Real love vs Pragmatic love

[Eternal Sunshine]

I am curious about your thoughts on this.

 

When I was younger, I was all about chasing the butterflies feeling and "love at first sight" kind of thing. Those men ended up being emotionally unavailable or completely unsuitable for me.

 

I am trying to get wiser. I am thinking that enjoying sending time with someone and compatibility is what really matters.

 

Ideally, you find it all. But that's too idealistic and only lucky few find it. I have seen women and men get in their mid 30's and beyond, single, still chasing the dream of "real true love" only to end up alone.

 

However, the danger of being pragmatic about love is that it sounds a lot like settling.

 

I am not sure what to think anymore.

[carhill]

I had a ten year long marriage to a pragmatic lover. I highly recommend avoiding such a circumstance.

 

More than settling, it's deliberate at the mild end of the spectrum and sociopathic at the worst end, IMO. Either way, or at any midpoint, it's a pure thought process rather than an emotional process. Literally, thinking love.

 

I've had this experience a couple of times and the common denominator was an abusive childhood. No idea if that is indicative of a clear connection but it appeared to be a commonality in my anecdotes.

[JohnnyBlaze]

It's whatever you feel comfortable with. Many are fine with pragmatic love, as you put it. Of course, as you also mentioned, there are many who will risk a lifetime alone to find that one "perfect" person, the one who makes their heart race a mile a minute.

 

Would you rather risk being alone or be with someone that you do like, but doesn't necessarily make you grin like a 3rd grader? Personally, I'd rather the former, but I should also mention that I'm a textbook hopeless romantic, so I'm more than a little biased in the matter.

[Eternal Sunshine]

It's whatever you feel comfortable with. Many are fine with pragmatic love, as you put it. Of course, as you also mentioned, there are many who will risk a lifetime alone to find that one "perfect" person, the one who makes their heart race a mile a minute.

 

Would you rather risk being alone or be with someone that you do like, but doesn't necessarily make you grin like a 3rd grader? Personally, I'd rather the former, but I should also mention that I'm a textbook hopeless romantic, so I'm more than a little biased in the matter.

 

 

I am a hopeless romantic too but spending your life alone is not fun either...

 

Waiting for that "perfect" person and never finding them...you will get to the end of your life and look back with regret.

 

You could have had a content and enjoyable family life...yet you gambled it all away and ended up with nothing. It's a sad place to be at.

[carhill]

Another aspect of viewing a relationship and/or marriage as a mathematical equation is that, if circumstances change and the equation ends up being 'inconveniently inequitable', there's little to keep one in the game. In life, this is played out during the 'tough times', the life challenges we all face. Without the elemental emotional bond, it's quite easy to switch to another path and, concurrently, feel nothing, since feeling isn't the basis for the love, rather logic.

 

Someone for everyone. Choose wisely.

[Eternal Sunshine]

carhill,

 

Think back to when you first met your ex w - this is when you were still dating.

 

1. Was she affectionate with you? Little kisses, hugs, holding hands etc?

2. Did you have sex often?

3. Did you have many things in common (liked the same things, had a lot to talk about etc...)?

[yah]

Why isn't pragmatic love real love? If the butterflies-giving guys cheated on you, how was that real love? I'm so confused.

 

When I was looking to find someone, I was thinking long-term, so I chose someone like-minded. That was a pragmatic move. Obviously, he had to be able to give me butterflies too. It eventually grew to real love. Yes, I'm lucky, but I also think that's the norm...

[Eternal Sunshine]

Why isn't pragmatic love real love? If the butterflies-giving guys cheated on you, how was that real love? I'm so confused.

 

When I was looking to find someone, I was thinking long-term, so I chose someone like-minded. That was a pragmatic move. Obviously, he had to be able to give me butterflies too. It eventually grew to real love. Yes, I'm lucky, but I also think that's the norm...

 

See that's the problem. It is not the norm for me at all. I have never had butterflies with someone who is a viable long term prospect and who liked me back. And at 32, I doubt that I ever will.

[AniD5061]

I had the same problem a few times where I really liked/loved someone and they didn't have the same feelings. It was determined that I really had something else going on... abandonment issues. I was associating the "chase" with feelings of love. If they weren't making me feel insecure, I didn't "love" them. (There's a ton of information on the topic.)

 

So anyways, I never liked the term settling to begin with. It has been used way too often amongst my girl friends and I just don't believe in it anymore. I used to think that all a relationship needed was true love, but that turned out to not be true for me. I was so in love with one man in my life, that I actually hated him for that. Mostly because he couldn't give me what I needed while I continued to want from him. So, love isn't enough in the end, and while in pragmatic love you are making a logical decision on a life partner, it is so you find someone that you can live with whom you don't have to fight with all the time, and will better your life, not cause you stress.

[Knittress]

In my opinion it's best to think pragmatically about who you could actually build a life with, live with and keep house with day-in day-out, and that it's someone you really respect and admire as a person. After all, in 2-3 years the butterflies eventually die down and love vs. resentment becomes a choice you make minute to minute. I really think romance/butterflies/lovingness is a personal attribute that can be worked on, more than a mystical 'perfect match' with another human being. ::shrug::

[OliveOyl]

Well I hate to say this but my stbx was a pragmatic love. And I don't think that was enough real love/bond to keep us together for life. As I've mentioned in other posts, we were extremely compatible but there were few butterflies for me. I will say the marriage was solidly good for about ten years then it fell apart into icy distance.

[Eternal Sunshine]

Well I hate to say this but my stbx was a pragmatic love. And I don't think that was enough real love/bond to keep us together for life. As I've mentioned in other posts, we were extremely compatible but there were few butterflies for me. I will say the marriage was solidly good for about ten years then it fell apart into icy distance.

 

Do you regret the marriage OO?

[TaraMaiden]

See that's the problem. It is not the norm for me at all. I have never had butterflies with someone who is a viable long term prospect and who liked me back. And at 32, I doubt that I ever will.

 

At 47 I met my partner.

At 54, here I am marrying him.

It's been nearly 7 years, and I still get butterflies.

[Woggle]

How about realistic love? Nothing is ever going to be a 24/7 romance novel because that is not real life but that does not mean things can't be wonderful and romantic for a large percentage of the time.

[musemaj11]

Love is a chemical reaction.

 

I know I dont love somebody when I dont feel that reaction.

Edited May 1, 2011 by musemaj11

[Eternal Sunshine]

Love is a chemical reaction.

 

I know I dont love somebody when I dont feel that reaction.

 

But what if you feel that chemical reaction with a stripper who has coke habit and 5 kids?

[carhill]

carhill,

 

Think back to when you first met your ex w - this is when you were still dating.

 

1. Was she affectionate with you? Little kisses, hugs, holding hands etc?

2. Did you have sex often?

3. Did you have many things in common (liked the same things, had a lot to talk about etc...)?

 

1. In retrospect, comparatively, very measured; little spontaneity. OTOH, very little vacillation, e.g. pushing me away versus overtly affectionate. More neutral. Few overt displays of anger or happiness. As she often said, she was smiling or laughing or crying 'inside'.

 

2. Quantity was never an issue, though the my sexual style of intimacy driving libido might have assisted in skewing my perception somewhat; IOW, the emotional distance and tone mitigated my libido and, hence, I *thought* quantity was never an issue. A marked example of relevance to the subject matter would be the last time we made 'love' as a marital couple, which happened to be on the day I funded what would become her post-marital home. Was it coincidence, after a bit of a 'dry spell', or was it logical? At the time I was happy, culminating a joint effort of a number of months. What she felt, if anything, I have no idea.

 

3. I thought so, but that is generally the case with most any woman I meet, as my interests range far and wide and invariably overlap with most of the women I've met in life. That's why I've had so many female friends and acquaintances. Relevant to #2, I recall my exW mentioning occasionally that I seemed more interested in talking than f*cking. We cooked together, traveled together (enjoyed your country a lot), did home improvement together and had similar interests/views in/on literature, music, politics, religion and views about child-rearing. IOW, we seemed compatible on paper, which caused me to be surprised and a bit shocked when hearing from our psychologist that he was surprised we ever got married. He was seeing incompatibilities in essential emotional and communication styles which had never occurred to me. Our 'styles' of loving were valid but missing each other, like an arrow missing the target.

 

 

Expanding on my prior answer, when I speak of pragmatic love, I'm not relating it as the antithesis of 'butterflies', rather as 'thinking' a relationship rather than 'feeling' it. I've dated a fair amount of women, had sex with a few and married one and rarely, in perhaps only a couple of cases, felt 'butterflies'; emotional bonding occured over time and was, as in my marriage, very difficult to un-do, taking far longer than to achieve, with the attendant grief and loss. However, once done and where I was able to actually 'think' the relationship, I saw how much easier it was to view and do things which hurt my partner without feeling substantial emotional impact. Essentially, I began to see A+B=C and didn't feel anything. It was at that point that I looked up my old affair partner and betrayed my marital vows of fidelity, something I'd never done before in life, whether married or not. I won't go back to thinking a relationship anytime soon, meaning never. Not my style. I'd rather be alone.

 

Perhaps my analysis of my own experiences is off-topic to the original intent of your OP but I found the tangent pertinent. When interacting with women now, I'm much more sensitive to compatible love and emotional styles than I ever was in the past. I probably should append the advice to recommend against becoming involved with someone who 'thinks' relationships where and when one 'feels' relationships themselves. Two 'thinkers' might work out just fine, IDK. As I like to say, one datapoint.

Edited May 1, 2011 by carhill

[thatdog]

Carhill - not sure whether to thank you or flame you. So much of that seems to ring true with my current relationship. You've got me pretty depressed right now

[iris219]

Weird, I was sitting in coffee shop thinking about the same question you ask in relation to a guy I know when I read your question. I don’t think I’ll ever be madly in love with him, but I do think we could make a relationship work. I think it could be fun, satisfying in many ways, and stress free.

 

As I am thinking about this and reading these posts, my ex walks in (very random)--I was beyond in love with him and I was so blinded by how I felt, I held on to him even when it was killing me.

 

I claim I feel nothing for him any longer, but I now feel a little nauseous. I find myself wondering where he’s going now—when he left the coffee shop he turned away from his house (yeah, stupid and crazy thought, I know).

 

When a pragmatic relationship ends, you move on with very little emotional damage (I know if the other person was in love this can be hard for them). When a real love relationship ends, at least in my case, the damage is irreparable in many ways.

 

It is a gamble, when deciding what kind of to relationship to enter. Here’s how I view it (and I’m simplifying of course):

 

1. If a real love relationship works out, great. You have a fantastic life and live happily ever after with someone you can’t live without.

 

2. If a pragmatic love relationship works out, good. It's possible to have a satisfying life.

 

3. If a pragmatic relationship fails, oh well. Try again next time. It may get a little messy, then you move on.

 

4. If a real love relationship ends, it’s devastation. Emotional scars that never completely fade are left.

 

So, if you insist on #1, you have to be willing to accept that #4 is a possibility. I’m not sure I could endure another #4. But, I also think I would earn for #1 if I ended up with #2. In many ways, at this point in my life, I think being single is preferable to any relationship.

 

Btw, Eternal Sunshine, I’m 32 as well.

[sanskrit]

Semantic mistakes lead to misunderstanding. What is called "real" love here, involving butterflies and such is really just infatuation/sexual desire that fades relatively quickly in the history of a relationship, but can be maintained over time to a lesser degree with effort on both parts as a more glowing, continuous feeling. This is scientific fact. Continuing to seek this, call it "real" love, and thinking something is missing when it naturally fades, even becoming addicted to the feeling of chemical infatuation and "being in love" is a sign of emotional immaturity and causes many of the problems people write about here.

 

Real love is a VERB, a choice one makes and reaffirms day in and day out, not a "fortunate state" or "something that just happens to you outside your control." It requires effort, consistency, respect and consideration always. Labelling this type of what is actually true love as "pragmatic" is a mistake.

 

You don't "fall into and out of" real love, you choose it.

 

Life doesn't happen to you, you choose it, or at least choose your response to what life hands you.

 

One thing that I am trying to learn/relearn in my own life is that even though life is full of events beyond your control, the weight you give them and how you allow them to affect you and your relationships with others is also a matter of choice.

 

Exercising the human will is another type of muscle that requires practice. If you habituate towards "falling in and out of love" as something that just happens to you, a matter of "chemistry" beyond your control, you will never find long-term happiness in love and romantic/sexual relationships. It is only when you take responsibility and apply will to the equation that true lasting love becomes even possible.

[zengirl]

I agree that love is a verb -- a choice you make. That's probably the best thing said in this thread thus far.

 

I am curious about your thoughts on this.

 

When I was younger, I was all about chasing the butterflies feeling and "love at first sight" kind of thing. Those men ended up being emotionally unavailable or completely unsuitable for me.

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "butterflies" and what gives you "butterflies." In my experience, different people mean different things. Some people actually get used to/like/crave that feeling of uncertainty when they really like a person and thus only get "butterflies" for partners who are wrong for them or unavailable in some way (in a relationship, commitmentphobic, emotionally messed up, etc).

 

However, I do think wanting a level of attraction and fireworks is crucial to long-term love and success. But if you are someone who gets your butterflies in unhealthy ways (from that unavailability) then you'll never meet a healthy partner who you feel that way about until you fix the internal issues. Which has nothing to do with dating, likely, and requires something totally different, like therapy or religion or meditation or some form of self-help (Hey, I have a friend who used running marathons as therapy for getting over an abusive childhood, and it seemed to work out well for her---she can reflect on it and approach things from healthy, happy places, and has been happily married for 5 years with a 2 year old she adores; so, therapy can come from many sources beyond the traditional).

 

I am trying to get wiser. I am thinking that enjoying sending time with someone and compatibility is what really matters.

 

Ideally, you find it all. But that's too idealistic and only lucky few find it. I have seen women and men get in their mid 30's and beyond, single, still chasing the dream of "real true love" only to end up alone.

 

However, the danger of being pragmatic about love is that it sounds a lot like settling.

 

I am not sure what to think anymore.

 

Fear of being alone is a terrible reason to be with someone, particularly if you aren't being fully honest with that person about your ambivalence towards them and they think you are a fully committed partner who feels the way they appear to feel.

 

I think compatibility is truly key to a happy relationship. However, if you don't want to touch the person, sleep with them, cuddle them, be physically affectionate and feel those lovey dovey chemical feelings for them at any stage (which, though they fade, can be reactivated, particularly if compatibility exists) then you really should just be friends. It will become a chore to keep up sex and affection for them, and no one deserves that kind of relationship, which sounds toxic to me.

 

That said, of course holding out for some perfect "on paper" dream is silly. It's about the relationship you choose to build with them. So. . . it really depends a lot on your meaning.

 

How about realistic love? Nothing is ever going to be a 24/7 romance novel because that is not real life but that does not mean things can't be wonderful and romantic for a large percentage of the time.

 

I agree with Woggle here.

[iris219]

Semantic mistakes lead to misunderstanding. What is called "real" love here, involving butterflies and such is really just infatuation/sexual desire that fades relatively quickly in the history of a relationship, but can be maintained over time to a lesser degree with effort on both parts as a more glowing, continuous feeling. This is scientific fact. Continuing to seek this, call it "real" love, and thinking something is missing when it naturally fades, even becoming addicted to the feeling of chemical infatuation and "being in love" is a sign of emotional immaturity and causes many of the problems people write about here.

 

Real love is a VERB, a choice one makes and reaffirms day in and day out, not a "fortunate state" or "something that just happens to you outside your control." It requires effort, consistency, respect and consideration always. Labelling this type of what is actually true love as "pragmatic" is a mistake.

 

You don't "fall into and out of" real love, you choose it.

 

Life doesn't happen to you, you choose it, or at least choose your response to what life hands you.

 

One thing that I am trying to learn/relearn in my own life is that even though life is full of events beyond your control, the weight you give them and how you allow them to affect you and your relationships with others is also a matter of choice.

 

Exercising the human will is another type of muscle that requires practice. If you habituate towards "falling in and out of love" as something that just happens to you, a matter of "chemistry" beyond your control, you will never find long-term happiness in love and romantic/sexual relationships. It is only when you take responsibility and apply will to the equation that true lasting love becomes even possible.

 

I disagree to a certain extent.

 

I can choose or not choose to act on the feeling of being in love. How I choose to react is voluntary; whether or not I fall in love with someone is not. If I fell in love with the wrong person (unconscious), I can choose to not act and distance myself from that person (conscious).

 

Relationships require “work, consistency, respect, and consideration.” Feeling love for someone shouldn’t. There might be times I don't like them or love what they're doing, but if I have to keep reminding myself to love them or if takes a lot of effort to love them, then I don’t really love them. Having to work to feel an emotion for someone sounds pretty terrible (and like a constant lie). Imagine trying to feel anger when you really don’t. Emotions aren’t necessarily a choice; how we choose to react and if we choose to react at all to these emotions is

 

If I choose a pragmatic relationship, I’d never try to convince myself I was in love with the other person. That would be self deception. I’d recognize it for what is was and focus on making the relationship work, but thinking I can talk myself into love would be delusional.

 

I'm a very either/or sort of person. Others might be different. For me, there's in love or not in love. There's no middle ground.

[threebyfate]

What gives you butterflies, ES?

[OliveOyl]

Do you regret the marriage OO?

 

Not at all. It was a good marriage for quite a while. The basis of the marriage was essentially a deep friendship and wanting to experience the same things together (marriage, house, kids, family life, etc.)

 

I think though maybe a part of me didn't feel as deeply bonded, as I would have recurring dreams where my now-stbx and I were not yet married and were standing around, in our wedding outfits, waiting to marry. I'd wake up and think "wait, we're already married!"

[sanskrit]

whether or not I fall in love with someone is not.

 

You are confusing love and infatuation. Infatuation is a psychochemical emotional response. Love is a consciously chosen action.