carhill Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 So, how many folks here choose to love someone romantically that they're not infatuated with/attracted to? What explains non-romantic relationships which have existed for periods of time where the 'flavor' of love changes to a romantic love? Does how one person feels have a bearing upon the feelings of another? What flips the switch? OP, from my own marital experience, reflecting upon it with the benefit of time and MC, I believe my exW had a laundry list of aspects she chose to believe in for having a compatible and equal partner, part through her own past therapy and part through two failed marriages. She often, while we were dating, talked about this 'list'. I believe she made a conscious choice to follow her 'list' rather than her 'butterflies' and proceed with a man whom she didn't feel substantial attraction to or infatuation with. She experienced my style of love and it became the barometer for her perception of my investment in her. Ultimately, when she saw that barometer change, she knew she didn't 'have' me anymore and, combined with some conflicts in my behavior/circumstances with her 'list', she decided a managed exit was best. She was very methodical in our divorce process, with little or no emotion involved. My best friend's wife put it best when she said 'she got what she wanted and now someone else's boots are parked at her door. Brutal but true. Logical, pragmatic and successful. I admire the cold efficiency of pragmatism, even if I don't embrace it for intimate relationships. It works.
Sunstar Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 So, how many folks here choose to love someone romantically that they're not infatuated with/attracted to? I'm not sure I could do that. I'm not sure it would bring me and her the happiness I'm/we're looking for. I'm also not sure it would be fair to her when I can't completely give myself to her in a romantic way. Does not a woman want to be craved by her man? Perhaps this question should be asked to the women on this forum too; Would you want to be with a man that's not attracted to you, even though you're attracted to him? Could you bear it, knowing how he feels?
EasyHeart Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 I agree that a lot of you seem to be confusing love with infatuation; they're not the same thing. Infatuation is a precursor to love, and you can't have love without infatuation, but you can definitely have infatuation without love. If I let myself, I could probably become infatuated three times a week. (In fact, I have done that -- it's called "being a teenager".) Love doesn't feel like "butterflies". Love feels safe and warm and content. You'll know it when you feel it, and once you do the "butterflies" feeling won't matter anymore.
A O Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 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. Well said. Love, to me, is simply another feeling, another emotion that we have little control in experiencing but absolute control over whether we allow it to influence us in any way, shape or form. .
threebyfate Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 I agree that a lot of you seem to be confusing love with infatuation; they're not the same thing. Infatuation is a precursor to love, and you can't have love without infatuation, but you can definitely have infatuation without love. If I let myself, I could probably become infatuated three times a week. (In fact, I have done that -- it's called "being a teenager".) Love doesn't feel like "butterflies". Love feels safe and warm and content. You'll know it when you feel it, and once you do the "butterflies" feeling won't matter anymore.Sure infatuation is a precursor to love. But infatuation =/= butterflies. It can but isn't a definitive always. Also, love isn't always safe, warm and content. There are times that are filled with crazy passion, where you can't get enough of each other. Times where you'll be so pissed off, you're ready to break something. Times where you're so filled with love, you feel you're going to burst. Times where you think your SO is an idiot because he/she doesn't get something that appears to you to be so simple. As far as what ES is talking about, she should define what "butterflies" means to her, as it relates to what kind of man causes this within her. Discussion without clarification or explicitness, tends to lead to advice that's not pertinent to the OP.
carhill Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) OP, I think TBF asks a reasonable and pertinent question and I'd also like to read what 'butterflies' means to you. I'll give you an example, as related in my Evolution journal, of how I perceive 'butterflies': Anyway, back in time.... I was 25, my dad had just died of cancer a few months prior, and I was starting to get my work and personal legs back. At the time, I was working at a machine shop and had purchased my first home about a year prior. In all ways, just a normal day in a usual life for me. One of our customers called and said they were sending over a job for me to look at and gave me the name of the parts person who would be bringing it. I was working away at a lathe and happened to look up as someone walked through the shop door. What happened next was what would become a unique and defining experience for me. When our eyes first met, I saw this sort of glow around her and the room slowly began to rotate (in my mind, of course) and about all I could choke out was "you're XXX" and, strangely, that was all I heard from her. We just kind of stared at each other, something we still do to this day, and events beyond that became sort of cloudy to remember.Reading this thread caused me to reflect upon similar experiences and I was unable to recount, in 51 years on this rock, using up all the fingers on both hands to count them. I had to start 'rationalizing' to get anywhere close to ten. Your description and experience is unique to you. Perhaps understanding it better can help me understand your perspective relevant to the thread title. My most recent datapoint was a bit different than that related in my journals, presumably reflective of a lifetime of living and experience, and the best way to explain it was visualizing the entirety of this person's life in a moment; essentially, seeing her existence. Sounds corny but that's the best explanation I can provide. Subsequently, echoes of that feeling and experience permeated my thoughts, causing her to 'be on my mind'. To me, those aspects of how I feel about another person in that moment, and subsequently, is what 'infatuation' or 'butterfiles' are to me. What I *do* about those feelings is entirely a different matter. YMMV Edited May 1, 2011 by carhill
Star Gazer Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 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. So this must mean you either don't get butterflies for your BF, or don't think he's a long term prospect?
Knittress Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 So, how many folks here choose to love someone romantically that they're not infatuated with/attracted to? I think you can, to some extent, CHOOSE to be attracted to someone. Everyone has a mix of attractive and unattractive attributes, and focusing on the positive aspects of a person rather than the negative can go a long way in fostering sexual attraction. Within reason, or course. The ability to become and stay infatuated is an aspect of being romantically-minded - it's a personality attribute. A special talent, perhaps. I don't think it's fair to consider this as more 'normal' or 'real' than people who don't function this way. That being said - I'm a romantic, and it's something I value very highly in a partner. But it's not average.
sanskrit Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Google "limerence wiki" for a scientific definition of "butterflies." The butterflies come from the uncertainty of whether one's strong feelings are returned and uncertainty as to the attainability of the limerence object. Whatever love is, it isn't an "emotion," or rather if it is, define it as an emotion in the way legitimate emotions such as "joy," "fear," "surprise" or "anger" can be defined. One could argue that love is a feeling or attitude, but too many behaviors and emotional responses can be attributed to the umbrella of love for there to be any consistent definition of the "feeling" of love, and for every aspect of such love-feelings, there is a much better, more precise "feeling word": admiration, passion, respect, protectiveness, trust, altruism, etc. No, love is an active choice that overarchs and governs many types of feelings and emotions. One can display or refrain from displaying behavior, feelings and emotions due to the -choice- one has made to love, but love itself is neither a "state," an emotion, nor a definable, consistent "feeling" that can be meaningfully defined. Edited May 1, 2011 by sanskrit
OliveOyl Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 For me, love is a quality of connection with another person. It is not a "choice"; it is the depth and flavor of connectedness. If love were simply a "choice" I would have chosen to stay with my stbx.
djhall Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 OP, I think TBF asks a reasonable and pertinent question and I'd also like to read what 'butterflies' means to you. I'll give you an example, as related in my Evolution journal, of how I perceive 'butterflies': Reading this thread caused me to reflect upon similar experiences and I was unable to recount, in 51 years on this rock, using up all the fingers on both hands to count them. I had to start 'rationalizing' to get anywhere close to ten. Your description and experience is unique to you. Perhaps understanding it better can help me understand your perspective relevant to the thread title. Interesting. I'll join since this topic has very real links to what is going on in my life right now. I recently moved out after 9 years with someone who is "in love" with me and whose greatest desire is that I be "in love" with her back, who in some ways knows me better than I know myself, who would willing sacrifice everything for my sake, but for whom I have never felt that non-rational tie, never felt that something extra, just a fondness and comfort. For whatever reason, the "it" that other people talk about just isn't there and never has been. On the other hand, almost twenty years ago I met a girl that I would have happily thrown myself on a grenade for... in fact, you could argue that in a way I did since she chose to go with an abusive relationship instead and I pretty much destroyed myself emotionally trying to rescue her from herself until I was too torn up emotionally to be of any use to either of us. I went my homemade form of No Contact and moved out of state without so much as a goodbye or a forwarding address. Two days ago we spoke on the phone in our first contact in over sixteen years and just the sound of her voice and her laugh left me so overwhelmed that I couldn't do anything but pull to the side of the road and break down alternating between crying and laughing. I don't honestly know what the answer is, but even though I've never had it I can't imagine anything could compare to a relationship where you had both.
zengirl Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 Re: choices and infatuation I think we have SOME choice in who we're attracted to and what qualities. That doesn't mean we choose in the moment, however, which seems to be the only kind of "choosing" people are thinking of. I would say that what you're attracted to is partially biological, but not to some great degree, and the psychological element is wholly chosen, as it depends on who you are as a person---the thoughts, values, and traits you have chosen to keep and nurture, whether you've done so consciously or whether you live your life partially or all the way on autopilot. People can and do change their tastes, and that includes attraction style, but it's not like a "momentary" thing. It relies on changing the underlying beliefs and experiences that have developed those tastes. If you are persistently infatuated to people who are bad for you -- and particularly if you're persistently ONLY infatuated to people who are bad for you -- I think it's worth the effort to change these tastes. However, if that's not the case, and you're constantly attracted to awesome people, a good many of whom are also attracted to you, why would anyone attempt to? So, whether or not one exercises these choices consciously (or even has need to) will depend on their level of success, as well as their capability for change and self-reflection. Re: love as a verb/choice I definitely think love is a choice. Infatuation is not going to last. You can nurture it and bring it back sometimes, sure, but expecting it to hit you over the head and keep going as it does . . . well, you're in for disappointment. Most people know this. From there, it's whether you choose to love a person, build a life with them, accept their peccadilloes, and commit to them wholly. THAT is love. Infatuation is a series of chemicals triggered by your biological and psychological preferences, which may or may not be healthy for you. Love involves making a choice based on many things beyond those chemicals. Those who want to feel like love is just something that magically happens. . . well, to me, that doesn't sound very empowering. I agree that a lot of you seem to be confusing love with infatuation; they're not the same thing. Infatuation is a precursor to love, and you can't have love without infatuation, but you can definitely have infatuation without love. If I let myself, I could probably become infatuated three times a week. (In fact, I have done that -- it's called "being a teenager".) Love doesn't feel like "butterflies". Love feels safe and warm and content. You'll know it when you feel it, and once you do the "butterflies" feeling won't matter anymore. I agree with you. To me, when people say "butterflies" I think of that almost-nervous feeling at the beginning of relationships. I'm actually not a huge fan. I'm a big fan of love drugs and all (who isn't? -- those chemicals are some good stuff!) but butterflies to me signifies either it's very early or something's wrong.
eerie_reverie Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 It's a tough call, ES. I think there are some people we are drawn to, on an instinctual level. For whatever reason, we set these people apart from all the rest - and in my experience, these bonds are the only things that last. The other part of the equation - compatibility, shared values - those things can change, but that nameless longing for someone from deep inside, has never diminished, for any of the men I've ever felt it for (there have been 2). I went back to my college town a couple of months ago, to see my college boyfriend. We met when we were 18, in the first class on the first day of school. I was drawn to him as soon as he entered the room; my skin tingled when he sat down beside me. 7 years later, he is all wrong for me. We've changed in opposing directions, and the compatibility is no longer there to make a relationship feasible. But that connection was there. The night after I saw him, I woke up every couple of hours in my friend's bed, with a overwhleming sense of tranquility from a confused belief he was finally beside me again... following by a crushing despair I had not felt since the days we broke up. At this point, I'm not yet ready to settle for someone who isn't special in this way to me... but I recognize that for a woman, dating becomes a game theory equation sooner or later. I have a couple more years to find a soul mate... after that, if I want kids, I'm going to have to find the best guy I know, and make it work. I think that's how life ends up being for most people... and I'm ok with that. There is joy and satisfaction to be found outside an other-worldly connection. I personally would choose that over a lifetime alone. I think you need to figure out what you want out of life. Do you want kids? If so, I think you need to figure out the timeline right for you, at which point you are willing to settle for that practical happiness that people choose every day. And then, stick to that decision. BTW, I think your boyfriend is super-cute, and from the pics I have seen, you look really happy.
sanskrit Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 For me, love is a quality of connection with another person. It is not a "choice"; it is the depth and flavor of connectedness. If love were simply a "choice" I would have chosen to stay with my stbx. The quality of connection can certainly influence one in whether to choose to love or not, but that quality of connection can be described better by "commonality," "regard," "comfort," "esteem," "fondness," "liking," etc., all examples of perfectly adequate components, descriptions or states of connectedness. Love is the choice one makes to forego to an extent the influence of temporal states and descriptions, which may change in a blink of an eye, and so is a bit more idealized in its status as an active choice than other descriptors. Love is chosen despite that someone's face or other physical appeal is mangled in an accident or ravaged by age, for example. Our culture has been polluted with too much "love talk," the word has been turned into a marketing-speak term that encompasses a need the lack of which requires consuming products and services to remedy. That is why a whole generation or two (at least) emphasize the mistaken notion of "falling in love" as something that just happens as a magical bliss state valuable above all else in life. Love has been trivialized into a Disney cartoon of a princess fantasy.
djhall Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 Google "limerence wiki" for a scientific definition of "butterflies." The butterflies come from the uncertainty of whether one's strong feelings are returned and uncertainty as to the attainability of the limerence object. Whatever love is, it isn't an "emotion," or rather if it is, define it as an emotion in the way legitimate emotions such as "joy," "fear," "surprise" or "anger" can be defined. One could argue that love is a feeling or attitude, but too many behaviors and emotional responses can be attributed to the umbrella of love for there to be any consistent definition of the "feeling" of love, and for every aspect of such love-feelings, there is a much better, more precise "feeling word": admiration, passion, respect, protectiveness, trust, altruism, etc. No, love is an active choice that overarchs and governs many types of feelings and emotions. One can display or refrain from displaying behavior, feelings and emotions due to the -choice- one has made to love, but love itself is neither a "state," an emotion, nor a definable, consistent "feeling" that can be meaningfully defined. I only know my experience. I quite vividly remember driving along with a CD turned up loud, the windows down on a warm sunny day, this girl I had been friends with and loved for some time was riding in the passenger seat. I was sneaking looks at her with her hair shining in the sun and the wind blowing it around, and when she caught me looking and smiled back at me I felt something click into place inside me like something had physically changed, and I just KNEW, it just made sense, I could feel it in my heart and mind and core and there was absolutely no doubt or hesitation at all... I LOVED this girl, and nothing in this world would ever matter more than having her right there with me by my side, and I would be perfectly happy spending my whole life doing nothing but driving around in circles with her if that was what would keep her there with me. Nothing has changed that since, not even nearly twenty years of no contact. To this day, her pain and saddness hurts my heart, her happiness and smile send my heart soaring. I don't know why, it makes no sense, but I can't possibly deny that it is something, that it is real, and it is powerful. 1
A O Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 No, love is an active choice that overarchs and governs many types of feelings and emotions. One can display or refrain from displaying behavior, feelings and emotions due to the -choice- one has made to love, but love itself is neither a "state," an emotion, nor a definable, consistent "feeling" that can be meaningfully defined. What is it then because it has to be something. If its not an emotion or a feeling then what is love? What exactly drives this 'active choice' we make? Whatever love is, it isn't an "emotion," or rather if it is, define it as an emotion in the way legitimate emotions such as "joy," "fear," "surprise" or "anger" can be defined. All these are responses to a given situation as is, in my book - love. Again, we have little control over these responses, but plenty of control over their influence. .
A O Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 Love is the choice one makes to forego to an extent the influence of temporal states and descriptions, which may change in a blink of an eye, and so is a bit more idealized in its status as an active choice than other descriptors. Love is chosen despite that someone's face or other physical appeal is mangled in an accident or ravaged by age, for example. Love from what I'm getting here, sounds like a duty, a sacrifice. Now, love can encompass these aspects without doubt but they are not the total sum of this term. .
Knittress Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 Eerie Reverie - I've had those experiences as well, but a part of me wonders if it doesn't often come down to the strong value I place on shared history or the drama I've built around certain people/events in my own head.
sanskrit Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 I only know my experience. I quite vividly remember driving along with a CD turned up loud, the windows down on a warm sunny day, this girl I had been friends with and loved for some time was riding in the passenger seat. I was sneaking looks at her with her hair shining in the sun and the wind blowing it around, and when she caught me looking and smiled back at me I felt something click into place inside me like something had physically changed, and I just KNEW, it just made sense, I could feel it in my heart and mind and core and there was absolutely no doubt or hesitation at all... I LOVED this girl, and nothing in this world would ever matter more than having her right there with me by my side, and I would be perfectly happy spending my whole life doing nothing but driving around in circles with her if that was what would keep her there with me. Nothing has changed that since, not even nearly twenty years of no contact. To this day, her pain and saddness hurts my heart, her happiness and smile send my heart soaring. I don't know why, it makes no sense, but I can't possibly deny that it is something, that it is real, and it is powerful. Not to trivialize your experience, but (in addition to experiences with women over the years) I had a similar euphoric experience the first time I dropped ecstasy, it was chemical based, and could be easily repeated now whenever (but it hasn't and it's been 30ish years ago, feeling that good has to be bad for you physically somehow ). The point is that the chemicals that create a sexual response towards pair bonding in our brains are very powerful stuff, and differentiating that process from the choice one makes to love another is not trivializing the power of the infatuation experience that leads to pair bonding in the least. If one wants to call the infatuation/limerence process "love" they have a right to do so, but love makes the most rational sense as an ongoing, active choice, as there are better more precise words to describe states of connection or emotions shared with another human being.
Survivor12 Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 "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." And then there are those who gave up on "real true love" and married for fear of being alone only to end up alone anyway...or regretting that they gave up too soon. 1
sanskrit Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 Love from what I'm getting here, sounds like a duty, a sacrifice. Now, love can encompass these aspects without doubt but they are not the total sum of this term. Well the Greeks had separate words for it, "eros" (idealized, divine,passionate, sexual), and "agape" (duty, loyalty, steadfastness). But they didn't have shiny words like "limerence" to describe the fleeting, chemical part of eros either, and putting all the involuntary stuff under "limerence/infatuation," and all the voluntary choices and actions made in consequence under "love" makes more sense to me. The reason I harp on this so much is that in reading many posts here, it seems a huge problem in modern relationships is in the unreasonable expectation that the fleeting, chemical part of relationships is the "real" part, and that one has little control over its coming and going, like a boat without a rudder tossed on the waves of life. IMO, if more people emphasized the willful aspects of what we call love, the "for better or worse" part of the equation, the -choice- and discipline and accountability choices require, many of the problems of modern romance as expressed here would evaporate.
zengirl Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 Eerie Reverie - I've had those experiences as well, but a part of me wonders if it doesn't often come down to the strong value I place on shared history or the drama I've built around certain people/events in my own head. Knittress, I'd had them to, but I've come to realize they were the latter part of what you say here (worded so well), as my values changed. Not sure what it is for you, but that's a trait about myself I did actively seek to change (and it took a long time---almost a couple of years). I didn't know, in those words, that's what I was trying to change, but I knew I was associating importance with some 'idea' of connection and shared history (and serendipity) that I'd built in my mind, and after that was pretty much when my love life turned around and began to feel productive. Which is not to say I never have deep connections or amazing fireworks (still have since then), but they don't feel like they simply "happen to me" anymore. I suppose some people would miss that, but I'm pretty thankful for it. I like feeling empowered in my connections.
Author Eternal Sunshine Posted May 1, 2011 Author Posted May 1, 2011 It's a tough call, ES. I think there are some people we are drawn to, on an instinctual level. For whatever reason, we set these people apart from all the rest - and in my experience, these bonds are the only things that last. The other part of the equation - compatibility, shared values - those things can change, but that nameless longing for someone from deep inside, has never diminished, for any of the men I've ever felt it for (there have been 2). I went back to my college town a couple of months ago, to see my college boyfriend. We met when we were 18, in the first class on the first day of school. I was drawn to him as soon as he entered the room; my skin tingled when he sat down beside me. 7 years later, he is all wrong for me. We've changed in opposing directions, and the compatibility is no longer there to make a relationship feasible. But that connection was there. The night after I saw him, I woke up every couple of hours in my friend's bed, with a overwhleming sense of tranquility from a confused belief he was finally beside me again... following by a crushing despair I had not felt since the days we broke up. At this point, I'm not yet ready to settle for someone who isn't special in this way to me... but I recognize that for a woman, dating becomes a game theory equation sooner or later. I have a couple more years to find a soul mate... after that, if I want kids, I'm going to have to find the best guy I know, and make it work. I think that's how life ends up being for most people... and I'm ok with that. There is joy and satisfaction to be found outside an other-worldly connection. I personally would choose that over a lifetime alone. I think you need to figure out what you want out of life. Do you want kids? If so, I think you need to figure out the timeline right for you, at which point you are willing to settle for that practical happiness that people choose every day. And then, stick to that decision. BTW, I think your boyfriend is super-cute, and from the pics I have seen, you look really happy. Wow spookie, that's and excellent post and advice. To define butterflies, it's that deep instinctual draw to a person, that strong longing. It's more than lust and sexual attraction. The absolute and total devastation you feel if that person leaves. The scars that they leave that almost never completely heal. Basically how spookie defined it. I have only felt in twice too and both times to very unsuitable people. I have no idea if that longing got deeper because those people were unavailable to me. I also believe that most people don't end up with someone that they feel as strongly as in my first paragraph and still go on to lead perfectly happy lives with a compatible partner.
OliveOyl Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 The quality of connection can certainly influence one in whether to choose to love or not, but that quality of connection can be described better by "commonality," "regard," "comfort," "esteem," "fondness," "liking," etc., all examples of perfectly adequate components, descriptions or states of connectedness. Yes I had all that in my marriage but it was never close to the feeling of "wanting to catch a grenade for love." It just wasn't. Love is the choice one makes to forego to an extent the influence of temporal states and descriptions, which may change in a blink of an eye, and so is a bit more idealized in its status as an active choice than other descriptors. Love is chosen despite that someone's face or other physical appeal is mangled in an accident or ravaged by age, for example. The whole problem I have with the "love is a choice" belief is that if this is the case, then anybody could theoretically match up with anyone (within reason). Why be so picky? Why spend years dating online? Simply find the first decent person, non-insane person who is at least average in looks and "choose" to love them. But we know that's not the case, it doesn't work that way. 1
Woggle Posted May 1, 2011 Posted May 1, 2011 I think some people have been brainwashed by too many fairy tales and romance novels. Real life doesn't work that way. The butterflies people speak of with unavailable people is really just a deep need for validation that makes a person desperate when it is denied. If anybody of these people actually got what they thought they wanted those butterflies would magically go away.
Recommended Posts