In love versus love

[jennie-jennie]

Since the quote below started an off-topic discussion on another thread, I thought it better to continue the discussion here.

 

Quote originally posted by 2long:

I've used this quote from M. Scott Peck's book "The Road Less Traveled" a number of times, but I think it applies here. It might sound a bit clinical or analytical 2 some, but I think it's right on:

Of all the misconceptions about love the most powerful and pervasive is the belief that "falling in love" is love or at least one of the manifestations of love. It is a potent misconception, because falling in love is subjectively experienced in a very powerful fashion as an experience of love.

 

Falling in love is not an act of will. It is not a conscious choice. No matter how open to or eager for it we may be, the experience may still elude us. Contrarily, the experience may capture us at times when we are definitely not seeking it, when it is inconvenient and undesirable. We are as likely to fall in love with someone with whom we are obviously ill matched as with someone more suitable. Indeed, we may not even like or admire the object of our passion, yet, try as we might, we may not be able to fall in love with a person whom we deeply respect and with whom a deep relationship would be in all ways desirable.

 

This is not to say that the experience of falling in love is immune to discipline. Psychiatrists, for instance, frequently fall in love with their patients, just as their patients fall in love with them, yet out of duty to the patient and their role they are usually able to abort the collapse of their ego boundaries and give up the person as a romantic object. The struggle and suffering of the discipline involved may be enormous. But discipline and will can only control the experience; they cannot create it. We can choose how to respond to the experience of falling of love, but we cannot choose the experience itself.

 

Love is not a feeling. Many, many people possessing a feeling of love and even acting in response to that feeling act in all manner of unloving and destructive ways. It is not only possible but necessary for a loving person to avoid acting on feelings of love. I may meet a woman who strongly attracts me, whom I feel like loving, but because it would be destructive to my marriage to have an affair, I will say vocally or in the silence of my heart, "I feel like loving you, but I am not going to". My feelings of love may be unbounded, but my capacity to be loving is limited. I therefore must choose the person on whom to focus my capacity to love, toward whom to direct my will to love.

 

True love is not a feeling by which we are overwhelmed. It is a committed, thoughtful decision. Genuine love implies commitment and the exercise of wisdom. When we are concerned for someone's spiritual growth, we know that a lack of commitment is likely to be harmful and that commitment to that person is probably necessary for us to manifest our concern effectively.

 

Genuine love is volitional rather than emotional. The person who truly loves does so because of a decision to love. This person has made a commitment to be loving whether or not the loving feeling is present. If it is, so much the better; but if it isn't, the commitment to love, the will to love, still stands and is still exercised.

 

The common tendency to confuse love with feelings of love allows people all manner of self-deception. It is clear that there may be a self-serving quality in this tendency to confuse love with the feeling of love; it is easy and not at all unpleasant to find evidence of love in one's feelings. It may be difficult and painful to search for evidence of love in one's actions. But because true love is an act of will that often transcends ephemeral feelings of love, it is correct to say, "Love is as love does".

In view of this, it's easier 2 understand the oft-heard statement from a wayward: "I love you but I'm not in love with you." They're ac2ally telling a truth that's deeper than they realize (or even are, in that state of mind). They're describing the deeper "love as a choice" they might still hold for their spouse, because of their his2ry 2gether, or their family, or the "needs" their spouse can meet but the AP can't.

 

They could just as truthfully say 2 the AP: "I'm in love with you but I don't love you." But, though equally accurate, that would kind of spoil the moment, rather than invigorate it.

 

-ol' 2long

[Owl]

I tend to agree with a lot of what was written, but I'd actually go further and say that "falling in love" is a choice as well.

 

It starts as an attraction. An interest in that particular person...whatever aspects of that person you find appealing. But it's when you feed that attraction by intentionally continuing interaction with that person of interest that you allow those feelings to grow to a point where you "fall in love".

 

So, it's avoidable. Learn to recognize the symptoms of attraction. Learn to identify when you're attracted to someone...and then deliberately and intentionally avoid further interaction with them.

 

It's a key "boundary" that married spouses should always keep in mind if they want to safeguard their marriage.

[2long]

Good points, Owl.

 

I've felt attractions 2 other women since I got married, but never acted on them out of respect 2 them, my wife and kids, and most of all, myself.

 

-ol' 2long

[bentnotbroken]

I agree with the original post and Owl's also. My choice to love appropriately and to commit to that love(intense highs, lows and sometimes indifference:() I commit to loving that person through it all because the well being should be the most important thing to me. I say should because I indeed failed more than once at the aspect. I know better, so I will do better...if that becomes a part of my life again.

[TOWinNYC]

I’ve reread this again. Slowly. And it still gives me a headache. But now that I’ve read it a second time, I think Peck’s thought process is a load of turnips.

 

And I think I finally nailed down why.

 

What Peck is talking about is FALLING in love.

Which is very very different from BEING in love.

 

 

And being in love AND loving someone is what makes a relationship solid. At least in my opinion. Because sometimes your partner may be a dill pickle and you may not necessarily “love” them at that moment – but you’re still IN LOVE with them, which is what keeps it together.

 

Which leads me back to the statement “I love you but I’m not IN LOVE with you” – a statement I find completely understandable (if only because I’ve experienced it).

 

I also understand “I’m in LUST with you but I don’t love you” or “I’m in LIKE with you but I don’t love you”.

 

But the flipside “I’m IN LOVE with you but I don’t love you” doesn’t make sense to me at all.

 

Edited to add: the above statement would only make sense if "right now" was added at the end (I'm in love with you but I don't love you right now - meaning, "not liking whatever your partner is doing at the moment").

 

You can't say it and mean it long term. The way you can say "I love you but I'm not in love with you" (anymore).

Edited August 3, 2010 by TOWinNYC

[jennie-jennie]

I’ve reread this again. Slowly. And it still gives me a headache. But now that I’ve read it a second time, I think Peck’s thought process is a load of turnips.

 

And I think I finally nailed down why.

 

What Peck is talking about is FALLING in love.

Which is very very different from BEING in love.

 

 

And being in love AND loving someone is what makes a relationship solid. At least in my opinion. Because sometimes your partner may be a dill pickle and you may not necessarily “love” them at that moment – but you’re still IN LOVE with them, which is what keeps it together.

 

Which leads me back to the statement “I love you but I’m not IN LOVE with you” – a statement I find completely understandable (if only because I’ve experienced it).

 

I also understand “I’m in LUST with you but I don’t love you” or “I’m in LIKE with you but I don’t love you”.

 

But the flipside “I’m IN LOVE with you but I don’t love you” doesn’t make sense to me at all.

 

Edited to add: the above statement would only make sense if "right now" was added at the end (I'm in love with you but I don't love you right now - meaning, "not liking whatever your partner is doing at the moment").

 

You can't say it and mean it long term. The way you can say "I love you but I'm not in love with you" (anymore).

"And being in love AND loving someone is what makes a relationship solid."

 

Exactly! This is what I have been trying to get at. Thank you!

 

I do believe that there is a time period in the beginning of a relationship when you might be in love but not yet love a person. You know when you still have the rose-colored glasses on. As you get to know the real person without idealizing him/her, if your in-love feelings last, I believe the love feelings are added.

 

So in-love feelings morph into love feelings, but the trick is to keep both alive. Without one or the other there will be no solid relationship. This is what Peck fails to recognize.

[Spark1111]

"And being in love AND loving someone is what makes a relationship solid."

 

Exactly! This is what I have been trying to get at. Thank you!

 

I do believe that there is a time period in the beginning of a relationship when you might be in love but not yet love a person. You know when you still have the rose-colored glasses on. As you get to know the real person without idealizing him/her, if your in-love feelings last, I believe the love feelings are added.

 

So in-love feelings morph into love feelings, but the trick is to keep both alive. Without one or the other there will be no solid relationship. This is what Peck fails to recognize.

 

Oh no, I disagree. There is no trick to it at all.

 

You keep the relationship solid by commiting to those love feelings every day; you do not turn away in hard times; distant times; or selfish times when you feel as if you are giving more than your partner.

 

You do not turn to another. You turn, everyday, towards each other, commiting to your love.

 

That is what keeps the love feelings alive over the long haul.

 

Most WS's enter MC with a long list of what they perceived they weren't GETTING from their partner. Most soon discover they weren't GIVING nearly enough to get what they needed from their partner. The lost their commitment to those feelings of love.

 

Big difference.

[bentnotbroken]

Oh no, I disagree. There is no trick to it at all.

 

You keep the relationship solid by commiting to those love feelings every day; you do not turn away in hard times; distant times; or selfish times when you feel as if you are giving more than your partner.

 

You do not turn to another. You turn, everyday, towards each other, commiting to your love.

 

That is what keeps the love feelings alive over the long haul.

 

Most WS's enter MC with a long list of what they perceived they weren't GETTING from their partner. Most soon discover they weren't GIVING nearly enough to get what they needed from their partner. The lost their commitment to those feelings of love.

 

Big difference.

 

 

Exactly!!!! :bunny:

[seren]

Oh no, I disagree. There is no trick to it at all.

 

You keep the relationship solid by commiting to those love feelings every day; you do not turn away in hard times; distant times; or selfish times when you feel as if you are giving more than your partner.

 

You do not turn to another. You turn, everyday, towards each other, commiting to your love.

 

That is what keeps the love feelings alive over the long haul.

 

Most WS's enter MC with a long list of what they perceived they weren't GETTING from their partner. Most soon discover they weren't GIVING nearly enough to get what they needed from their partner. The lost their commitment to those feelings of love.

 

Big difference.

 

 

I agree with this Spark. I also think that a major reason marriages last despite A's is that the in love bit hasn't ever really gone away. The forgetting of one or both to nurture love and to remember that the person we love is still there, despite the trials and tribulations of everyday life. I also think that lust or the heady early days feeling, can be mixed up with what in love really means.

One of the reasons I don't get A's that are said to be based on love is that I couldn't share the person I loved with another. I would also have less respect for someone who couldn't leave because they loved me. It would just tear me up. Not aimed at anyone, just my opinion.

[jennie-jennie]

Oh no, I disagree. There is no trick to it at all.

 

You keep the relationship solid by commiting to those love feelings every day; you do not turn away in hard times; distant times; or selfish times when you feel as if you are giving more than your partner.

 

You do not turn to another. You turn, everyday, towards each other, commiting to your love.

 

That is what keeps the love feelings alive over the long haul.

 

Most WS's enter MC with a long list of what they perceived they weren't GETTING from their partner. Most soon discover they weren't GIVING nearly enough to get what they needed from their partner. The lost their commitment to those feelings of love.

 

Big difference.

 

The reason I left my SO was because he wasn't satisfying my needs enough. This was after decades of being together and me always giving more than I received. We went through many hard times together, during which we struggled together. Still my SO was never capable of really committing to the relationship. Truth is I believe he loved me but wasn't in love with me. Yes, I believe that was the problem.

 

The reason a WS wanders is often because there is some need that is not satisfied. They need something which they find in the OP. It is not about giving in my opinion, it is about unfulfilled needs.

 

I guess we just have to agree to disagree here, Spark.

 

To me a love relationship with only love feelings, and not in-love feelings, is uninteresting. That is the relationship I have with friends. My former SO is my friend now, since the in-love feelings are gone and only the love feelings remain.

[Snowflower]

One of the reasons I don't get A's that are said to be based on love is that I couldn't share the person I loved with another. I would also have less respect for someone who couldn't leave because they loved me. It would just tear me up. Not aimed at anyone, just my opinion.

 

I agree and would also add that the whole "love someone but not in love with someone" is just a cruddy excuse that cheating spouses use to justify their actions to themselves and possibly, their AP.

[jennie-jennie]

I agree and would also add that the whole "love someone but not in love with someone" is just a cruddy excuse that cheating spouses use to justify their actions to themselves and possibly, their AP.

 

To me that is my reality. I still love both my exSOs, and I love my MM, but am only in love with my MM.

 

So Spark and Snowflower and any other BS who cares to answer, may I ask, are you not still in love with your husband/wife? If you are, then why do you consider this an unnecessary component to the relationship?

[Snowflower]

To me that is my reality. I still love both my exSOs, and I love my MM, but am only in love with my MM.

 

So Spark and Snowflower and any other BS who cares to answer, may I ask, are you not still in love with your husband/wife? If you are, then why do you consider this an unnecessary component to the relationship?

 

Of course I am in love with my H and he is in love with me. I just will never understand the rationale behind the distinction of "I love you but I'm not in love with you."

 

You either love someone and want to be with them or you don't.

 

Again, it's just a p*ss poor excuse used by someone who is cheating. It's on page 52 of the The Cheater's Handbook.

 

And before someone gets on the whole "well, I loved my exH/W but I'm with them no longer because of XYZ" line...that is not the same thing. The relationship has ended.

[silktricks]

To me a love relationship with only love feelings, and not in-love feelings, is uninteresting. That is the relationship I have with friends. My former SO is my friend now, since the in-love feelings are gone and only the love feelings remain.

 

I don't think the English language clarifies the differences in love well enough.

 

Ancient Greek had 4 different words that meant love.

 

Eros - this is the passionate sensual desire that I believe you are talking about when you say "in love"

 

Agape - means love, closest probably to the meaning of the word love in English - the deeper love that is meant when speaking of one's spouse or children. More of the self-sacrificing kind of love than the sensual kind of love.

 

Philia - friendship love, dispassionate and virtuous

 

Storge - affection, such as towards one's children, can also mean "putting up with"

 

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I (personally) would never say that I love my friends. I care for them, but what I feel towards them is at best a distant expression of what I feel for my children and current spouse. My former spouse would fall into that same level of caring as my most distant friends. I want them to be well, and I will do things to help them in many ways - but not to the level I would help my children or spouse. That's what I would call the Philia love.

 

For my husband I have both Eros and Agape love (and once in awhile that "putting up with" storge kind . I would not want to have only the agape kind, but neither would I want to have only the eros kind. Both are IMO necessary to a good marriage. That said, sometimes I do feel only the agape love - and sometimes even that gets rattled by circumstances (back to that "putting up with" again... . The love is there, but I'm not necessarily "feeling" it. The eros - that can come and go based on circumstances, hormones, etc. At least that's my experience.

 

I like the more words - "love" means too many things to different people.

[TOWinNYC]

Ancient Greek had 4 different words that meant love.

 

Eros - this is the passionate sensual desire that I believe you are talking about when you say "in love"

 

Agape - means love, closest probably to the meaning of the word love in English - the deeper love that is meant when speaking of one's spouse or children. More of the self-sacrificing kind of love than the sensual kind of love.

 

Philia - friendship love, dispassionate and virtuous

 

Storge - affection, such as towards one's children, can also mean "putting up with"

 

I think BEING IN LOVE encompasses ALL these things (eros-passion, agape-deep love, philia-friendship, and storge-affection).

 

Which is why I said "being in love AND loving” your significant other is what creates a solid foundation for a relationship. What's the point of being with someone (as a couple) otherwise?

 

BEING IN LOVE, having the passion, the deep love, the friendship, the affection (and putting up with the occasional annoyance), is what MAKES THIS PERSON DIFFERENT FROM ANYBODY ELSE IN YOUR LIFE.

 

This is what I call “the magic”.

 

"Being in love" with someone is like a fire, it burns. Sometimes it's a wildfire and sometimes its just embers - but it burns nonetheless. And as long as the fire burns you're in love with them.

 

Which is why "I love you but I'm not in love with you" makes sense (at least to me). It means the fire burned out.

[jennie-jennie]

Of course I am in love with my H and he is in love with me. I just will never understand the rationale behind the distinction of "I love you but I'm not in love with you."

 

You either love someone and want to be with them or you don't.

 

Again, it's just a p*ss poor excuse used by someone who is cheating. It's on page 52 of the The Cheater's Handbook.

 

And before someone gets on the whole "well, I loved my exH/W but I'm with them no longer because of XYZ" line...that is not the same thing. The relationship has ended.

 

I think what you are reacting to here is not so much the statement "I love you but I'm not in love with you" but that this statement is used as an explanation of why it is thought to be okay by the WS to stay married when already in a relationship with another. Am I interpreting you correctly?

[jennie-jennie]

I think BEING IN LOVE encompasses ALL these things (eros-passion, agape-deep love, philia-friendship, and storge-affection).

 

Which is why I said "being in love AND loving” your significant other is what creates a solid foundation for a relationship. What's the point of being with someone (as a couple) otherwise?

 

BEING IN LOVE, having the passion, the deep love, the friendship, the affection (and putting up with the occasional annoyance), is what MAKES THIS PERSON DIFFERENT FROM ANYBODY ELSE IN YOUR LIFE.

 

This is what I call “the magic”.

 

"Being in love" with someone is like a fire, it burns. Sometimes it's a wildfire and sometimes its just embers - but it burns nonetheless. And as long as the fire burns you're in love with them.

 

Which is why "I love you but I'm not in love with you" makes sense (at least to me). It means the fire burned out.

 

I totally agree with you. The analogy of a fire describes it perfectly. Something makes this person special, and it is the in-love feelings that does it.

[jennie-jennie]

I don't think the English language clarifies the differences in love well enough.

 

Ancient Greek had 4 different words that meant love.

 

Eros - this is the passionate sensual desire that I believe you are talking about when you say "in love"

 

Agape - means love, closest probably to the meaning of the word love in English - the deeper love that is meant when speaking of one's spouse or children. More of the self-sacrificing kind of love than the sensual kind of love.

 

Philia - friendship love, dispassionate and virtuous

 

Storge - affection, such as towards one's children, can also mean "putting up with"

 

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I (personally) would never say that I love my friends. I care for them, but what I feel towards them is at best a distant expression of what I feel for my children and current spouse. My former spouse would fall into that same level of caring as my most distant friends. I want them to be well, and I will do things to help them in many ways - but not to the level I would help my children or spouse. That's what I would call the Philia love.

 

For my husband I have both Eros and Agape love (and once in awhile that "putting up with" storge kind . I would not want to have only the agape kind, but neither would I want to have only the eros kind. Both are IMO necessary to a good marriage. That said, sometimes I do feel only the agape love - and sometimes even that gets rattled by circumstances (back to that "putting up with" again... . The love is there, but I'm not necessarily "feeling" it. The eros - that can come and go based on circumstances, hormones, etc. At least that's my experience.

 

I like the more words - "love" means too many things to different people.

 

I like this description of love. It seems we agree what is necessary for a good marriage.

[Snowflower]

I think what you are reacting to here is not so much the statement "I love you but I'm not in love with you" but that this statement is used as an explanation of why it is thought to be okay by the WS to stay married when already in a relationship with another. Am I interpreting you correctly?

 

No, this is not my interpretation. But thank you for the benefit of the doubt.

 

While I do agree that it is used as an excuse/explanation for a WS...it's also a lie that the WS tells themselves to conduct the affair. Otherwise, why would almost every WS say this line to their BS at one point or another?

 

It would even be more confusing when the WS returns/stays to the marriage. If they are not "in love" (as the statement suggests) with their spouse, why do they return/stay? Ah, the age-old question!

 

I do not understand the supposed distinction that is meant when someone uses this statement. Someone either loves their spouse enough to want to be with them or they don't. Simple really.

[Spark1111]

The reason I left my SO was because he wasn't satisfying my needs enough. This was after decades of being together and me always giving more than I received. We went through many hard times together, during which we struggled together. Still my SO was never capable of really committing to the relationship. Truth is I believe he loved me but wasn't in love with me. Yes, I believe that was the problem.

 

The reason a WS wanders is often because there is some need that is not satisfied. They need something which they find in the OP. It is not about giving in my opinion, it is about unfulfilled needs.

 

I guess we just have to agree to disagree here, Spark.

 

To me a love relationship with only love feelings, and not in-love feelings, is uninteresting. That is the relationship I have with friends. My former SO is my friend now, since the in-love feelings are gone and only the love feelings remain.

 

No, your SO might have truly been in love with you; but for reasons only he may know, he stopped committing to the relationship every day.

 

So you gave and you gave and you gave, and did not get anything in return. Your needs went unmet for too long. You were still committing. He had stopped.

 

It does take two.

 

Sometimes affairs do happen because of unmet needs, a missing of something in the relationship; or a missing of something within themselves and a search for the external to fill it.

 

But if you can't identify the need to yourself, how in the world can you expect your partner to fill it? Partners can't be mind readers.

 

So, did the love die because of unmet needs? Or did a lack of committment cause the meeting of needs to go unexplored and unmet by BOTH parties...and THEN the love died?

 

Chicken, or egg scenario, ya know?

 

And I am gloriously, passionately partnered with my H. We BOTH grew complacent. We BOTH needed to re-commit. We are both in love with each other, both the Alberoni kind and the Peck kind.....

 

and it stupidly almost all came undone.

 

I wouldn't trade the rush of hormonal "in love" excitement with someone new and flattering for the deep spiritual connection and rush of hormonal excitement I today share with my best friend.

[2long]

I’ve reread this again. Slowly. And it still gives me a headache. But now that I’ve read it a second time, I think Peck’s thought process is a load of turnips.

 

And I think I finally nailed down why.

 

What Peck is talking about is FALLING in love.

Which is very very different from BEING in love.

 

Or "being love". (stated differently: choosing 2 be loving). You're still talking about feelings. "In love", whether falling or being, is still nothing more than a feeling. And feelings are often acted on irresponsibly, such as having an affair, knowing how destructive that is (and lying 2 yourself by pretending it's not).

 

And being in love AND loving someone is what makes a relationship solid. At least in my opinion.

 

Stated this way, I AGREE WITH YOU, only I know that you mean "being in love" with someone, when you say "loving someone." And that's not what loving someone means. Not really.

 

Because sometimes your partner may be a dill pickle and you may not necessarily “love” them at that moment – but you’re still IN LOVE with them, which is what keeps it together.

 

Here, I know EXACTLY what you mean, but you've got it phrased bass ackwards. It is the "deep caring love" (Dr Harley's phrase) that keeps couples 2gether in the long term, especially sustaining them during hiatuses between romantic love between them.

 

Ironically, Dr Harley believes as you do. Also ironically, the MB forum members, for the most part, believe as you do as well (though they would crucify an unapologetic WS if they posted there, and often do).

 

Which leads me back to the statement “I love you but I’m not IN LOVE with you” – a statement I find completely understandable (if only because I’ve experienced it).

 

I bet every BS has heard this statement.

 

I also understand “I’m in LUST with you but I don’t love you” or “I’m in LIKE with you but I don’t love you”.

 

But the flipside “I’m IN LOVE with you but I don’t love you” doesn’t make sense to me at all.

 

That's because you connect "in love" with deep caring love, and that's not what it is. It's romantic love (at best). Nothing wrong with RL, per se, until it interferes with an extant relationship. Then, it is wrong.

 

-ol' 2long

[2long]

To me that is my reality. I still love both my exSOs, and I love my MM, but am only in love with my MM.

 

THIS makes complete sense.

 

So Spark and Snowflower and any other BS who cares to answer, may I ask, are you not still in love with your husband/wife? If you are, then why do you consider this an unnecessary component to the relationship?

 

No, I am not. But I love her very much. We have spent over 36 years of our lives 2gether and have 2 wonderful adult children (and a whole lot of stuff). We do have periods of intense romance, but she hasn't fully re-earned my trust yet, and I won't be subjected 2 another s2pid affair again. I will file immediately, split up our "stuff" as fairly as possible, wish her well in her endeavors and "affairs", and spend the rest of my life without her... ...oh, and I'd sue Rat Meat for an appropriate percentage of spousal support, if there is any (he lives in one of the 7 states that allows for alienation of affection-class suits).

 

But that makes things sound more bleak than they really are. My W isn't going 2 have another affair. We do have periods of intensely romantic times 2gether. But it's the long time we've been 2gether and the choice 2 stay 2gether that has kept our family 2gether, not the romantic love.

 

-ol' 2long

[woinlove]

 

 

But the flipside “I’m IN LOVE with you but I don’t love you” doesn’t make sense to me at all.

 

 

It makes sense to me because I've experienced it. In my 20's, I either couldn't or didn't want to make any commitment, so I could not really love anyone, but I still had no problem falling in love and being in love, sometimes for years at a time.

 

However, I would never have told anyone that I was in love with them, but didn't love them. In fact, I said "I love you". Had I been completely self-aware and brutally honest, I should have said: "I love the feeling of being in love and that is what you give me." I wasn't and some men mistakenly thought I actually loved them. Some men do this to women too.

[Spark1111]

It makes sense to me because I've experienced it. In my 20's, I either couldn't or didn't want to make any commitment, so I could not really love anyone, but I still had no problem falling in love and being in love, sometimes for years at a time.

 

However, I would never have told anyone that I was in love with them, but didn't love them. In fact, I said "I love you". Had I been completely self-aware and brutally honest, I should have said: "I love the feeling of being in love and that is what you give me." I wasn't and some men mistakenly thought I actually loved them. Some men do this to women too.

 

Very wise here.

 

That "in love" feeling is given to you in the beginning of a relationship, or in any realtionship that prevents day-in-day-out interactions.

 

It is hormonal and biologically induced. It is WONDERFUL. It is also called "limerance."

 

It requires little effort other than being in close proximity to each other on an IRREGULAR basis.

 

With full time, around the clock committment, it fades in about 365 to 730 days.

 

Many people ignorantly assume that they are no longer "in love" when this easy stage of feelings passes. They are mistaken in that the continuance of it takes effort and daily committment.

 

People truly should read more....IMHO.

[woinlove]

Agreed, Spark, particularly in cases where only is only in love.

 

My earlier message dealt with the case where one has the in love part alone. When both love and in love are combined, I find the in love feelings can be reignited multiple times. The balance between the two might never be the same as in the initial phase, because love can deepen significantly with time whereas at the beginning the in love part often completely dominates.