Butterflying Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 "If you love someone, you should let them go. And if they come back, then your love is truly meant to be. If they don't come back, it wasn't meant to be." How do you feel about this saying? Have you ever let go of someone you loved, then had them return? I guess I don't understand any reasons why I would ever have to let go of the person I love. Rather, it seems more realistic to hold on because true love is rare. Why would I let him go? More importantly, where is he going?
Love&KissesXoXo Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Yes I had let someone go because I loved them too much... If you love them u want to see them happy, so you let them go.
depplover_1980 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 I too believe in letting them go if they are unhappy. I don't believe the rest of the saying about coming back etc, as there are many variables and possibilities regarding make-up scenarios and who approaches who...
Eeyore79 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Sorry, but I think the idea of letting someone go because you love them is nonsense. If you truly love someone you'll do anything to be with them, and you want to be in a relationship with them and make them happy, take care of them and be there for them, and generally make their life better. Giving someone the freedom to make their own decisions is one thing, but I don't see how "letting someone go" (i.e. pushing them away) is really helpful to anyone. I love my boyfriend, and if he was offered a fantastic job in another country I wouldn't try to hold him back, but I also wouldn't "let him go" - I wouldn't make any secret of my desire for him to stay with me, and tbh I think I could make him happier than a dumb job would anyway. If we were married and/or had kids, I would absolutely expect him to stay and fulfil his duty to his wife and family, and put his commitments to others ahead of his own desires.
depplover_1980 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 I think the saying defines when they want out of the relationship. My interpretation of the question is if someone is adament they want out, then the letting go means accepting their choice and wanting them to be happy. You only need to check the Break Up section to know what the result is when you beg and plead for them to stay and try over.
Eeyore79 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 My interpretation of the question is if someone is adament they want out, then the letting go means accepting their choice and wanting them to be happy. That isn't loving them enough to let them go - it's loving yourself enough to let them go. If someone doesn't want you, a self-respecting person will wish them well and move on. Usually when someone says "I loved him enough to let him go" it means they've passed judgement on what's best for him and have decided that he'll be better off if they break up. This basically pushes him away and takes away his right to choose for himself. I've had this done to me before: "My life is so crappy; you'll be better off without me! I love you enough to let you go!" It's utter garbage, because it removes my freedom of choice and presumes to make my decisions for me.
depplover_1980 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Crikey, that sound grim. I have never countered that situation - that kind of person I think i'd be very happy to let go. Therefore I wouldn't love them so again the saying wouldn't be relevant in my head anyway. I definately think letting go at the point of the break up is also about loving yourself yes, but my first split after 7 years I really did want him to just be happy and knew that was out the relationship. But that was real love at work - to me real love is about being unselfish.
Eeyore79 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 I don't think the guy in question was particularly happy to let me go. He was just feeling sorry for himself: "My life sucks so much, I love you too much to inflict it on you!" which is quite frankly stupid, because whether I want his life inflicted on me should be my choice anyway! Letting go when someone wants out isn't really letting them go and hoping they'll come back if they truly love you; it's merely about respecting their choice and wishing them well. The whole "let him go and if he comes back to you it's meant to be" smacks of testing his love, which isn't really fair. Why does he have to be let go and come back in order to prove his love - isn't it enough that he's sticking around in the first place?
Author Butterflying Posted March 5, 2011 Author Posted March 5, 2011 I guess I can understand when one person wants out of a relationship. Then it's a good idea to let them go. But I am baffled by expecting them to return and considering that true love. In my experience, it takes a long time for me to truly get over someone I love, the same as it takes a while for me to know I'm in love. After breaking up and finally moving on, whenever I do see the person again, so many things have changed in my life. I've literally forced myself to find the logic in why they shouldn't be a part of my life anymore. When they return, I'm unable to love them the same anymore. Or I'm I'm already involved with someone else.
depplover_1980 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 As I stated I don't agree with the second part. Reconcilations are circumstantial!
Nexus One Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) If she wants to go, I'll respect her wish and will let her go. But if we're both in love and want to be with each other, then I'm not going to play some game where I push her away to test her resilience for coming back. While I can see why someone would want to perform such a "test", I personally think it's rather cruel to the other person and it would quite likely also change the dynamics of a relationship. It would probably create cracks in the dynamics between two lovers, cracks that would need repair/healing, but even then they might still leave (emotional) scars. Edited March 5, 2011 by Nexus One
Disillusioned Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Push them away (as I've done), and you'll end up unable to feel love for any but your fantasies (as I've also done).
florence of suburbia Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 It isn't, "if they come back it was meant to be." It's..."if it was meant to be they'll come back." There's a big difference. 1
whichwayisup Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Sorry, but I think the idea of letting someone go because you love them is nonsense. If you truly love someone you'll do anything to be with them, and you want to be in a relationship with them and make them happy, take care of them and be there for them, and generally make their life better. Giving someone the freedom to make their own decisions is one thing, but I don't see how "letting someone go" (i.e. pushing them away) is really helpful to anyone. I love my boyfriend, and if he was offered a fantastic job in another country I wouldn't try to hold him back, but I also wouldn't "let him go" - I wouldn't make any secret of my desire for him to stay with me, and tbh I think I could make him happier than a dumb job would anyway. If we were married and/or had kids, I would absolutely expect him to stay and fulfil his duty to his wife and family, and put his commitments to others ahead of his own desires. You mean if you were married to him, you wouldn't want him to take the job? You wouldn't be willing to move and start again somewhere else? Part of marriage is compromise. And, it isn't just some dumb job. That 'dumb job' could land alot of money into your lives to help pay for your kids education one day.
Eeyore79 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 You mean if you were married to him, you wouldn't want him to take the job? You wouldn't be willing to move and start again somewhere else? Part of marriage is compromise. And, it isn't just some dumb job. That 'dumb job' could land alot of money into your lives to help pay for your kids education one day. I'd expect that we'd discuss it and do what was best for our family - the whole family, not just him. In general though, no, I wouldn't want to move and start over elsewhere. It would mean giving up my job for one thing, and giving up our friends and hobbies, and it would also mean our elderly parents would be left without our support.
Knittress Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 I think this saying is about not holding on too long to a relationship that isn't working any more. You know, where people stay together despite gross incompatibilities and just make each other miserable?
Disillusioned Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 I think this saying is about not holding on too long to a relationship that isn't working any more. You know, where people stay together despite gross incompatibilities and just make each other miserable? Yes, but that describes practically EVERY couple!
Author Butterflying Posted March 5, 2011 Author Posted March 5, 2011 It isn't, "if they come back it was meant to be." It's..."if it was meant to be they'll come back." There's a big difference. But why would you ever want a person who abandoned you in the first place? I'd be looking at myself like "what has changed to make you want me now if you didn't want me then." I think about people who give that "It's not you it's me" speach. A person like this may have a lot of issues to prevent a relationship. They choose to leave the relationship. Then one day, when they are ready to commit, they return to the person they left hoping the person is still crying in a corner somewhere waiting to take them back. Whatever!!! If if I haven't moved on, being intentionally neglected by someone I love takes a huge chunk out of my heart that can never be repalced, especially not by the same person who caused it. I would not trust them completely. I'd be insecure thinking they might leave me again someday.
phineas Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 My experience is it doesn't matter how I feel about someone. If they don't feel the same they will leave on their own.
florence of suburbia Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 But why would you ever want a person who abandoned you in the first place? I'd be looking at myself like "what has changed to make you want me now if you didn't want me then." I think about people who give that "It's not you it's me" speach. A person like this may have a lot of issues to prevent a relationship. They choose to leave the relationship. Then one day, when they are ready to commit, they return to the person they left hoping the person is still crying in a corner somewhere waiting to take them back. Whatever!!! If if I haven't moved on, being intentionally neglected by someone I love takes a huge chunk out of my heart that can never be repalced, especially not by the same person who caused it. I would not trust them completely. I'd be insecure thinking they might leave me again someday. Yep, everything you've said is true.
Whatshername Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Usually you don't have to "let" them go, because by the time that you know that's their desire, they have already moved away from you mentally and emotionally, so the physical part is generally pretty unpleasant. It smacks you in the head (and hurts BADLY) and you appear desperate if(and when...sigh) you try to get into their heads to understand what is happening. This is what dumpers need to realize: Ok, you want out. Do it graciously. Treat them as you would want to be treated. Because while you have every right to leave, you also should be considerate of the person you once loved and desired, so that they can let you go, knowing you were gracious enough to treat them respectfully, and honestly.
florence of suburbia Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Or, agree to chalk it up to bad timing. It may not be true, in the sense that it fails to capture the nuances of what happened, but it allows everyone a graceful exit while leaving a sliver of light in the doorway.
Recommended Posts