn't perfect) but is a very intimate place to be - they call it love.
Hot Carl Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 You might be thinking about things a bit too much.
soconfusing Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 I was wondering this today. How different would relationships be without the existence of the word? What if the best you could say was that you really, really liked or cared deeply about somebody? Do we need the word as some sort of emotional marker in a relationship to assure ourselves that we've reached a certain level of intimacy and the relationship is moving on a normal trajectory, whatever that is? Is the word a symptom of insecurity, in that expressing it assures both parties that the other feels strongly enough? Without it, would we always be wondering how the other felt, how far we had progressed in the relationship? Or would we simply care less? Would we be more inclined to go with the flow and take actions over words? I guess in general I feel like the usage of the word is a bit silly, in that it carries undue weight. I also feel like a lot of people say it when they don't really mean it, because they feel obliged to as they've been together a long time and would be awkward not to say it. I think that when people are too quick to let the other know they love them, it is merely a play to keep their partner happy with their relationship. But you're asking if the word itself was gone, right? Not actually if love itself didn't exist? In reality, another word would just take it's place. We have words for just about anything nowadays. But, hypothetically speaking, relationships might have a better chance if the word was missing from our vocabulary. They would each have to actually show through their actions how they felt for one another.
threebyfate Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) If the word "love" didn't exist, we would call it something else, like apples or oranges. To understand apples, you have to have experienced it, to clearly define it, albeit words aren't enough. Edit - To expand on the apple theory and an inability to put it into textual form, try to describe the taste of an apple. Guaranteed, there's no way anyone can know the flavour of an apple, until you've tasted one. Also, not all apples are made equal. Edited December 19, 2009 by threebyfate
Author shadowplay Posted December 19, 2009 Author Posted December 19, 2009 I think that when people are too quick to let the other know they love them, it is merely a play to keep their partner happy with their relationship. But you're asking if the word itself was gone, right? Not actually if love itself didn't exist? In reality, another word word just take it's place. We have words for just about anything nowadays. But, hypothetically speaking, relationships might have a better chance if the word was missing from our vocabulary. They would each have to actually show through their actions how they felt for one another. Right, if the word was gone but love still existed. But words can also change how you interpret the world. Without the word love, maybe there would simply be different degrees of caring about somebody. There wouldn't always be the pressure of "does he love me or not?" because love as a distinct category wouldn't exist. Whether somebody cared would either be apparent or not. I just find it odd how ritualistic it's become to "drop the L-Bomb" in our culture at a given point in a relationship.
Author shadowplay Posted December 19, 2009 Author Posted December 19, 2009 If the word "love" didn't exist, we would call it something else, like apples or oranges. To understand apples, you have to have experienced it, to clearly define it, albeit words aren't enough. Edit - To expand on the apple theory and an inability to put it into textual form, try to describe the taste of an apple. Guaranteed, there's no way anyone can know the flavour of an apple, until you've tasted one. Also, not all apples are made equal. But people all define and experience love differently. Also, it probably exists more on a continuum rather than being an either or thing.
threebyfate Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 But people all define and experience love differently. Also, it probably exists more on a continuum rather than being an either or thing.Removing a word, won't remove the experience. If you perceive it as a marker and the word disappeared, you would perceive "caring deeply" as another marker. shadow, you cannot wipe out the essence of humanity, to simplify your life. Better to let it happen or not and accept this, one way or the other. You cannot strive to love someone. But you can deliberately stop loving someone.
Author shadowplay Posted December 19, 2009 Author Posted December 19, 2009 shadow, you cannot wipe out the essence of humanity, to simplify your life. Better to let it happen or not and accept this, one way or the other. You cannot strive to love someone. But you can deliberately stop loving someone. Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I follow you.
threebyfate Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I follow you.Love exists, whether the word exists or not.
EnigmaXOXO Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 What if the best you could say was that you cared deeply about somebody? It wouldn’t be enough for me, considering I care deeply about a lot of people in some degree or another. The intensity of my feelings for my partner is different (but not more or less) then the intensity of feelings I have for my daughter or my parents. While those emotional connections I share with my family will always remain unchanged and unconditional, the same can not be said for the bond between two partners should conditions change. However, when trying to best describe what I feel for my partner without using the word “love”... I would have to say “he feels like home.” It’s the best way I can think of to describe the kind of warmth, comfort, peacefulness, joy, security and ‘sense of belonging’ I feel when I’m with him. It seems though, even that isn’t enough to describe the full emotion in it’s entirety. So maybe “love” is the best word to sum it all up (???) Love exists, whether the word exists or not. Bump!
Author shadowplay Posted December 19, 2009 Author Posted December 19, 2009 I wonder if there's a difference in how other cultures define romantic love.
torranceshipman Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 This is like saying we don't need a word for angry, or frustrated, or sad, or happy, etc. We need some way of summing up the concept of love, and every other emotion, else we'd have a lot of difficulty trying to express ourselves. If the best you could say was that you cared deeply about someone, well, you'd just have a more long winded way of saying 'i love you'.
torranceshipman Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 I wonder if there's a difference in how other cultures define romantic love. No...just a different word.
threebyfate Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 H. does this adorable thing, where he puts his head next to Bump and talks to him/her about the things they will do together. He's got a deep voice so I can feel it almost rumbling against me. I can't describe the feelings that wash over me, the tenderness, amusement, affection, caring, warmth, indulgence, fierce pride, trust and respect...it goes on and on. To me, this is an example of love.
xpaperxcutx Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 I'd prefer the phrase " He/She stole my heart". At least it has more meaning to it than saying I " L" you. Personally, if I ever do say that one word again, I doubt I would ever really mean it. Does it represent everything about how I feel about that person that was different from how I felt about anyone else? Definitely not.
Author shadowplay Posted December 19, 2009 Author Posted December 19, 2009 This is like saying we don't need a word for angry, or frustrated, or sad, or happy, etc. We need some way of summing up the concept of love, and every other emotion, else we'd have a lot of difficulty trying to express ourselves. If the best you could say was that you cared deeply about someone, well, you'd just have a more long winded way of saying 'i love you'. I'm not saying we don't need it. I'm just wondering how/if relationships would be different without the word, and the concept of romantic love as a distinct category rather than just a stronger form of caring. I'm not saying it would be better; just wonder if/how it would change the relationship dynamics.
betamanlet Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Love can only exist between parent and child, and in many cases, it's not even there. "romantic love" is nothing more than a way of getting people to let their guard down. If there were "love" there wouldn't be such high relationship failure rates.
Author shadowplay Posted December 19, 2009 Author Posted December 19, 2009 H. does this adorable thing, where he puts his head next to Bump and talks to him/her about the things they will do together. He's got a deep voice so I can feel it almost rumbling against me. I can't describe the feelings that wash over me, the tenderness, amusement, affection, caring, warmth, indulgence, fierce pride, trust and respect...it goes on and on. To me, this is an example of love. That's really sweet. I'm not sure if I've ever experienced this kind of love, but I sort of recognize the feeling...which I think it's possible to do without having directly felt it for a particular person.
threebyfate Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 That's really sweet. I'm not sure if I've ever experienced this kind of love, but I sort of recognize the feeling...which I think it's possible to do without having directly felt it for a particular person.Then you know it exists, whether it's a simple moment like this or whether it's just the two of you, animal intense with each other, more than just passion or lust. These are simple aspects of love, since they solely encompass the two of us and little Bump. There are other aspects of love, some simple, others large, what some call love of mankind, which I cannot fathom but believe, does exist within a miniscule portion of humanity.
Sam Spade Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 I was wondering this today. How different would relationships be without the existence of the word? What if the best you could say was that you really, really liked or cared deeply about somebody? Do we need the word as some sort of emotional marker in a relationship to assure ourselves that we've reached a certain level of intimacy and the relationship is moving on a normal trajectory, whatever that is? Is the word a symptom of insecurity, in that expressing it assures both parties that the other feels strongly enough? Without it, would we always be wondering how the other felt, how far we had progressed in the relationship? Or would we simply care less? Would we be more inclined to go with the flow and take actions over words? I guess in general I feel like the usage of the word is a bit silly, in that it carries undue weight. I also feel like a lot of people say it when they don't really mean it, because they feel obliged to as they've been together a long time and would be awkward not to say it. Relationships would be a lot better . Historically speaking, the concept of romantic love is very recent, but at the same time, not all that radical. It's the same ol' intimate companionship, with the added expectation of personal fulfillment.
aerogurl87 Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 Words don't mean a thing without actions to back them up. I could live without hearing someone say they loved me, but I couldn't live without feeling the depth of that emotion.
Recommended Posts